Opinion

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

Hidden in the Dec. 1, 2022, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine was a small article on using deferiprone for Parkinson’s disease.

The idea behind it makes sense. A key factor in Parkinson’s disease is a loss of cells in the substantia nigra. The cells that have been lost have a build-up of iron content, suggesting that iron contributes to their demise. Therefore, maybe using an iron chelating agent to remove it may help.

Like I said, it makes sense.

Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work that way. In spite of a clear reduction of nigrostriatal iron, compared with the placebo group, the treated patients had worse MDS-UPDRS scores over 36 weeks than those on the placebo.

Back to the drawing board.

I’m not criticizing the people who did the study – it seemed like a reasonable hypothesis, and testing it is the only way we find out if it’s correct. We learn just as much, if not more, from a negative study as from a positive one, incrementally working toward the answer with each.

We face the same thing with the amyloid theory in Alzheimer’s disease. Getting rid of amyloid should fix the problem.

But it doesn’t, at least not completely. Even lecanemab, the latest-and-greatest of treatments, only shows a 27% slowing in disease progression. This is certainly meaningful – I’m not knocking it – but we’re still far from a cure. To date we haven’t even stopped disease progression, let alone reversed it.

Although the new drugs have a remarkable mechanism of action, the clinical results aren’t nearly as good as one would expect if amyloid was the whole issue.

Which, at this point, it probably isn’t, anymore than nigrostriatal iron deposition is the sole cause of Parkinson’s disease.

In medicine, as in so many other things, there’s simply a lot that we don’t know yet. Right now we’re better able to find planets 27,700 light years away (SWEEPS-11) than we are at knowing the cause of neuronal changes in the person sitting across the desk from us. That’s not saying we won’t have the answers someday, it just means we don’t have them now.

I was in my 3rd year of medical school in January of 1992, (surgery rotation at the Omaha VA, to be specific) when the first definitive planet outside our solar system was identified. Today, 31 years later, the number of exoplanets stands at 5,297.

But the laws of physics are generally a lot more predictable than those of biology.

That doesn’t mean we won’t find the answers, or more effective treatments, eventually. But it will take more time, work, and studies – with both positive and negative results – to get there.

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

Hidden in the Dec. 1, 2022, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine was a small article on using deferiprone for Parkinson’s disease.

The idea behind it makes sense. A key factor in Parkinson’s disease is a loss of cells in the substantia nigra. The cells that have been lost have a build-up of iron content, suggesting that iron contributes to their demise. Therefore, maybe using an iron chelating agent to remove it may help.

Like I said, it makes sense.

Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work that way. In spite of a clear reduction of nigrostriatal iron, compared with the placebo group, the treated patients had worse MDS-UPDRS scores over 36 weeks than those on the placebo.

Back to the drawing board.

I’m not criticizing the people who did the study – it seemed like a reasonable hypothesis, and testing it is the only way we find out if it’s correct. We learn just as much, if not more, from a negative study as from a positive one, incrementally working toward the answer with each.

We face the same thing with the amyloid theory in Alzheimer’s disease. Getting rid of amyloid should fix the problem.

But it doesn’t, at least not completely. Even lecanemab, the latest-and-greatest of treatments, only shows a 27% slowing in disease progression. This is certainly meaningful – I’m not knocking it – but we’re still far from a cure. To date we haven’t even stopped disease progression, let alone reversed it.

Although the new drugs have a remarkable mechanism of action, the clinical results aren’t nearly as good as one would expect if amyloid was the whole issue.

Which, at this point, it probably isn’t, anymore than nigrostriatal iron deposition is the sole cause of Parkinson’s disease.

In medicine, as in so many other things, there’s simply a lot that we don’t know yet. Right now we’re better able to find planets 27,700 light years away (SWEEPS-11) than we are at knowing the cause of neuronal changes in the person sitting across the desk from us. That’s not saying we won’t have the answers someday, it just means we don’t have them now.

I was in my 3rd year of medical school in January of 1992, (surgery rotation at the Omaha VA, to be specific) when the first definitive planet outside our solar system was identified. Today, 31 years later, the number of exoplanets stands at 5,297.

But the laws of physics are generally a lot more predictable than those of biology.

That doesn’t mean we won’t find the answers, or more effective treatments, eventually. But it will take more time, work, and studies – with both positive and negative results – to get there.

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

Hidden in the Dec. 1, 2022, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine was a small article on using deferiprone for Parkinson’s disease.

The idea behind it makes sense. A key factor in Parkinson’s disease is a loss of cells in the substantia nigra. The cells that have been lost have a build-up of iron content, suggesting that iron contributes to their demise. Therefore, maybe using an iron chelating agent to remove it may help.

Like I said, it makes sense.

Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work that way. In spite of a clear reduction of nigrostriatal iron, compared with the placebo group, the treated patients had worse MDS-UPDRS scores over 36 weeks than those on the placebo.

Back to the drawing board.

I’m not criticizing the people who did the study – it seemed like a reasonable hypothesis, and testing it is the only way we find out if it’s correct. We learn just as much, if not more, from a negative study as from a positive one, incrementally working toward the answer with each.

We face the same thing with the amyloid theory in Alzheimer’s disease. Getting rid of amyloid should fix the problem.

But it doesn’t, at least not completely. Even lecanemab, the latest-and-greatest of treatments, only shows a 27% slowing in disease progression. This is certainly meaningful – I’m not knocking it – but we’re still far from a cure. To date we haven’t even stopped disease progression, let alone reversed it.

Although the new drugs have a remarkable mechanism of action, the clinical results aren’t nearly as good as one would expect if amyloid was the whole issue.

Which, at this point, it probably isn’t, anymore than nigrostriatal iron deposition is the sole cause of Parkinson’s disease.

In medicine, as in so many other things, there’s simply a lot that we don’t know yet. Right now we’re better able to find planets 27,700 light years away (SWEEPS-11) than we are at knowing the cause of neuronal changes in the person sitting across the desk from us. That’s not saying we won’t have the answers someday, it just means we don’t have them now.

I was in my 3rd year of medical school in January of 1992, (surgery rotation at the Omaha VA, to be specific) when the first definitive planet outside our solar system was identified. Today, 31 years later, the number of exoplanets stands at 5,297.

But the laws of physics are generally a lot more predictable than those of biology.

That doesn’t mean we won’t find the answers, or more effective treatments, eventually. But it will take more time, work, and studies – with both positive and negative results – to get there.

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

Answer: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome.

Based on the history of hemangioma resection and vascular lesions in the small intestine, along with typical manifestations of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding, diagnosis of blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome (BRBNS) was made. According to an American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Guideline,¹ for patients with recurrence of small bowel bleeding, endoscopic management could be considered depending on the patient’s clinical course and response to prior therapy. Consequently, injections of lauromacrogol with SBE (single-balloon enteroscopy) were given (Figure D). Lesions that ranged from 1 to 2 cm were injected with 1-2 mL lauromacrogol until the mucosa turned white. Three SBEs had been performed in a 5-month period. A total of 20 lesions were successfully treated with lauromacrogol. The treated hemangiomas became small, and the site healed 5 months after treatment (Figures E and F). The patient has been followed for 1 year, and he remains in good clinical condition with his latest hemoglobin level at 110 g/L. No further blood transfusion is needed.

Gastroenterology (2019;157:311-2)

BRBNS is a rare disorder characterized by discrete venous malformations of varying size and appearance that are present on the skin and within the gastrointestinal tract.²With wider application of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and the increase of image resolution, the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of BRBNS are significantly improved. Treatment of BRBNS varies depending on the site, size, and number of lesions. Medication, surgery, and endoscopic therapy are currently clinically applied. The successful use of sirolimus was recently reported in the treatment of vascular lesions.³Sirolimus has potential adverse effects on renal function, bone marrow, and cholesterol metabolism, however. In consideration of the patient’s young age, we did not adopt this method. Surgical resection is more suitable for limited or life-threatening lesions. The lesions in this patient were mild and sporadic. Consequently, in this case, endoscopic injection of lauromacrogol was performed. This was the most complicated case of endoscopic treatment of BRBNS in our center and proved lauromacrogol injection was a feasible approach. According to a literature review, lauromacrogol has been used to treat vascular lesions for decades, but there is still no standard instruction for the dosage of lauromacrogol. We hope that our experience can be a reference for the endoscopic treatment of BRBNS.

References (add links)

1. Gerson LB et al. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol.

2. Felton SJ and Ferguson JE. Multiple cutaneous swellings associated with sudden collapse. JAMA.

3. Yuksekkaya H et al. Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: Successful treatment with sirolimus. Pediatrics.

Answer: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome.

Based on the history of hemangioma resection and vascular lesions in the small intestine, along with typical manifestations of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding, diagnosis of blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome (BRBNS) was made. According to an American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Guideline,¹ for patients with recurrence of small bowel bleeding, endoscopic management could be considered depending on the patient’s clinical course and response to prior therapy. Consequently, injections of lauromacrogol with SBE (single-balloon enteroscopy) were given (Figure D). Lesions that ranged from 1 to 2 cm were injected with 1-2 mL lauromacrogol until the mucosa turned white. Three SBEs had been performed in a 5-month period. A total of 20 lesions were successfully treated with lauromacrogol. The treated hemangiomas became small, and the site healed 5 months after treatment (Figures E and F). The patient has been followed for 1 year, and he remains in good clinical condition with his latest hemoglobin level at 110 g/L. No further blood transfusion is needed.

Gastroenterology (2019;157:311-2)

BRBNS is a rare disorder characterized by discrete venous malformations of varying size and appearance that are present on the skin and within the gastrointestinal tract.²With wider application of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and the increase of image resolution, the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of BRBNS are significantly improved. Treatment of BRBNS varies depending on the site, size, and number of lesions. Medication, surgery, and endoscopic therapy are currently clinically applied. The successful use of sirolimus was recently reported in the treatment of vascular lesions.³Sirolimus has potential adverse effects on renal function, bone marrow, and cholesterol metabolism, however. In consideration of the patient’s young age, we did not adopt this method. Surgical resection is more suitable for limited or life-threatening lesions. The lesions in this patient were mild and sporadic. Consequently, in this case, endoscopic injection of lauromacrogol was performed. This was the most complicated case of endoscopic treatment of BRBNS in our center and proved lauromacrogol injection was a feasible approach. According to a literature review, lauromacrogol has been used to treat vascular lesions for decades, but there is still no standard instruction for the dosage of lauromacrogol. We hope that our experience can be a reference for the endoscopic treatment of BRBNS.

References (add links)

1. Gerson LB et al. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol.

2. Felton SJ and Ferguson JE. Multiple cutaneous swellings associated with sudden collapse. JAMA.

3. Yuksekkaya H et al. Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: Successful treatment with sirolimus. Pediatrics.

Answer: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome.

Based on the history of hemangioma resection and vascular lesions in the small intestine, along with typical manifestations of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding, diagnosis of blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome (BRBNS) was made. According to an American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Guideline,¹ for patients with recurrence of small bowel bleeding, endoscopic management could be considered depending on the patient’s clinical course and response to prior therapy. Consequently, injections of lauromacrogol with SBE (single-balloon enteroscopy) were given (Figure D). Lesions that ranged from 1 to 2 cm were injected with 1-2 mL lauromacrogol until the mucosa turned white. Three SBEs had been performed in a 5-month period. A total of 20 lesions were successfully treated with lauromacrogol. The treated hemangiomas became small, and the site healed 5 months after treatment (Figures E and F). The patient has been followed for 1 year, and he remains in good clinical condition with his latest hemoglobin level at 110 g/L. No further blood transfusion is needed.

Gastroenterology (2019;157:311-2)

BRBNS is a rare disorder characterized by discrete venous malformations of varying size and appearance that are present on the skin and within the gastrointestinal tract.²With wider application of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and the increase of image resolution, the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of BRBNS are significantly improved. Treatment of BRBNS varies depending on the site, size, and number of lesions. Medication, surgery, and endoscopic therapy are currently clinically applied. The successful use of sirolimus was recently reported in the treatment of vascular lesions.³Sirolimus has potential adverse effects on renal function, bone marrow, and cholesterol metabolism, however. In consideration of the patient’s young age, we did not adopt this method. Surgical resection is more suitable for limited or life-threatening lesions. The lesions in this patient were mild and sporadic. Consequently, in this case, endoscopic injection of lauromacrogol was performed. This was the most complicated case of endoscopic treatment of BRBNS in our center and proved lauromacrogol injection was a feasible approach. According to a literature review, lauromacrogol has been used to treat vascular lesions for decades, but there is still no standard instruction for the dosage of lauromacrogol. We hope that our experience can be a reference for the endoscopic treatment of BRBNS.

References (add links)

1. Gerson LB et al. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol.

2. Felton SJ and Ferguson JE. Multiple cutaneous swellings associated with sudden collapse. JAMA.

3. Yuksekkaya H et al. Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: Successful treatment with sirolimus. Pediatrics.

Apparently, offering children effective treatments for a chronic disease that markedly increases their risk for other chronic diseases, regularly erodes their quality of life, and is the No. 1 target of school-based bullying is wrong.

At least that’s my take watching the coverage of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics new pediatric obesity treatment guidelines that, gasp, suggest that children whose severity of obesity warrants medication or surgeries be offered medication or surgery. Because it’s wiser to not try to treat the obesity that›s contributing to a child’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, or reduced quality of life?

The reaction isn’t surprising. Some of those who are up in arms about it have clinical or research careers dependent on championing their own favorite dietary strategies as if they are more effective and reproducible than decades of uniformly disappointing studies proving that they’re not. Others are upset because, for reasons that at times may be personal and at times may be conflicted, they believe that obesity should not be treated and/or that sustained weight loss is impossible. But overarchingly, probably the bulk of the hoopla stems from obesity being seen as a moral failing. Because the notion that those who suffer with obesity are themselves to blame has been the prevailing societal view for decades, if not centuries.

Working with families of children with obesity severe enough for them to seek help, it’s clear that if desire were sufficient to will it away, we wouldn’t need treatment guidelines let alone medications or surgery. Near uniformly, parents describe their children being bullied consequent to and being deeply self-conscious of their weight.

And what would those who think children shouldn’t be offered reproducibly effective treatment for obesity have them do about it? Many seem to think it would be preferable for kids to be placed on formal diets and, of course, that they should go out and play more. And though I’m all for encouraging the improvement of a child’s dietary quality and activity level, anyone suggesting those as panaceas for childhood obesity haven’t a clue. Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, improving overall dietary quality, something worthwhile at any weight, isn’t the dietary goal being recommended. Instead, the prescription seems to be restrictive dieting coupled with overexercising, which, unlike appropriately and thoughtfully informed and utilized medication, may increase a child’s risk of maladaptive thinking around food and fitness as well as disordered eating, not to mention challenge their self-esteem if their lifestyle results are underwhelming.

This brings us to one of the most bizarre takes on this whole business – that medications will be pushed and used when not necessary. No doubt that at times, that may occur, but the issue is that of a clinician’s overzealous prescribing and not of the treatment options or indications. Consider childhood asthma. There is no worry or uproar that children with mild asthma that isn’t having an impact on their quality of life or markedly risking their health will be placed on multiple inhaled steroids and treatments. Why? Because clinicians have been taught how to dispassionately evaluate treatment needs for asthma, monitor disease course, and not simply prescribe everything in our armamentarium.

Shocking, I know, but as is the case with every other medical condition, I think doctors are capable of learning and following an algorithm covering the indications and options for the treatment of childhood obesity.

How that looks also mirrors what’s seen with any other chronic noncommunicable disease with varied severity and impact. Doctors will evaluate each child with obesity to see whether it’s having a detrimental effect on their health or quality of life. They will monitor their patients’ obesity to see if it’s worsening and will, when necessary, undertake investigations to rule out its potential contribution to common comorbidities like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and fatty liver disease. And, when appropriate, they will provide information on available treatment options – from lifestyle to medication to surgery and the risks, benefits, and realistic expectations associated with each – and then, without judgment, support their patients’ treatment choices because blame-free informed discussion and supportive prescription of care is, in fact, the distillation of our jobs.

If people are looking to be outraged rather than focusing their outrage on what we now need to do about childhood obesity, they should instead look to what got us here: our obesogenic environment. We and our children are swimming against a torrential current of cheap ultraprocessed calories being pushed upon us by a broken societal food culture that values convenience and simultaneously embraces the notion that knowledge is a match versus the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones that increasingly sophisticated food industry marketers and scientists prey upon. When dealing with torrential currents, we need to do more than just recommend swimming lessons.

Like asthma, which may be exacerbated by pollution in our environment both outdoors and indoors, childhood obesity is a modern-day environmentally influenced disease with varied penetrance that does not always require active treatment. Like asthma, childhood obesity is not a disease that children choose to have; it’s not a disease that can be willed away; and it’s not a disease that responds uniformly, dramatically, or enduringly to diet and exercise. Finally, literally and figuratively, like asthma, for childhood obesity, we thankfully now have a number of effective treatment options that we can offer, and it’s only our societal weight bias that leads to thinking that’s anything but great.

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

Apparently, offering children effective treatments for a chronic disease that markedly increases their risk for other chronic diseases, regularly erodes their quality of life, and is the No. 1 target of school-based bullying is wrong.

At least that’s my take watching the coverage of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics new pediatric obesity treatment guidelines that, gasp, suggest that children whose severity of obesity warrants medication or surgeries be offered medication or surgery. Because it’s wiser to not try to treat the obesity that›s contributing to a child’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, or reduced quality of life?

The reaction isn’t surprising. Some of those who are up in arms about it have clinical or research careers dependent on championing their own favorite dietary strategies as if they are more effective and reproducible than decades of uniformly disappointing studies proving that they’re not. Others are upset because, for reasons that at times may be personal and at times may be conflicted, they believe that obesity should not be treated and/or that sustained weight loss is impossible. But overarchingly, probably the bulk of the hoopla stems from obesity being seen as a moral failing. Because the notion that those who suffer with obesity are themselves to blame has been the prevailing societal view for decades, if not centuries.

Working with families of children with obesity severe enough for them to seek help, it’s clear that if desire were sufficient to will it away, we wouldn’t need treatment guidelines let alone medications or surgery. Near uniformly, parents describe their children being bullied consequent to and being deeply self-conscious of their weight.

And what would those who think children shouldn’t be offered reproducibly effective treatment for obesity have them do about it? Many seem to think it would be preferable for kids to be placed on formal diets and, of course, that they should go out and play more. And though I’m all for encouraging the improvement of a child’s dietary quality and activity level, anyone suggesting those as panaceas for childhood obesity haven’t a clue. Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, improving overall dietary quality, something worthwhile at any weight, isn’t the dietary goal being recommended. Instead, the prescription seems to be restrictive dieting coupled with overexercising, which, unlike appropriately and thoughtfully informed and utilized medication, may increase a child’s risk of maladaptive thinking around food and fitness as well as disordered eating, not to mention challenge their self-esteem if their lifestyle results are underwhelming.

This brings us to one of the most bizarre takes on this whole business – that medications will be pushed and used when not necessary. No doubt that at times, that may occur, but the issue is that of a clinician’s overzealous prescribing and not of the treatment options or indications. Consider childhood asthma. There is no worry or uproar that children with mild asthma that isn’t having an impact on their quality of life or markedly risking their health will be placed on multiple inhaled steroids and treatments. Why? Because clinicians have been taught how to dispassionately evaluate treatment needs for asthma, monitor disease course, and not simply prescribe everything in our armamentarium.

Shocking, I know, but as is the case with every other medical condition, I think doctors are capable of learning and following an algorithm covering the indications and options for the treatment of childhood obesity.

How that looks also mirrors what’s seen with any other chronic noncommunicable disease with varied severity and impact. Doctors will evaluate each child with obesity to see whether it’s having a detrimental effect on their health or quality of life. They will monitor their patients’ obesity to see if it’s worsening and will, when necessary, undertake investigations to rule out its potential contribution to common comorbidities like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and fatty liver disease. And, when appropriate, they will provide information on available treatment options – from lifestyle to medication to surgery and the risks, benefits, and realistic expectations associated with each – and then, without judgment, support their patients’ treatment choices because blame-free informed discussion and supportive prescription of care is, in fact, the distillation of our jobs.

If people are looking to be outraged rather than focusing their outrage on what we now need to do about childhood obesity, they should instead look to what got us here: our obesogenic environment. We and our children are swimming against a torrential current of cheap ultraprocessed calories being pushed upon us by a broken societal food culture that values convenience and simultaneously embraces the notion that knowledge is a match versus the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones that increasingly sophisticated food industry marketers and scientists prey upon. When dealing with torrential currents, we need to do more than just recommend swimming lessons.

Like asthma, which may be exacerbated by pollution in our environment both outdoors and indoors, childhood obesity is a modern-day environmentally influenced disease with varied penetrance that does not always require active treatment. Like asthma, childhood obesity is not a disease that children choose to have; it’s not a disease that can be willed away; and it’s not a disease that responds uniformly, dramatically, or enduringly to diet and exercise. Finally, literally and figuratively, like asthma, for childhood obesity, we thankfully now have a number of effective treatment options that we can offer, and it’s only our societal weight bias that leads to thinking that’s anything but great.

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

Apparently, offering children effective treatments for a chronic disease that markedly increases their risk for other chronic diseases, regularly erodes their quality of life, and is the No. 1 target of school-based bullying is wrong.

At least that’s my take watching the coverage of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics new pediatric obesity treatment guidelines that, gasp, suggest that children whose severity of obesity warrants medication or surgeries be offered medication or surgery. Because it’s wiser to not try to treat the obesity that›s contributing to a child’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, or reduced quality of life?

The reaction isn’t surprising. Some of those who are up in arms about it have clinical or research careers dependent on championing their own favorite dietary strategies as if they are more effective and reproducible than decades of uniformly disappointing studies proving that they’re not. Others are upset because, for reasons that at times may be personal and at times may be conflicted, they believe that obesity should not be treated and/or that sustained weight loss is impossible. But overarchingly, probably the bulk of the hoopla stems from obesity being seen as a moral failing. Because the notion that those who suffer with obesity are themselves to blame has been the prevailing societal view for decades, if not centuries.

Working with families of children with obesity severe enough for them to seek help, it’s clear that if desire were sufficient to will it away, we wouldn’t need treatment guidelines let alone medications or surgery. Near uniformly, parents describe their children being bullied consequent to and being deeply self-conscious of their weight.

And what would those who think children shouldn’t be offered reproducibly effective treatment for obesity have them do about it? Many seem to think it would be preferable for kids to be placed on formal diets and, of course, that they should go out and play more. And though I’m all for encouraging the improvement of a child’s dietary quality and activity level, anyone suggesting those as panaceas for childhood obesity haven’t a clue. Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, improving overall dietary quality, something worthwhile at any weight, isn’t the dietary goal being recommended. Instead, the prescription seems to be restrictive dieting coupled with overexercising, which, unlike appropriately and thoughtfully informed and utilized medication, may increase a child’s risk of maladaptive thinking around food and fitness as well as disordered eating, not to mention challenge their self-esteem if their lifestyle results are underwhelming.

This brings us to one of the most bizarre takes on this whole business – that medications will be pushed and used when not necessary. No doubt that at times, that may occur, but the issue is that of a clinician’s overzealous prescribing and not of the treatment options or indications. Consider childhood asthma. There is no worry or uproar that children with mild asthma that isn’t having an impact on their quality of life or markedly risking their health will be placed on multiple inhaled steroids and treatments. Why? Because clinicians have been taught how to dispassionately evaluate treatment needs for asthma, monitor disease course, and not simply prescribe everything in our armamentarium.

Shocking, I know, but as is the case with every other medical condition, I think doctors are capable of learning and following an algorithm covering the indications and options for the treatment of childhood obesity.

How that looks also mirrors what’s seen with any other chronic noncommunicable disease with varied severity and impact. Doctors will evaluate each child with obesity to see whether it’s having a detrimental effect on their health or quality of life. They will monitor their patients’ obesity to see if it’s worsening and will, when necessary, undertake investigations to rule out its potential contribution to common comorbidities like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and fatty liver disease. And, when appropriate, they will provide information on available treatment options – from lifestyle to medication to surgery and the risks, benefits, and realistic expectations associated with each – and then, without judgment, support their patients’ treatment choices because blame-free informed discussion and supportive prescription of care is, in fact, the distillation of our jobs.

If people are looking to be outraged rather than focusing their outrage on what we now need to do about childhood obesity, they should instead look to what got us here: our obesogenic environment. We and our children are swimming against a torrential current of cheap ultraprocessed calories being pushed upon us by a broken societal food culture that values convenience and simultaneously embraces the notion that knowledge is a match versus the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones that increasingly sophisticated food industry marketers and scientists prey upon. When dealing with torrential currents, we need to do more than just recommend swimming lessons.

Like asthma, which may be exacerbated by pollution in our environment both outdoors and indoors, childhood obesity is a modern-day environmentally influenced disease with varied penetrance that does not always require active treatment. Like asthma, childhood obesity is not a disease that children choose to have; it’s not a disease that can be willed away; and it’s not a disease that responds uniformly, dramatically, or enduringly to diet and exercise. Finally, literally and figuratively, like asthma, for childhood obesity, we thankfully now have a number of effective treatment options that we can offer, and it’s only our societal weight bias that leads to thinking that’s anything but great.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul Pepe, an emergency physician and highly recognized expert in EMS, critical care, and resuscitation, along with Ryan Quinn, EMS chief for Edina Fire Department in Edina, Minn., joining us to discuss a significant advance in resuscitation for patients with nonshockable rhythms in cardiac arrest with a remarkable increase in neurologically intact survival. Welcome, gentlemen.

Dr. Pepe, I’d like to start off by thanking you for taking time to join us to discuss this novel concept of head-up or what you now refer to as a neuroprotective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) bundle. Can you define what this entails and why it is referred to as a neuroprotective CPR bundle?

Paul E. Pepe, MD, MPH: CPR has been life saving for 60 years the way we’ve performed it, but probably only in a very small percentage of cases. That’s one of the problems. We have almost a thousand people a day who have sudden cardiac arrest out in the community alone and more in the hospital.

We know that early defibrillation and early CPR can contribute, but it’s still a small percentage of those. About 75%-85% of the cases that we go out to see will have nonshockable rhythms and flatlines. Some cases are what we call “pulseless electrical activity,” meaning that it looks like there is some kind of organized complex, but there is no pulse associated with it.

That’s why it’s a problem, because they don’t come back. Part of the reason why we see poor outcomes is not only that these cases tend to be people who, say, were in ventricular fibrillation and then just went on over time and were not witnessed or resuscitated or had a long response time. They basically either go into flatline or autoconvert into these bizarre rhythms.

The other issue is the way we perform CPR. CPR has been lifesaving, but it only generates about 20% and maybe 15% in some cases of normal blood flow, and particularly, cerebral perfusion pressure. We’ve looked at this nicely in the laboratory.

For example, during chest compressions, we’re hoping during the recoil phase to pull blood down and back into the right heart. The problem is that you’re not only setting a pressure rate up here to the arterial side but also, you’re setting back pressure wave on the venous side. Obviously, the arterial side always wins out, but it’s just not as efficient as it could be, at 20% or 30%.

What does this entail? It entails several independent mechanisms in terms of how they work, but they all do the same thing, which is they help to pull blood out of the brain and back into the right heart by basically manipulating intrathoracic pressure and creating more of a vacuum to get blood back there.

It’s so important that people do quality CPR. You have to have a good release and that helps us suck a little bit of blood and sucks the air in. As soon as the air rushes in, it neutralizes the pressure and there’s no more vacuum and nothing else is happening until the next squeeze.

What we have found is that we can cap the airway just for a second with a little pop-up valve. It acts like when you’re sucking a milkshake through a straw and it creates more of a vacuum in the chest. Just a little pop-up valve that pulls a little bit more blood out of the brain and the rest of the body and into the right heart.

We’ve shown in a human study that, for example, the systolic blood pressure almost doubles. It really goes from 40 mm Hg during standard CPR up to 80 mm Hg, and that would be sustained for 14-15 minutes. That was a nice little study that was done in Milwaukee a few years ago.

The other thing that happens is, if you add on something else, it’s like a toilet plunger. I think many people have seen it; it’s called “active compression-decompression.” It not only compresses, but it decompresses. Where it becomes even more effective is that if you had broken bones or stiff bones as you get older or whatever it may be, as you do the CPR, you’re still getting the push down and then you’re getting the pull out. It helps on several levels. More importantly, when you put the two together, they’re very synergistic.

We, have already done the clinical trial that is the proof of concept, and that was published in The Lancet about 10 years ago. In that study, we found that the combination of those two dramatically improved survival rates by 50%, with 1-year survival neurologically intact. That got us on the right track.

The interesting thing is that someone said, “Can we lift the head up a little bit?” We did a large amount of work in the laboratory over 10 years, fine tuning it. When do you first lift the head? How soon is too soon? It’s probably bad if you just go right to it.

We had to get the pump primed a little bit with these other things to get the flow going better, not only pulling blood out of the brain but now, you have a better flow this way. You have to prime at first for a couple of minutes, and we worked out the timing: Is it 3 or 4 minutes? It seems the timing is right at about 2 minutes, then you gradually elevate the head over about 2 minutes. We’re finding that seems to be the optimal way to do it. About 2 minutes of priming with those other two devices, the adjuncts, and then gradually elevate the head over 2 minutes.

When we do that in the laboratory, we’re getting normalized cerebral perfusion pressures. You’re normalizing the flow back again with that. We’re seeing profound differences in outcome as a result, even in these cases of the nonshockables.
 

Dr. Glatter: What you’re doing basically is resulting in an increase in cardiac output, essentially. That really is important, especially in these nonshockable rhythms, correct?

Dr. Pepe: Absolutely. As you’re doing this compression and you’re getting these intracranial pulse waves that are going up because they’re colliding up there. It could be even damaging in itself, but we’re seeing these intracranial raises. The intracranial pressure starts going up more and more over time. Also, peripherally in most people, you’re not getting good flow out there; then, your vasculature starts to relax. The arterials are starting to not get oxygen, so they don’t go out.

With this technique where we’re returning the pressure, we’re getting to 40% of normal now with the active compression-decompression CPR plus an impedance threshold device (ACD+ITD CPR) approach. Now, you add this, and you’re almost normalizing. In humans, even in these asystole patients, we’re seeing end-title CO₂s which are generally in the 15-20 range with standard CPR are now up with ACD+ITD CPR in the 30%-40% range, where we’re getting through 30 or 40 end-tidal CO₂s. Now, we’re seeing even the end-tidal CO₂s moving up into the 40s and 50s. We know there’s a surrogate marker telling us that we are generating much better flows not only to the rest of the body, but most importantly, to the brain.
 

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, could you tell us about the approach in terms of on scene, what you’re doing and how you use the device itself? Maybe you could talk about the backpack that you developed with your fire department?

Ryan P. Quinn, BS, EMS: Our approach has always been to get to the patient quickly, like everybody’s approach on a cardiac arrest when you’re responding. We are an advanced life-support paramedic ambulance service through the fire department – we’re all cross-trained firefighter paramedics. Our first vehicle from the fire department is typically the ambulance. It’s smaller and a little quicker than the fire engine. Two paramedics are going to jump out with two backpacks. One has the automated compressive device (we use the Lucas), and the other one is the sequential patient lifting device, the EleGARD.

Our two paramedics are quick to the patient’s side, and once they make contact with the patient to verify pulseless cardiac arrest, they will unpack. One person will go right to compressions if there’s nobody on compressions already. Sometimes we have a first responder police officer with an automated external defibrillator (AED). We go right to the patient’s side, concentrate on compressions, and within 90 seconds to 2 minutes, we have our bags unpacked, we’ve got the devices turned on, patient lifted up, slid under the device, and we have a supraglottic airway that is placed within 15 seconds already premade with the ITD on top. We have a sealed airway that we can continue to compress with Dr. Pepe’s original discussion of building on what’s previously been shown to work.

Dr. Pepe: Let me make a comment about this. This is so important, what Ryan is saying, because it’s something we found during the study. It’s really a true pit-crew approach. You’re not only getting these materials, which you think you need a medical Sherpa for, but you don’t. They set it up and then when they open it up, it’s all laid out just exactly as you need it. It’s not just how fast you get there; it’s how fast you get this done.

When we look at all cases combined against high-performance systems that had some of the highest survival rates around, when we compare it to those, we found that overall, even if you looked at the ones that had over 20-minute responses, the odds ratios were still three to four times higher. It was impressive.

If you looked at it under 15 minutes, which is really reasonable for most systems that get there by the way, the average time that people start CPR in any system in these studies has been about 8 minutes if you actually start this thing, which takes about 2 minutes more for this new bundle of care with this triad, it’s almost 12-14 times higher in terms of the odds ratio. I’ve never seen anything like that where the higher end is over 100 in terms of your confidence intervals.

Ryan’s system did really well and is one of those with even higher levels of outcomes, mostly because they got it on quickly. It’s like the AED for nonshockables but better because you have a wider range of efficacy where it will work.
 

Dr. Glatter: When the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, that seemed to be an inflection point in the study, is that correct? You saw that 11-fold higher incidence in terms of neurologically intact survival, is that correct?

Dr. Pepe: We picked that number because that was the median time to get it on board. Half the people were getting it within that time period. The fact that you have a larger window, we’re talking about 13- almost 14-fold improvements in outcome if it was under 15 minutes. It doesn’t matter about the 11 or the 12. It’s the faster you get it on board, the better off you are.

Dr. Glatter: What’s the next step in the process of doing trials and having implementation on a larger scale based on your Annals of Emergency Medicine study? Where do you go from here?

Dr. Pepe: I’ve come to find out there are many confounding variables. What was the quality of CPR? How did people ventilate? Did they give the breath and hold it? Did they give a large enough breath so that blood can go across the transpulmonary system? There are many confounding variables. That’s why I think, in the future, it’s going to be more of looking at things like propensity score matching because we know all the variables that change outcomes. I think that’s going to be a way for me.

The other thing is that we were looking at only 380 cases here. When this doubles up in numbers, as we accrue more cases around the country of people who are implementing this, these numbers I just quoted are going to go up much higher. Unwitnessed asystole is considered futile, and you just don’t get them back. To be able to get these folks back now, even if it’s a small percentage, and the fact that we know that we’re producing this better flow, is pretty striking.

I’m really impressed, and the main thing is to make sure people are educated about it. Number two is that they understand that it has to be done right. It cannot be done wrong or you’re not going to see the differences. Getting it done right is not only following the procedures, the sequence, and how you do it, but it also has to do with getting there quickly, including assigning the right people to put it on and having well-trained people who know what they’re doing.
 

Dr. Glatter: In general, the lay public obviously should not attempt this in the field lifting someone’s head up in the sense of trying to do chest compressions. I think that message is important that you just said. It’s not ready for prime time yet in any way. It has to be done right.

Dr. Pepe: Bystanders have to learn CPR – they will buy us time and we’ll have better outcomes when they do that. That’s number one. Number two is that as more and more systems adopt this, you’re going to see more people coming back. If you think about what we’re doing now, if we only get back 5% of these nonshockable vs. less than 1%, it’s 5% of 800 people a day because a thousand people a day die. Several dozens of lives can be saved on a daily basis, coming back neurologically intact. That’s the key thing.

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, can you comment about your experience in the field? Is there anything in terms of your current approach that you think would be ideal to change at this point?

Mr. Quinn: We’ve established that this is the approach that we want to take and we’re just fine tuning it to be more efficient. Using the choreography of which person is going to do which role, we have clearly defined roles and clearly defined command of the scene so we’re not missing anything. Training is extremely important.

Dr. Glatter: Paul, I want to ask you about your anecdotal experience of people waking up quickly and talking after elevating their heads and going through this process. Having people talk about it and waking up is really fascinating. Maybe you can comment further on this.

Dr. Pepe: That’s a great point that you bring up because a 40- to 50-year-old guy who got saved with this approach, when he came around, he said he was hearing what people were saying. When he came out of it, he found out he had been getting CPR for about 25 minutes because he had persistent recurring ventricular fibrillation. He said, “How could I have survived that that long?”

When we told him about the new approach, he added, “Well, that’s like neuroprotective.” He’s right, because in the laboratory, we showed it was neuroprotective and we’re also getting better flows back there. It goes along with everything else, and so we’ve adopted the name because it is.

These are really high-powered systems we are comparing against, and we have the same level of return of spontaneous circulation. The major difference was when you started talking about the neurointact survival. We don’t have enough numbers yet, but next go around, we’re going to look at cerebral performance category (CPC) – CPC1 vs. the CPC2 – which were both considered intact, but CPC1 is actually better. We’re seeing many more of those, anecdotally.

I also wanted to mention that people do bring this up and say, “Well, let’s do a trial.” As far as we’re concerned, the trial’s been done in terms of The Lancet study 10 years ago that showed that the active compression-decompression had tremendously better outcomes. We show in the laboratories that you augment that a little bit. These are all [Food and Drug Administration] approved. You can go out and buy it tomorrow and get it done. I have no conflicts of interest, by the way, with any of this.

To have this device that’s going to have the potential of saving so many more lives is really an exciting breakthrough. More importantly, we’re understanding more now about the physiology of CPR and why it works. It could work much better with the approaches that we’ve been developing over the last 20 years or so.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. I want to thank both of you gentlemen. It’s been really an incredible experience to learn more about an advance in resuscitation that could truly be lifesaving. Thank you again for taking time to join us.

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician in the department of emergency medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York. Dr. Pepe is professor, department of management, policy, and community health, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston. Mr. Quinn is EMS Chief, Edina (Minn.) Fire Department. No conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article first appeared Jan. 26 on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul Pepe, an emergency physician and highly recognized expert in EMS, critical care, and resuscitation, along with Ryan Quinn, EMS chief for Edina Fire Department in Edina, Minn., joining us to discuss a significant advance in resuscitation for patients with nonshockable rhythms in cardiac arrest with a remarkable increase in neurologically intact survival. Welcome, gentlemen.

Dr. Pepe, I’d like to start off by thanking you for taking time to join us to discuss this novel concept of head-up or what you now refer to as a neuroprotective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) bundle. Can you define what this entails and why it is referred to as a neuroprotective CPR bundle?

Paul E. Pepe, MD, MPH: CPR has been life saving for 60 years the way we’ve performed it, but probably only in a very small percentage of cases. That’s one of the problems. We have almost a thousand people a day who have sudden cardiac arrest out in the community alone and more in the hospital.

We know that early defibrillation and early CPR can contribute, but it’s still a small percentage of those. About 75%-85% of the cases that we go out to see will have nonshockable rhythms and flatlines. Some cases are what we call “pulseless electrical activity,” meaning that it looks like there is some kind of organized complex, but there is no pulse associated with it.

That’s why it’s a problem, because they don’t come back. Part of the reason why we see poor outcomes is not only that these cases tend to be people who, say, were in ventricular fibrillation and then just went on over time and were not witnessed or resuscitated or had a long response time. They basically either go into flatline or autoconvert into these bizarre rhythms.

The other issue is the way we perform CPR. CPR has been lifesaving, but it only generates about 20% and maybe 15% in some cases of normal blood flow, and particularly, cerebral perfusion pressure. We’ve looked at this nicely in the laboratory.

For example, during chest compressions, we’re hoping during the recoil phase to pull blood down and back into the right heart. The problem is that you’re not only setting a pressure rate up here to the arterial side but also, you’re setting back pressure wave on the venous side. Obviously, the arterial side always wins out, but it’s just not as efficient as it could be, at 20% or 30%.

What does this entail? It entails several independent mechanisms in terms of how they work, but they all do the same thing, which is they help to pull blood out of the brain and back into the right heart by basically manipulating intrathoracic pressure and creating more of a vacuum to get blood back there.

It’s so important that people do quality CPR. You have to have a good release and that helps us suck a little bit of blood and sucks the air in. As soon as the air rushes in, it neutralizes the pressure and there’s no more vacuum and nothing else is happening until the next squeeze.

What we have found is that we can cap the airway just for a second with a little pop-up valve. It acts like when you’re sucking a milkshake through a straw and it creates more of a vacuum in the chest. Just a little pop-up valve that pulls a little bit more blood out of the brain and the rest of the body and into the right heart.

We’ve shown in a human study that, for example, the systolic blood pressure almost doubles. It really goes from 40 mm Hg during standard CPR up to 80 mm Hg, and that would be sustained for 14-15 minutes. That was a nice little study that was done in Milwaukee a few years ago.

The other thing that happens is, if you add on something else, it’s like a toilet plunger. I think many people have seen it; it’s called “active compression-decompression.” It not only compresses, but it decompresses. Where it becomes even more effective is that if you had broken bones or stiff bones as you get older or whatever it may be, as you do the CPR, you’re still getting the push down and then you’re getting the pull out. It helps on several levels. More importantly, when you put the two together, they’re very synergistic.

We, have already done the clinical trial that is the proof of concept, and that was published in The Lancet about 10 years ago. In that study, we found that the combination of those two dramatically improved survival rates by 50%, with 1-year survival neurologically intact. That got us on the right track.

The interesting thing is that someone said, “Can we lift the head up a little bit?” We did a large amount of work in the laboratory over 10 years, fine tuning it. When do you first lift the head? How soon is too soon? It’s probably bad if you just go right to it.

We had to get the pump primed a little bit with these other things to get the flow going better, not only pulling blood out of the brain but now, you have a better flow this way. You have to prime at first for a couple of minutes, and we worked out the timing: Is it 3 or 4 minutes? It seems the timing is right at about 2 minutes, then you gradually elevate the head over about 2 minutes. We’re finding that seems to be the optimal way to do it. About 2 minutes of priming with those other two devices, the adjuncts, and then gradually elevate the head over 2 minutes.

When we do that in the laboratory, we’re getting normalized cerebral perfusion pressures. You’re normalizing the flow back again with that. We’re seeing profound differences in outcome as a result, even in these cases of the nonshockables.
 

Dr. Glatter: What you’re doing basically is resulting in an increase in cardiac output, essentially. That really is important, especially in these nonshockable rhythms, correct?

Dr. Pepe: Absolutely. As you’re doing this compression and you’re getting these intracranial pulse waves that are going up because they’re colliding up there. It could be even damaging in itself, but we’re seeing these intracranial raises. The intracranial pressure starts going up more and more over time. Also, peripherally in most people, you’re not getting good flow out there; then, your vasculature starts to relax. The arterials are starting to not get oxygen, so they don’t go out.

With this technique where we’re returning the pressure, we’re getting to 40% of normal now with the active compression-decompression CPR plus an impedance threshold device (ACD+ITD CPR) approach. Now, you add this, and you’re almost normalizing. In humans, even in these asystole patients, we’re seeing end-title CO₂s which are generally in the 15-20 range with standard CPR are now up with ACD+ITD CPR in the 30%-40% range, where we’re getting through 30 or 40 end-tidal CO₂s. Now, we’re seeing even the end-tidal CO₂s moving up into the 40s and 50s. We know there’s a surrogate marker telling us that we are generating much better flows not only to the rest of the body, but most importantly, to the brain.
 

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, could you tell us about the approach in terms of on scene, what you’re doing and how you use the device itself? Maybe you could talk about the backpack that you developed with your fire department?

Ryan P. Quinn, BS, EMS: Our approach has always been to get to the patient quickly, like everybody’s approach on a cardiac arrest when you’re responding. We are an advanced life-support paramedic ambulance service through the fire department – we’re all cross-trained firefighter paramedics. Our first vehicle from the fire department is typically the ambulance. It’s smaller and a little quicker than the fire engine. Two paramedics are going to jump out with two backpacks. One has the automated compressive device (we use the Lucas), and the other one is the sequential patient lifting device, the EleGARD.

Our two paramedics are quick to the patient’s side, and once they make contact with the patient to verify pulseless cardiac arrest, they will unpack. One person will go right to compressions if there’s nobody on compressions already. Sometimes we have a first responder police officer with an automated external defibrillator (AED). We go right to the patient’s side, concentrate on compressions, and within 90 seconds to 2 minutes, we have our bags unpacked, we’ve got the devices turned on, patient lifted up, slid under the device, and we have a supraglottic airway that is placed within 15 seconds already premade with the ITD on top. We have a sealed airway that we can continue to compress with Dr. Pepe’s original discussion of building on what’s previously been shown to work.

Dr. Pepe: Let me make a comment about this. This is so important, what Ryan is saying, because it’s something we found during the study. It’s really a true pit-crew approach. You’re not only getting these materials, which you think you need a medical Sherpa for, but you don’t. They set it up and then when they open it up, it’s all laid out just exactly as you need it. It’s not just how fast you get there; it’s how fast you get this done.

When we look at all cases combined against high-performance systems that had some of the highest survival rates around, when we compare it to those, we found that overall, even if you looked at the ones that had over 20-minute responses, the odds ratios were still three to four times higher. It was impressive.

If you looked at it under 15 minutes, which is really reasonable for most systems that get there by the way, the average time that people start CPR in any system in these studies has been about 8 minutes if you actually start this thing, which takes about 2 minutes more for this new bundle of care with this triad, it’s almost 12-14 times higher in terms of the odds ratio. I’ve never seen anything like that where the higher end is over 100 in terms of your confidence intervals.

Ryan’s system did really well and is one of those with even higher levels of outcomes, mostly because they got it on quickly. It’s like the AED for nonshockables but better because you have a wider range of efficacy where it will work.
 

Dr. Glatter: When the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, that seemed to be an inflection point in the study, is that correct? You saw that 11-fold higher incidence in terms of neurologically intact survival, is that correct?

Dr. Pepe: We picked that number because that was the median time to get it on board. Half the people were getting it within that time period. The fact that you have a larger window, we’re talking about 13- almost 14-fold improvements in outcome if it was under 15 minutes. It doesn’t matter about the 11 or the 12. It’s the faster you get it on board, the better off you are.

Dr. Glatter: What’s the next step in the process of doing trials and having implementation on a larger scale based on your Annals of Emergency Medicine study? Where do you go from here?

Dr. Pepe: I’ve come to find out there are many confounding variables. What was the quality of CPR? How did people ventilate? Did they give the breath and hold it? Did they give a large enough breath so that blood can go across the transpulmonary system? There are many confounding variables. That’s why I think, in the future, it’s going to be more of looking at things like propensity score matching because we know all the variables that change outcomes. I think that’s going to be a way for me.

The other thing is that we were looking at only 380 cases here. When this doubles up in numbers, as we accrue more cases around the country of people who are implementing this, these numbers I just quoted are going to go up much higher. Unwitnessed asystole is considered futile, and you just don’t get them back. To be able to get these folks back now, even if it’s a small percentage, and the fact that we know that we’re producing this better flow, is pretty striking.

I’m really impressed, and the main thing is to make sure people are educated about it. Number two is that they understand that it has to be done right. It cannot be done wrong or you’re not going to see the differences. Getting it done right is not only following the procedures, the sequence, and how you do it, but it also has to do with getting there quickly, including assigning the right people to put it on and having well-trained people who know what they’re doing.
 

Dr. Glatter: In general, the lay public obviously should not attempt this in the field lifting someone’s head up in the sense of trying to do chest compressions. I think that message is important that you just said. It’s not ready for prime time yet in any way. It has to be done right.

Dr. Pepe: Bystanders have to learn CPR – they will buy us time and we’ll have better outcomes when they do that. That’s number one. Number two is that as more and more systems adopt this, you’re going to see more people coming back. If you think about what we’re doing now, if we only get back 5% of these nonshockable vs. less than 1%, it’s 5% of 800 people a day because a thousand people a day die. Several dozens of lives can be saved on a daily basis, coming back neurologically intact. That’s the key thing.

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, can you comment about your experience in the field? Is there anything in terms of your current approach that you think would be ideal to change at this point?

Mr. Quinn: We’ve established that this is the approach that we want to take and we’re just fine tuning it to be more efficient. Using the choreography of which person is going to do which role, we have clearly defined roles and clearly defined command of the scene so we’re not missing anything. Training is extremely important.

Dr. Glatter: Paul, I want to ask you about your anecdotal experience of people waking up quickly and talking after elevating their heads and going through this process. Having people talk about it and waking up is really fascinating. Maybe you can comment further on this.

Dr. Pepe: That’s a great point that you bring up because a 40- to 50-year-old guy who got saved with this approach, when he came around, he said he was hearing what people were saying. When he came out of it, he found out he had been getting CPR for about 25 minutes because he had persistent recurring ventricular fibrillation. He said, “How could I have survived that that long?”

When we told him about the new approach, he added, “Well, that’s like neuroprotective.” He’s right, because in the laboratory, we showed it was neuroprotective and we’re also getting better flows back there. It goes along with everything else, and so we’ve adopted the name because it is.

These are really high-powered systems we are comparing against, and we have the same level of return of spontaneous circulation. The major difference was when you started talking about the neurointact survival. We don’t have enough numbers yet, but next go around, we’re going to look at cerebral performance category (CPC) – CPC1 vs. the CPC2 – which were both considered intact, but CPC1 is actually better. We’re seeing many more of those, anecdotally.

I also wanted to mention that people do bring this up and say, “Well, let’s do a trial.” As far as we’re concerned, the trial’s been done in terms of The Lancet study 10 years ago that showed that the active compression-decompression had tremendously better outcomes. We show in the laboratories that you augment that a little bit. These are all [Food and Drug Administration] approved. You can go out and buy it tomorrow and get it done. I have no conflicts of interest, by the way, with any of this.

To have this device that’s going to have the potential of saving so many more lives is really an exciting breakthrough. More importantly, we’re understanding more now about the physiology of CPR and why it works. It could work much better with the approaches that we’ve been developing over the last 20 years or so.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. I want to thank both of you gentlemen. It’s been really an incredible experience to learn more about an advance in resuscitation that could truly be lifesaving. Thank you again for taking time to join us.

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician in the department of emergency medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York. Dr. Pepe is professor, department of management, policy, and community health, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston. Mr. Quinn is EMS Chief, Edina (Minn.) Fire Department. No conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article first appeared Jan. 26 on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul Pepe, an emergency physician and highly recognized expert in EMS, critical care, and resuscitation, along with Ryan Quinn, EMS chief for Edina Fire Department in Edina, Minn., joining us to discuss a significant advance in resuscitation for patients with nonshockable rhythms in cardiac arrest with a remarkable increase in neurologically intact survival. Welcome, gentlemen.

Dr. Pepe, I’d like to start off by thanking you for taking time to join us to discuss this novel concept of head-up or what you now refer to as a neuroprotective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) bundle. Can you define what this entails and why it is referred to as a neuroprotective CPR bundle?

Paul E. Pepe, MD, MPH: CPR has been life saving for 60 years the way we’ve performed it, but probably only in a very small percentage of cases. That’s one of the problems. We have almost a thousand people a day who have sudden cardiac arrest out in the community alone and more in the hospital.

We know that early defibrillation and early CPR can contribute, but it’s still a small percentage of those. About 75%-85% of the cases that we go out to see will have nonshockable rhythms and flatlines. Some cases are what we call “pulseless electrical activity,” meaning that it looks like there is some kind of organized complex, but there is no pulse associated with it.

That’s why it’s a problem, because they don’t come back. Part of the reason why we see poor outcomes is not only that these cases tend to be people who, say, were in ventricular fibrillation and then just went on over time and were not witnessed or resuscitated or had a long response time. They basically either go into flatline or autoconvert into these bizarre rhythms.

The other issue is the way we perform CPR. CPR has been lifesaving, but it only generates about 20% and maybe 15% in some cases of normal blood flow, and particularly, cerebral perfusion pressure. We’ve looked at this nicely in the laboratory.

For example, during chest compressions, we’re hoping during the recoil phase to pull blood down and back into the right heart. The problem is that you’re not only setting a pressure rate up here to the arterial side but also, you’re setting back pressure wave on the venous side. Obviously, the arterial side always wins out, but it’s just not as efficient as it could be, at 20% or 30%.

What does this entail? It entails several independent mechanisms in terms of how they work, but they all do the same thing, which is they help to pull blood out of the brain and back into the right heart by basically manipulating intrathoracic pressure and creating more of a vacuum to get blood back there.

It’s so important that people do quality CPR. You have to have a good release and that helps us suck a little bit of blood and sucks the air in. As soon as the air rushes in, it neutralizes the pressure and there’s no more vacuum and nothing else is happening until the next squeeze.

What we have found is that we can cap the airway just for a second with a little pop-up valve. It acts like when you’re sucking a milkshake through a straw and it creates more of a vacuum in the chest. Just a little pop-up valve that pulls a little bit more blood out of the brain and the rest of the body and into the right heart.

We’ve shown in a human study that, for example, the systolic blood pressure almost doubles. It really goes from 40 mm Hg during standard CPR up to 80 mm Hg, and that would be sustained for 14-15 minutes. That was a nice little study that was done in Milwaukee a few years ago.

The other thing that happens is, if you add on something else, it’s like a toilet plunger. I think many people have seen it; it’s called “active compression-decompression.” It not only compresses, but it decompresses. Where it becomes even more effective is that if you had broken bones or stiff bones as you get older or whatever it may be, as you do the CPR, you’re still getting the push down and then you’re getting the pull out. It helps on several levels. More importantly, when you put the two together, they’re very synergistic.

We, have already done the clinical trial that is the proof of concept, and that was published in The Lancet about 10 years ago. In that study, we found that the combination of those two dramatically improved survival rates by 50%, with 1-year survival neurologically intact. That got us on the right track.

The interesting thing is that someone said, “Can we lift the head up a little bit?” We did a large amount of work in the laboratory over 10 years, fine tuning it. When do you first lift the head? How soon is too soon? It’s probably bad if you just go right to it.

We had to get the pump primed a little bit with these other things to get the flow going better, not only pulling blood out of the brain but now, you have a better flow this way. You have to prime at first for a couple of minutes, and we worked out the timing: Is it 3 or 4 minutes? It seems the timing is right at about 2 minutes, then you gradually elevate the head over about 2 minutes. We’re finding that seems to be the optimal way to do it. About 2 minutes of priming with those other two devices, the adjuncts, and then gradually elevate the head over 2 minutes.

When we do that in the laboratory, we’re getting normalized cerebral perfusion pressures. You’re normalizing the flow back again with that. We’re seeing profound differences in outcome as a result, even in these cases of the nonshockables.
 

Dr. Glatter: What you’re doing basically is resulting in an increase in cardiac output, essentially. That really is important, especially in these nonshockable rhythms, correct?

Dr. Pepe: Absolutely. As you’re doing this compression and you’re getting these intracranial pulse waves that are going up because they’re colliding up there. It could be even damaging in itself, but we’re seeing these intracranial raises. The intracranial pressure starts going up more and more over time. Also, peripherally in most people, you’re not getting good flow out there; then, your vasculature starts to relax. The arterials are starting to not get oxygen, so they don’t go out.

With this technique where we’re returning the pressure, we’re getting to 40% of normal now with the active compression-decompression CPR plus an impedance threshold device (ACD+ITD CPR) approach. Now, you add this, and you’re almost normalizing. In humans, even in these asystole patients, we’re seeing end-title CO₂s which are generally in the 15-20 range with standard CPR are now up with ACD+ITD CPR in the 30%-40% range, where we’re getting through 30 or 40 end-tidal CO₂s. Now, we’re seeing even the end-tidal CO₂s moving up into the 40s and 50s. We know there’s a surrogate marker telling us that we are generating much better flows not only to the rest of the body, but most importantly, to the brain.
 

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, could you tell us about the approach in terms of on scene, what you’re doing and how you use the device itself? Maybe you could talk about the backpack that you developed with your fire department?

Ryan P. Quinn, BS, EMS: Our approach has always been to get to the patient quickly, like everybody’s approach on a cardiac arrest when you’re responding. We are an advanced life-support paramedic ambulance service through the fire department – we’re all cross-trained firefighter paramedics. Our first vehicle from the fire department is typically the ambulance. It’s smaller and a little quicker than the fire engine. Two paramedics are going to jump out with two backpacks. One has the automated compressive device (we use the Lucas), and the other one is the sequential patient lifting device, the EleGARD.

Our two paramedics are quick to the patient’s side, and once they make contact with the patient to verify pulseless cardiac arrest, they will unpack. One person will go right to compressions if there’s nobody on compressions already. Sometimes we have a first responder police officer with an automated external defibrillator (AED). We go right to the patient’s side, concentrate on compressions, and within 90 seconds to 2 minutes, we have our bags unpacked, we’ve got the devices turned on, patient lifted up, slid under the device, and we have a supraglottic airway that is placed within 15 seconds already premade with the ITD on top. We have a sealed airway that we can continue to compress with Dr. Pepe’s original discussion of building on what’s previously been shown to work.

Dr. Pepe: Let me make a comment about this. This is so important, what Ryan is saying, because it’s something we found during the study. It’s really a true pit-crew approach. You’re not only getting these materials, which you think you need a medical Sherpa for, but you don’t. They set it up and then when they open it up, it’s all laid out just exactly as you need it. It’s not just how fast you get there; it’s how fast you get this done.

When we look at all cases combined against high-performance systems that had some of the highest survival rates around, when we compare it to those, we found that overall, even if you looked at the ones that had over 20-minute responses, the odds ratios were still three to four times higher. It was impressive.

If you looked at it under 15 minutes, which is really reasonable for most systems that get there by the way, the average time that people start CPR in any system in these studies has been about 8 minutes if you actually start this thing, which takes about 2 minutes more for this new bundle of care with this triad, it’s almost 12-14 times higher in terms of the odds ratio. I’ve never seen anything like that where the higher end is over 100 in terms of your confidence intervals.

Ryan’s system did really well and is one of those with even higher levels of outcomes, mostly because they got it on quickly. It’s like the AED for nonshockables but better because you have a wider range of efficacy where it will work.
 

Dr. Glatter: When the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, that seemed to be an inflection point in the study, is that correct? You saw that 11-fold higher incidence in terms of neurologically intact survival, is that correct?

Dr. Pepe: We picked that number because that was the median time to get it on board. Half the people were getting it within that time period. The fact that you have a larger window, we’re talking about 13- almost 14-fold improvements in outcome if it was under 15 minutes. It doesn’t matter about the 11 or the 12. It’s the faster you get it on board, the better off you are.

Dr. Glatter: What’s the next step in the process of doing trials and having implementation on a larger scale based on your Annals of Emergency Medicine study? Where do you go from here?

Dr. Pepe: I’ve come to find out there are many confounding variables. What was the quality of CPR? How did people ventilate? Did they give the breath and hold it? Did they give a large enough breath so that blood can go across the transpulmonary system? There are many confounding variables. That’s why I think, in the future, it’s going to be more of looking at things like propensity score matching because we know all the variables that change outcomes. I think that’s going to be a way for me.

The other thing is that we were looking at only 380 cases here. When this doubles up in numbers, as we accrue more cases around the country of people who are implementing this, these numbers I just quoted are going to go up much higher. Unwitnessed asystole is considered futile, and you just don’t get them back. To be able to get these folks back now, even if it’s a small percentage, and the fact that we know that we’re producing this better flow, is pretty striking.

I’m really impressed, and the main thing is to make sure people are educated about it. Number two is that they understand that it has to be done right. It cannot be done wrong or you’re not going to see the differences. Getting it done right is not only following the procedures, the sequence, and how you do it, but it also has to do with getting there quickly, including assigning the right people to put it on and having well-trained people who know what they’re doing.
 

Dr. Glatter: In general, the lay public obviously should not attempt this in the field lifting someone’s head up in the sense of trying to do chest compressions. I think that message is important that you just said. It’s not ready for prime time yet in any way. It has to be done right.

Dr. Pepe: Bystanders have to learn CPR – they will buy us time and we’ll have better outcomes when they do that. That’s number one. Number two is that as more and more systems adopt this, you’re going to see more people coming back. If you think about what we’re doing now, if we only get back 5% of these nonshockable vs. less than 1%, it’s 5% of 800 people a day because a thousand people a day die. Several dozens of lives can be saved on a daily basis, coming back neurologically intact. That’s the key thing.

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, can you comment about your experience in the field? Is there anything in terms of your current approach that you think would be ideal to change at this point?

Mr. Quinn: We’ve established that this is the approach that we want to take and we’re just fine tuning it to be more efficient. Using the choreography of which person is going to do which role, we have clearly defined roles and clearly defined command of the scene so we’re not missing anything. Training is extremely important.

Dr. Glatter: Paul, I want to ask you about your anecdotal experience of people waking up quickly and talking after elevating their heads and going through this process. Having people talk about it and waking up is really fascinating. Maybe you can comment further on this.

Dr. Pepe: That’s a great point that you bring up because a 40- to 50-year-old guy who got saved with this approach, when he came around, he said he was hearing what people were saying. When he came out of it, he found out he had been getting CPR for about 25 minutes because he had persistent recurring ventricular fibrillation. He said, “How could I have survived that that long?”

When we told him about the new approach, he added, “Well, that’s like neuroprotective.” He’s right, because in the laboratory, we showed it was neuroprotective and we’re also getting better flows back there. It goes along with everything else, and so we’ve adopted the name because it is.

These are really high-powered systems we are comparing against, and we have the same level of return of spontaneous circulation. The major difference was when you started talking about the neurointact survival. We don’t have enough numbers yet, but next go around, we’re going to look at cerebral performance category (CPC) – CPC1 vs. the CPC2 – which were both considered intact, but CPC1 is actually better. We’re seeing many more of those, anecdotally.

I also wanted to mention that people do bring this up and say, “Well, let’s do a trial.” As far as we’re concerned, the trial’s been done in terms of The Lancet study 10 years ago that showed that the active compression-decompression had tremendously better outcomes. We show in the laboratories that you augment that a little bit. These are all [Food and Drug Administration] approved. You can go out and buy it tomorrow and get it done. I have no conflicts of interest, by the way, with any of this.

To have this device that’s going to have the potential of saving so many more lives is really an exciting breakthrough. More importantly, we’re understanding more now about the physiology of CPR and why it works. It could work much better with the approaches that we’ve been developing over the last 20 years or so.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. I want to thank both of you gentlemen. It’s been really an incredible experience to learn more about an advance in resuscitation that could truly be lifesaving. Thank you again for taking time to join us.

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician in the department of emergency medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York. Dr. Pepe is professor, department of management, policy, and community health, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston. Mr. Quinn is EMS Chief, Edina (Minn.) Fire Department. No conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article first appeared Jan. 26 on Medscape.com.

If you could go back in time 75 years and tell Dr. Sidney Farber, the developer of methotrexate for cancer therapy, that 21st-century medicine would utilize his specially designed drug more in rheumatology than oncology, he might be surprised. He might scratch his head even more, hearing of his drug sparking interest in still other medical fields, like cardiology.

But drug repurposing is not so uncommon. One classic example is aspirin. Once the most common pain medication and used also in rheumatology, aspirin now finds a range of applications, from colorectal cancer to the prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular thrombosis. Minoxidil is another example, developed for hypertension but used today mostly to stop hair loss. Perhaps most ironic is thalidomide, utilized today for leprosy and multiple myeloma, yet actually contraindicated for its original application, nausea of pregnancy.

Courtesy NIH

Methotrexate, thus, has much in common with other medical treatments, and yet its origin story is as unique and as fascinating as the story of Dr. Farber himself. While this is a rheumatology article, it’s also a story about the origin of a particular rheumatologic treatment, and so the story of that origin will take us mostly through a discussion of hematologic malignancy and of the clinical researcher who dared search for a cure.

Born in 1903, in Buffalo, New York, third of fourteen children of Jewish immigrants from Poland, Dr. Farber grew up in a household that was crowded but academically rigorous. His father, Simon, routinely brought home textbooks, assigning each child a book to read and on which to write a report. His mother, Matilda, was as devoted as her husband to raising the children to succeed in their adopted new country. Upstairs, the children were permitted to speak Yiddish, but downstairs they were required to use only English and German.

As a teen, Dr. Farber lived through the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed at least 50 million people worldwide, including more than 2,000 Buffalonians. This probably helped motivate him to study medicine, but with antisemitism overt in the America of the early 1920s, securing admission to a U.S. medical school was close to impossible. So, in what now seems like the greatest of ironies, Dr. Farber began medical studies in Germany, then transferred for the second year to a U.S. program that seemed adequate – Harvard Medical School, from which he graduated in 1927. From there, he trained as a pathologist, focusing ultimately on pediatric pathology. But, frustrated by case after case of malignancy, whose young victims he’d often have to autopsy, Dr. Farber decided that he wanted to advance the pitiful state of cancer therapeutics, especially for hematologic malignancy.

This was a tall order in the 1930s and early 1940s, when cancer therapeutics consisted only of surgical resection and very primitive forms of radiation therapy. Applicable only to neoplasia that was localized, these options were useless against malignancies in the blood, like acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but by January 1948 there was at least one glimmer of hope. At that time, one patient with ALL, 2-year-old Robert Sandler, was too ill to join his twin brother Elliott for snow play outside their home in the Dorchester section of Boston. Diagnosed back in August, Robert had suffered multiple episodes of fever, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. His illness had enlarged his spleen dramatically and caused pathologic bone fractures with excruciating bone pain, and for a while he couldn’t walk because of pressure on his lower spinal cord. All of this was the result of uncontrolled mitosis and cell division of lymphoblasts, immature lymphocytes. By December, these out-of-control cells had elevated the boy’s white blood cell count to a peak of 70,000/mcL, more than six times the high end of the normal range (4,500-11,000/mcL). This had happened despite treatment with an experimental drug, developed at Boston Children’s Hospital by Dr. Farber and his team, working on the assumption that inhibition of folate metabolism should slow the growth of tumor cells. On Dec. 28, however, Dr. Farber had switched the child to a new drug with a chemical structure just slightly different from the other agent’s.

Merely another chemical modification in a series of attempts by the research team, the new drug, aminopterin, was not expected to do anything dramatic, but Dr. Farber and the team had come such a long way since the middle of 1947, when he’d actually done the opposite of what he was doing now. On the basis of British research from India showing folic acid deficiency as the basis of a common type of anemia in malnourished people, Dr. Farber had reasoned that children with leukemia, who also suffered from anemia, might also benefit from folic acid supplementation. Even without prior rodent testing, Dr. Farber had tried giving the nutrient to patients with ALL, a strategy made possible by the presence of a spectacular chemist working on folic acid synthesis at Farber’s own hospital to help combat folate deficiency. Born into a poor Brahmin family in India, the chemist, Dr. Yellapragada SubbaRow, had begun life with so much stacked against him as to appear even less likely during childhood than the young Dr. Farber to grow up to make major contributions to medicine. Going through childhood with death all around him, Dr. SubbaRow was motivated to study medicine, but getting into medical school had been an uphill fight, given his family’s economic difficulty. Knowing that he’d also face discrimination on account of his low status after receiving admission to a medical program, SubbaRow could have made things a bit easier for himself by living within the norms of the British Imperial system, but as a supporter of Mohandas Gandhi’s nationalist movement, he boycotted British goods. As a medical student, this meant doing things like wearing Indian-made surgical gloves, instead of the English products that were expected of the students. Such actions led Dr. SubbaRow to receive a kind of second-rate medical degree, rather than the prestigious MBBS.

The political situation also led Dr. SubbaRow to emigrate to the United States, where, ironically, his medical degree initially was taken less seriously than it had been taken in his British-occupied homeland. He thus worked in the capacity of a hospital night porter at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital (the future Brigham and Women’s Hospital), doing menial tasks like changing sheets to make ends meet. He studied, however, and made enough of an impression to gain admission to the same institution that also admitted Farber through the backdoor, Harvard Medical School. This launched him into a research career in which he not only would be instrumental in developing folate antagonists and other classes of drugs, but also would make him the codiscoverer of the role of creatine phosphate and ATP in cellular energy metabolism. Sadly, even after obtaining his top-notch American credentials and contributing through his research to what you might say is a good chunk of the biochemistry pathways that first year medical students memorize without ever learning who discovered them, Dr. SubbaRow still faced prejudice for the rest of his life, which turned out to last only until the age of 53. To add insult to injury, he is rarely remembered for his role.

Dr. Farber proceeded with the folic acid supplementation idea in patients with ALL, even though ALL caused a hypoproliferative anemia, whereas anemia from folate deficiency was megaloblastic, meaning that erythrocytes were produced but they were oversized and dysfunctional. Tragically, folic acid had accelerated the disease process in children with ALL, but the process of chemical experimentation aimed at synthesizing folate also produced some compounds that mimicked chemical precursors of folate in a way that made them antifolates, inhibitors of folate metabolism. If folic acid made lymphoblasts grow faster, Dr. Farber had reasoned that antifolates should inhibit their growth. He thus asked the chemistry lab to focus on folate inhibitors. Testing aminopterin, beginning with young Robert Sandler at the end of December, is what proved his hypothesis correct. By late January, aminopterin had brought the child’s WBC count down to the realm of 12,000, just slightly above normal, with symptoms and signs abating as well, and by February, the child could play with his twin brother. It was not a cure; malignant lymphoblasts still showed on microscopy of Robert’s blood. While he and some 15 other children whom Dr. Farber treated in this early trial would all succumb to ALL, they experienced remission lasting several months.

This was a big deal because the concept of chemotherapy was based only on serendipitous observations of WBC counts dropping in soldiers exposed to nitrogen mustard gas during World War I and during an incident in World War II, yet aminopterin had been designed from the ground up. Though difficult to synthesize in quantities, there was no reason for Dr. Farber’s team not to keep tweaking the drug, and so they did. Replacing one hydrogen atom with a methyl group, they turned it into methotrexate.

Proving easier to synthesize and less toxic, methotrexate would become a workhorse for chemotherapy over the next couple of decades, but the capability of both methotrexate and aminopterin to blunt the growth of white blood cells and other cells did not go unnoticed outside the realm of oncology. As early as the 1950s, dermatologists were using aminopterin to treat psoriasis. This led to the approval of methotrexate for psoriasis in 1972.

Meanwhile, like oncology, infectious diseases, aviation medicine, and so many other areas of practice, rheumatology had gotten a major boost from research stemming from World War II. During the war, Dr. Philip Hench of the Mayo Clinic developed cortisone, which pilots used to stay alert and energetic during trans-Atlantic flights. But it turned out that cortisone had a powerful immunosuppressive effect that dramatically improved rheumatoid arthritis, leading Dr. Hench to receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1950. By the end of the 1950s, however, the significant side effects of long-term corticosteroid therapy were very clear, so over the next few decades there was a major effort to develop different treatments for RA and other rheumatologic diseases.

Top on the list of such agents was methotrexate, developed for RA in part by Dr. Michael Weinblatt of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. In the 1980s, Dr. Weinblatt published the first clinical trial showing the benefits of methotrexate for RA patients. This has since developed into a standard treatment, noticeably different from the original malignancy application in that it is a low-dose regimen. Patients taking methotrexate for RA typically receive no more than 25 mg per week orally, and often much less. Rheumatology today includes expertise in keeping long-term methotrexate therapy safe by monitoring liver function and through other routine tests. The routine nature of the therapy has brought methotrexate to the point of beckoning in a realm that Dr. Farber might not have predicted in his wildest imagination: cardiology. This is on account of the growing appreciation of the inflammatory process in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic heart disease.

Meanwhile, being an antimetabolite, harmful to rapidly dividing cells, the danger of methotrexate to the embryo and fetus was recognized early. This made methotrexate off-limits to pregnant women, yet it also has made the drug useful as an abortifacient. Though not as good for medication abortion in unwanted but thriving pregnancies, where mifepristone/misoprostol has become the regimen of choice, methotrexate has become a workhorse in other obstetrical settings, such as for ending ectopic pregnancy.

Looking at the present and into the future, the potential for this very old medication looks wide open, as if it could go in any direction, so let’s wind up the discussion with the thought that we may be in for some surprises. Rather than jumping deeply into any rheumatologic issue, we spent most of this article weaving through other medical issues, but does this not make today’s story fairly analogous to rheumatology itself?

Dr. Warmflash is a physician from Portland, Ore. He reported no conflicts of interest.

This story was updated 2/10/2023.

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

If you could go back in time 75 years and tell Dr. Sidney Farber, the developer of methotrexate for cancer therapy, that 21st-century medicine would utilize his specially designed drug more in rheumatology than oncology, he might be surprised. He might scratch his head even more, hearing of his drug sparking interest in still other medical fields, like cardiology.

But drug repurposing is not so uncommon. One classic example is aspirin. Once the most common pain medication and used also in rheumatology, aspirin now finds a range of applications, from colorectal cancer to the prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular thrombosis. Minoxidil is another example, developed for hypertension but used today mostly to stop hair loss. Perhaps most ironic is thalidomide, utilized today for leprosy and multiple myeloma, yet actually contraindicated for its original application, nausea of pregnancy.

Courtesy NIH

Methotrexate, thus, has much in common with other medical treatments, and yet its origin story is as unique and as fascinating as the story of Dr. Farber himself. While this is a rheumatology article, it’s also a story about the origin of a particular rheumatologic treatment, and so the story of that origin will take us mostly through a discussion of hematologic malignancy and of the clinical researcher who dared search for a cure.

Born in 1903, in Buffalo, New York, third of fourteen children of Jewish immigrants from Poland, Dr. Farber grew up in a household that was crowded but academically rigorous. His father, Simon, routinely brought home textbooks, assigning each child a book to read and on which to write a report. His mother, Matilda, was as devoted as her husband to raising the children to succeed in their adopted new country. Upstairs, the children were permitted to speak Yiddish, but downstairs they were required to use only English and German.

As a teen, Dr. Farber lived through the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed at least 50 million people worldwide, including more than 2,000 Buffalonians. This probably helped motivate him to study medicine, but with antisemitism overt in the America of the early 1920s, securing admission to a U.S. medical school was close to impossible. So, in what now seems like the greatest of ironies, Dr. Farber began medical studies in Germany, then transferred for the second year to a U.S. program that seemed adequate – Harvard Medical School, from which he graduated in 1927. From there, he trained as a pathologist, focusing ultimately on pediatric pathology. But, frustrated by case after case of malignancy, whose young victims he’d often have to autopsy, Dr. Farber decided that he wanted to advance the pitiful state of cancer therapeutics, especially for hematologic malignancy.

This was a tall order in the 1930s and early 1940s, when cancer therapeutics consisted only of surgical resection and very primitive forms of radiation therapy. Applicable only to neoplasia that was localized, these options were useless against malignancies in the blood, like acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but by January 1948 there was at least one glimmer of hope. At that time, one patient with ALL, 2-year-old Robert Sandler, was too ill to join his twin brother Elliott for snow play outside their home in the Dorchester section of Boston. Diagnosed back in August, Robert had suffered multiple episodes of fever, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. His illness had enlarged his spleen dramatically and caused pathologic bone fractures with excruciating bone pain, and for a while he couldn’t walk because of pressure on his lower spinal cord. All of this was the result of uncontrolled mitosis and cell division of lymphoblasts, immature lymphocytes. By December, these out-of-control cells had elevated the boy’s white blood cell count to a peak of 70,000/mcL, more than six times the high end of the normal range (4,500-11,000/mcL). This had happened despite treatment with an experimental drug, developed at Boston Children’s Hospital by Dr. Farber and his team, working on the assumption that inhibition of folate metabolism should slow the growth of tumor cells. On Dec. 28, however, Dr. Farber had switched the child to a new drug with a chemical structure just slightly different from the other agent’s.

Merely another chemical modification in a series of attempts by the research team, the new drug, aminopterin, was not expected to do anything dramatic, but Dr. Farber and the team had come such a long way since the middle of 1947, when he’d actually done the opposite of what he was doing now. On the basis of British research from India showing folic acid deficiency as the basis of a common type of anemia in malnourished people, Dr. Farber had reasoned that children with leukemia, who also suffered from anemia, might also benefit from folic acid supplementation. Even without prior rodent testing, Dr. Farber had tried giving the nutrient to patients with ALL, a strategy made possible by the presence of a spectacular chemist working on folic acid synthesis at Farber’s own hospital to help combat folate deficiency. Born into a poor Brahmin family in India, the chemist, Dr. Yellapragada SubbaRow, had begun life with so much stacked against him as to appear even less likely during childhood than the young Dr. Farber to grow up to make major contributions to medicine. Going through childhood with death all around him, Dr. SubbaRow was motivated to study medicine, but getting into medical school had been an uphill fight, given his family’s economic difficulty. Knowing that he’d also face discrimination on account of his low status after receiving admission to a medical program, SubbaRow could have made things a bit easier for himself by living within the norms of the British Imperial system, but as a supporter of Mohandas Gandhi’s nationalist movement, he boycotted British goods. As a medical student, this meant doing things like wearing Indian-made surgical gloves, instead of the English products that were expected of the students. Such actions led Dr. SubbaRow to receive a kind of second-rate medical degree, rather than the prestigious MBBS.

The political situation also led Dr. SubbaRow to emigrate to the United States, where, ironically, his medical degree initially was taken less seriously than it had been taken in his British-occupied homeland. He thus worked in the capacity of a hospital night porter at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital (the future Brigham and Women’s Hospital), doing menial tasks like changing sheets to make ends meet. He studied, however, and made enough of an impression to gain admission to the same institution that also admitted Farber through the backdoor, Harvard Medical School. This launched him into a research career in which he not only would be instrumental in developing folate antagonists and other classes of drugs, but also would make him the codiscoverer of the role of creatine phosphate and ATP in cellular energy metabolism. Sadly, even after obtaining his top-notch American credentials and contributing through his research to what you might say is a good chunk of the biochemistry pathways that first year medical students memorize without ever learning who discovered them, Dr. SubbaRow still faced prejudice for the rest of his life, which turned out to last only until the age of 53. To add insult to injury, he is rarely remembered for his role.

Dr. Farber proceeded with the folic acid supplementation idea in patients with ALL, even though ALL caused a hypoproliferative anemia, whereas anemia from folate deficiency was megaloblastic, meaning that erythrocytes were produced but they were oversized and dysfunctional. Tragically, folic acid had accelerated the disease process in children with ALL, but the process of chemical experimentation aimed at synthesizing folate also produced some compounds that mimicked chemical precursors of folate in a way that made them antifolates, inhibitors of folate metabolism. If folic acid made lymphoblasts grow faster, Dr. Farber had reasoned that antifolates should inhibit their growth. He thus asked the chemistry lab to focus on folate inhibitors. Testing aminopterin, beginning with young Robert Sandler at the end of December, is what proved his hypothesis correct. By late January, aminopterin had brought the child’s WBC count down to the realm of 12,000, just slightly above normal, with symptoms and signs abating as well, and by February, the child could play with his twin brother. It was not a cure; malignant lymphoblasts still showed on microscopy of Robert’s blood. While he and some 15 other children whom Dr. Farber treated in this early trial would all succumb to ALL, they experienced remission lasting several months.

This was a big deal because the concept of chemotherapy was based only on serendipitous observations of WBC counts dropping in soldiers exposed to nitrogen mustard gas during World War I and during an incident in World War II, yet aminopterin had been designed from the ground up. Though difficult to synthesize in quantities, there was no reason for Dr. Farber’s team not to keep tweaking the drug, and so they did. Replacing one hydrogen atom with a methyl group, they turned it into methotrexate.

Proving easier to synthesize and less toxic, methotrexate would become a workhorse for chemotherapy over the next couple of decades, but the capability of both methotrexate and aminopterin to blunt the growth of white blood cells and other cells did not go unnoticed outside the realm of oncology. As early as the 1950s, dermatologists were using aminopterin to treat psoriasis. This led to the approval of methotrexate for psoriasis in 1972.

Meanwhile, like oncology, infectious diseases, aviation medicine, and so many other areas of practice, rheumatology had gotten a major boost from research stemming from World War II. During the war, Dr. Philip Hench of the Mayo Clinic developed cortisone, which pilots used to stay alert and energetic during trans-Atlantic flights. But it turned out that cortisone had a powerful immunosuppressive effect that dramatically improved rheumatoid arthritis, leading Dr. Hench to receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1950. By the end of the 1950s, however, the significant side effects of long-term corticosteroid therapy were very clear, so over the next few decades there was a major effort to develop different treatments for RA and other rheumatologic diseases.

Top on the list of such agents was methotrexate, developed for RA in part by Dr. Michael Weinblatt of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. In the 1980s, Dr. Weinblatt published the first clinical trial showing the benefits of methotrexate for RA patients. This has since developed into a standard treatment, noticeably different from the original malignancy application in that it is a low-dose regimen. Patients taking methotrexate for RA typically receive no more than 25 mg per week orally, and often much less. Rheumatology today includes expertise in keeping long-term methotrexate therapy safe by monitoring liver function and through other routine tests. The routine nature of the therapy has brought methotrexate to the point of beckoning in a realm that Dr. Farber might not have predicted in his wildest imagination: cardiology. This is on account of the growing appreciation of the inflammatory process in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic heart disease.

Meanwhile, being an antimetabolite, harmful to rapidly dividing cells, the danger of methotrexate to the embryo and fetus was recognized early. This made methotrexate off-limits to pregnant women, yet it also has made the drug useful as an abortifacient. Though not as good for medication abortion in unwanted but thriving pregnancies, where mifepristone/misoprostol has become the regimen of choice, methotrexate has become a workhorse in other obstetrical settings, such as for ending ectopic pregnancy.

Looking at the present and into the future, the potential for this very old medication looks wide open, as if it could go in any direction, so let’s wind up the discussion with the thought that we may be in for some surprises. Rather than jumping deeply into any rheumatologic issue, we spent most of this article weaving through other medical issues, but does this not make today’s story fairly analogous to rheumatology itself?

Dr. Warmflash is a physician from Portland, Ore. He reported no conflicts of interest.

This story was updated 2/10/2023.

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

If you could go back in time 75 years and tell Dr. Sidney Farber, the developer of methotrexate for cancer therapy, that 21st-century medicine would utilize his specially designed drug more in rheumatology than oncology, he might be surprised. He might scratch his head even more, hearing of his drug sparking interest in still other medical fields, like cardiology.

But drug repurposing is not so uncommon. One classic example is aspirin. Once the most common pain medication and used also in rheumatology, aspirin now finds a range of applications, from colorectal cancer to the prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular thrombosis. Minoxidil is another example, developed for hypertension but used today mostly to stop hair loss. Perhaps most ironic is thalidomide, utilized today for leprosy and multiple myeloma, yet actually contraindicated for its original application, nausea of pregnancy.

Courtesy NIH

Methotrexate, thus, has much in common with other medical treatments, and yet its origin story is as unique and as fascinating as the story of Dr. Farber himself. While this is a rheumatology article, it’s also a story about the origin of a particular rheumatologic treatment, and so the story of that origin will take us mostly through a discussion of hematologic malignancy and of the clinical researcher who dared search for a cure.

Born in 1903, in Buffalo, New York, third of fourteen children of Jewish immigrants from Poland, Dr. Farber grew up in a household that was crowded but academically rigorous. His father, Simon, routinely brought home textbooks, assigning each child a book to read and on which to write a report. His mother, Matilda, was as devoted as her husband to raising the children to succeed in their adopted new country. Upstairs, the children were permitted to speak Yiddish, but downstairs they were required to use only English and German.

As a teen, Dr. Farber lived through the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed at least 50 million people worldwide, including more than 2,000 Buffalonians. This probably helped motivate him to study medicine, but with antisemitism overt in the America of the early 1920s, securing admission to a U.S. medical school was close to impossible. So, in what now seems like the greatest of ironies, Dr. Farber began medical studies in Germany, then transferred for the second year to a U.S. program that seemed adequate – Harvard Medical School, from which he graduated in 1927. From there, he trained as a pathologist, focusing ultimately on pediatric pathology. But, frustrated by case after case of malignancy, whose young victims he’d often have to autopsy, Dr. Farber decided that he wanted to advance the pitiful state of cancer therapeutics, especially for hematologic malignancy.

This was a tall order in the 1930s and early 1940s, when cancer therapeutics consisted only of surgical resection and very primitive forms of radiation therapy. Applicable only to neoplasia that was localized, these options were useless against malignancies in the blood, like acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but by January 1948 there was at least one glimmer of hope. At that time, one patient with ALL, 2-year-old Robert Sandler, was too ill to join his twin brother Elliott for snow play outside their home in the Dorchester section of Boston. Diagnosed back in August, Robert had suffered multiple episodes of fever, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. His illness had enlarged his spleen dramatically and caused pathologic bone fractures with excruciating bone pain, and for a while he couldn’t walk because of pressure on his lower spinal cord. All of this was the result of uncontrolled mitosis and cell division of lymphoblasts, immature lymphocytes. By December, these out-of-control cells had elevated the boy’s white blood cell count to a peak of 70,000/mcL, more than six times the high end of the normal range (4,500-11,000/mcL). This had happened despite treatment with an experimental drug, developed at Boston Children’s Hospital by Dr. Farber and his team, working on the assumption that inhibition of folate metabolism should slow the growth of tumor cells. On Dec. 28, however, Dr. Farber had switched the child to a new drug with a chemical structure just slightly different from the other agent’s.

Merely another chemical modification in a series of attempts by the research team, the new drug, aminopterin, was not expected to do anything dramatic, but Dr. Farber and the team had come such a long way since the middle of 1947, when he’d actually done the opposite of what he was doing now. On the basis of British research from India showing folic acid deficiency as the basis of a common type of anemia in malnourished people, Dr. Farber had reasoned that children with leukemia, who also suffered from anemia, might also benefit from folic acid supplementation. Even without prior rodent testing, Dr. Farber had tried giving the nutrient to patients with ALL, a strategy made possible by the presence of a spectacular chemist working on folic acid synthesis at Farber’s own hospital to help combat folate deficiency. Born into a poor Brahmin family in India, the chemist, Dr. Yellapragada SubbaRow, had begun life with so much stacked against him as to appear even less likely during childhood than the young Dr. Farber to grow up to make major contributions to medicine. Going through childhood with death all around him, Dr. SubbaRow was motivated to study medicine, but getting into medical school had been an uphill fight, given his family’s economic difficulty. Knowing that he’d also face discrimination on account of his low status after receiving admission to a medical program, SubbaRow could have made things a bit easier for himself by living within the norms of the British Imperial system, but as a supporter of Mohandas Gandhi’s nationalist movement, he boycotted British goods. As a medical student, this meant doing things like wearing Indian-made surgical gloves, instead of the English products that were expected of the students. Such actions led Dr. SubbaRow to receive a kind of second-rate medical degree, rather than the prestigious MBBS.

The political situation also led Dr. SubbaRow to emigrate to the United States, where, ironically, his medical degree initially was taken less seriously than it had been taken in his British-occupied homeland. He thus worked in the capacity of a hospital night porter at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital (the future Brigham and Women’s Hospital), doing menial tasks like changing sheets to make ends meet. He studied, however, and made enough of an impression to gain admission to the same institution that also admitted Farber through the backdoor, Harvard Medical School. This launched him into a research career in which he not only would be instrumental in developing folate antagonists and other classes of drugs, but also would make him the codiscoverer of the role of creatine phosphate and ATP in cellular energy metabolism. Sadly, even after obtaining his top-notch American credentials and contributing through his research to what you might say is a good chunk of the biochemistry pathways that first year medical students memorize without ever learning who discovered them, Dr. SubbaRow still faced prejudice for the rest of his life, which turned out to last only until the age of 53. To add insult to injury, he is rarely remembered for his role.

Dr. Farber proceeded with the folic acid supplementation idea in patients with ALL, even though ALL caused a hypoproliferative anemia, whereas anemia from folate deficiency was megaloblastic, meaning that erythrocytes were produced but they were oversized and dysfunctional. Tragically, folic acid had accelerated the disease process in children with ALL, but the process of chemical experimentation aimed at synthesizing folate also produced some compounds that mimicked chemical precursors of folate in a way that made them antifolates, inhibitors of folate metabolism. If folic acid made lymphoblasts grow faster, Dr. Farber had reasoned that antifolates should inhibit their growth. He thus asked the chemistry lab to focus on folate inhibitors. Testing aminopterin, beginning with young Robert Sandler at the end of December, is what proved his hypothesis correct. By late January, aminopterin had brought the child’s WBC count down to the realm of 12,000, just slightly above normal, with symptoms and signs abating as well, and by February, the child could play with his twin brother. It was not a cure; malignant lymphoblasts still showed on microscopy of Robert’s blood. While he and some 15 other children whom Dr. Farber treated in this early trial would all succumb to ALL, they experienced remission lasting several months.

This was a big deal because the concept of chemotherapy was based only on serendipitous observations of WBC counts dropping in soldiers exposed to nitrogen mustard gas during World War I and during an incident in World War II, yet aminopterin had been designed from the ground up. Though difficult to synthesize in quantities, there was no reason for Dr. Farber’s team not to keep tweaking the drug, and so they did. Replacing one hydrogen atom with a methyl group, they turned it into methotrexate.

Proving easier to synthesize and less toxic, methotrexate would become a workhorse for chemotherapy over the next couple of decades, but the capability of both methotrexate and aminopterin to blunt the growth of white blood cells and other cells did not go unnoticed outside the realm of oncology. As early as the 1950s, dermatologists were using aminopterin to treat psoriasis. This led to the approval of methotrexate for psoriasis in 1972.

Meanwhile, like oncology, infectious diseases, aviation medicine, and so many other areas of practice, rheumatology had gotten a major boost from research stemming from World War II. During the war, Dr. Philip Hench of the Mayo Clinic developed cortisone, which pilots used to stay alert and energetic during trans-Atlantic flights. But it turned out that cortisone had a powerful immunosuppressive effect that dramatically improved rheumatoid arthritis, leading Dr. Hench to receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1950. By the end of the 1950s, however, the significant side effects of long-term corticosteroid therapy were very clear, so over the next few decades there was a major effort to develop different treatments for RA and other rheumatologic diseases.

Top on the list of such agents was methotrexate, developed for RA in part by Dr. Michael Weinblatt of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. In the 1980s, Dr. Weinblatt published the first clinical trial showing the benefits of methotrexate for RA patients. This has since developed into a standard treatment, noticeably different from the original malignancy application in that it is a low-dose regimen. Patients taking methotrexate for RA typically receive no more than 25 mg per week orally, and often much less. Rheumatology today includes expertise in keeping long-term methotrexate therapy safe by monitoring liver function and through other routine tests. The routine nature of the therapy has brought methotrexate to the point of beckoning in a realm that Dr. Farber might not have predicted in his wildest imagination: cardiology. This is on account of the growing appreciation of the inflammatory process in the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic heart disease.

Meanwhile, being an antimetabolite, harmful to rapidly dividing cells, the danger of methotrexate to the embryo and fetus was recognized early. This made methotrexate off-limits to pregnant women, yet it also has made the drug useful as an abortifacient. Though not as good for medication abortion in unwanted but thriving pregnancies, where mifepristone/misoprostol has become the regimen of choice, methotrexate has become a workhorse in other obstetrical settings, such as for ending ectopic pregnancy.

Looking at the present and into the future, the potential for this very old medication looks wide open, as if it could go in any direction, so let’s wind up the discussion with the thought that we may be in for some surprises. Rather than jumping deeply into any rheumatologic issue, we spent most of this article weaving through other medical issues, but does this not make today’s story fairly analogous to rheumatology itself?

Dr. Warmflash is a physician from Portland, Ore. He reported no conflicts of interest.

This story was updated 2/10/2023.

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”

I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.

The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
 

The patient’s voice in research and advocacy

The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.

More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
 

Accelerated research

Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.

It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.

So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”

I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.

The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
 

The patient’s voice in research and advocacy

The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.

More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
 

Accelerated research

Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.

It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.

So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Several decades ago, a new patient came to my office with her family. She was elderly, in good health, spoke no English, and her extended family translated for her. Their request: “Don’t tell her that she has cancer.” Sharing her diagnosis with her would cause too much stress, they said. Their mother would not be able to tolerate the bad news, they said. She would “give up.”

I asked her (through her family and an interpreter) how much she wanted to know about what was going on, or would she prefer I confine my remarks to her family? It turns out that she did want to know her diagnosis and prognosis, and after a thorough discussion in front of her family about her treatment options, she decided she did not want to proceed with additional therapy. She wanted to focus on quality of life. I did not get the impression that this is what her family would have opted for.

The patient’s voice can take multiple directions, such as making informed decisions about their own care. When empowered, patients can and will express their wants, needs, feelings, and priorities to their providers, and they’ll participate in directing their own care. There is a growing body of evidence that shows patients who are more engaged and share decision-making with their health care professionals have better health outcomes and care experiences. Engaged patients feel more empowered and are more motivated to take action. They’re also more likely to follow treatment plans, take their medications, and heed their provider’s recommendations. By virtue of better treatments for lung cancer, many patients are living longer and better lives. Some of these patients even become “experts” on their own care, often bringing questions about research and clinical trials to the attention of their providers.
 

The patient’s voice in research and advocacy

The patient’s perspective is also key to a meaningful, successful clinical research project. Rather than being carried out to, about, or for the patient, patient involvement means research being carried out with or by patients. A patient and researcher may have different research goals. For example, patients may value being able to work, be with family, and live without pain, whereas a clinical researcher’s goal may be inducing responses. Patient involvement is important in both laboratory research and clinical research. The best-designed projects involve patient advocates from the beginning of the project to help make research relevant and meaningful to patients and include these perspectives through project completion.

More and more pharmaceutical companies are actively involving patients at all levels of protocol development, including protocol design and selection of relevant outcomes to patients. Benefits of engaging patients as partners in research include inclusion of real-world data, increased study enrollment, and translation of results to the cancer community in an understandable and accessible manner.
 

Accelerated research

Advocating for accelerated research is another area where the patient’s voice is important. Patients can and do identify research priorities for researchers, funding agencies, and pharma. Patients who support research advocacy are frequently part of meetings and panel discussions with researchers, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Cancer Institute. And, they serve on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies. They participate in grant reviews and institutional review boards, review manuscripts, and are active members of the cooperative groups and other professional societies. In fact, patient-led advocacy groups are raising money to help fund research they feel is most important to them. In lung cancer, for example, there are many groups organized around biomarkers, including the EGFR Resisters, ALK Positive, ROS1ders, MET Crusaders, and KRAS Kickers, who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund investigator-led translational research that would not have occurred without their involvement.

It is important to recognize that all patients are different and have different values and motivations that are important to them and influence their life decisions. Some patients want to know more about their condition and their preferences should be respected. Similarly, it’s critical to understand that not every patient is an advocate and not every advocate is a research advocate. Research advocates have more in-depth knowledge about the science of lung cancer and focus on representing the patient perspective for all lung cancer patients.

So, getting back to my original story: Did my patient “give up” by choosing palliative care without chemotherapy? Perhaps, but I don’t think she considered her decision “giving up.” Instead, she made the best decision possible for herself. What would have happened had she not been told of her diagnosis? She probably would not have spent extra quality time with her family, as they tried to ignore the obvious. And, after all, quality time with her family was all she wanted.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.

Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.

Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.

Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Prior to 1993, a multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis could often mean an abbreviated lifespan marked by progressive disability and loss of function. That changed when the Food and Drug Administration approved interferon beta-1b (Betaseron) in 1993, which revolutionized MS therapy and gave hope to the entire MS community.

"The most surprising thing about MS management over the last 30 years is that we’ve been able to treat MS – especially relapsing MS,” said Fred D. Lublin, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis in Mount Sinai in New York. “The approval of interferon was a major therapeutic advancement because it was the first treatment for what was an untreatable disease.”

Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center of South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., agrees.

“For people with MS, it’s an extraordinarily lucky and amazingly optimistic time,” he said. “Before interferon beta-1b, MS was called ‘the crippler of young adults’ because more than 50% of these people would require a walker 10 years after diagnosis, and a large number of young and middle-age patients with MS were residing in nursing homes.”

Treatment options, treatment challenges

Dr. Gudesblatt points out that having numerous therapies from which to choose is both a blessing and a problem.

“The good news is that there are so many options for treating relapsing MS today,” he said. “The bad news is there are so many options. Like doctors who are treating high blood pressure, doctors managing patients with MS often struggle to determine which medication is best for individual patients.”

Despite the promise of vastly better outcomes and prolonged lifespan, MS therapy still faces its share of challenges, including effective therapies for progressive MS and reparative-restorative therapies.

“Choice in route of administration and timing of administration allow for larger and broader discussions to try to meet patients’ needs,” Dr. Lublin said. “We’ve been extremely successful at treating relapses, but not as successful in treating progressive disease.”

The unclear mechanism of pathogenesis amplifies the challenges clinicians face in successful management of patients with MS. For example, experts agree that the therapies for progressive MS have only proven moderately effective at best. The paucity of therapies available for progressive MS and the limitations of the current therapies further limit the outcomes.
 

Looking ahead

Experts expressed optimistic views about the future of MS therapy as a whole. From Dr. Lublin’s perspective, the MS community stands to gain valuable insights from emerging research focused on treating progressive disease along with new testing to understand the underlying mechanism of progressive disease. Enhanced understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of progressive MS coupled with the ability to diagnose MS – such as improved MRI techniques – have facilitated this process.

Among the therapies with novel mechanisms of action in the pipeline include agents that generate myelin sheath repair. Another potential therapeutic class on the horizon, known as TPK inhibitors, addresses the smoldering of the disease. With these and other therapeutic advances, Dr. Lublin hopes to see better control of progressive disease.
 

An agenda for the future

In addition, barriers such as access to care, cost, insurance coverage, and tolerance remain ongoing stressors that will likely continue weighing on the MS community and its stakeholders into the future.

Dr. Gudesblatt concluded that advancing MS outcomes in the future hinges on several additional factors.

“We need medicines that are better for relapse and progression; medicines that are better tolerated and safer; and better medicine to address the underlying disease as well as its symptoms. But we also need to appreciate, recognize, and address cognitive impairment along the MS continuum and develop effective reparative options,” he said.

Regardless, he emphasized that these “amazing advancements” in MS therapy have renewed hope that research may identify and expand effective treatments for multiple other neurologic conditions such as muscular dystrophies, neurodegenerative and genetic disorders, movement disorders, and dysautonomia-related diseases. Like MS, all of these conditions have limited therapies, some of which have minimal efficacy. But none of these other disorders has disease-modifying therapies currently available.
 

‘A beacon of hope’

“MS is the beacon of hope for multiple disease states because it’s cracked the door wide open,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. Relapse no longer gauges the prognosis of today’s MS patient – a prognosis both experts think will only continue to improve with forthcoming innovations.

While the challenges for MS still exist, the bright future that lies ahead may eventually eclipse them.

Prior to 1993, a multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis could often mean an abbreviated lifespan marked by progressive disability and loss of function. That changed when the Food and Drug Administration approved interferon beta-1b (Betaseron) in 1993, which revolutionized MS therapy and gave hope to the entire MS community.

"The most surprising thing about MS management over the last 30 years is that we’ve been able to treat MS – especially relapsing MS,” said Fred D. Lublin, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis in Mount Sinai in New York. “The approval of interferon was a major therapeutic advancement because it was the first treatment for what was an untreatable disease.”

Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center of South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., agrees.

“For people with MS, it’s an extraordinarily lucky and amazingly optimistic time,” he said. “Before interferon beta-1b, MS was called ‘the crippler of young adults’ because more than 50% of these people would require a walker 10 years after diagnosis, and a large number of young and middle-age patients with MS were residing in nursing homes.”

Treatment options, treatment challenges

Dr. Gudesblatt points out that having numerous therapies from which to choose is both a blessing and a problem.

“The good news is that there are so many options for treating relapsing MS today,” he said. “The bad news is there are so many options. Like doctors who are treating high blood pressure, doctors managing patients with MS often struggle to determine which medication is best for individual patients.”

Despite the promise of vastly better outcomes and prolonged lifespan, MS therapy still faces its share of challenges, including effective therapies for progressive MS and reparative-restorative therapies.

“Choice in route of administration and timing of administration allow for larger and broader discussions to try to meet patients’ needs,” Dr. Lublin said. “We’ve been extremely successful at treating relapses, but not as successful in treating progressive disease.”

The unclear mechanism of pathogenesis amplifies the challenges clinicians face in successful management of patients with MS. For example, experts agree that the therapies for progressive MS have only proven moderately effective at best. The paucity of therapies available for progressive MS and the limitations of the current therapies further limit the outcomes.
 

Looking ahead

Experts expressed optimistic views about the future of MS therapy as a whole. From Dr. Lublin’s perspective, the MS community stands to gain valuable insights from emerging research focused on treating progressive disease along with new testing to understand the underlying mechanism of progressive disease. Enhanced understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of progressive MS coupled with the ability to diagnose MS – such as improved MRI techniques – have facilitated this process.

Among the therapies with novel mechanisms of action in the pipeline include agents that generate myelin sheath repair. Another potential therapeutic class on the horizon, known as TPK inhibitors, addresses the smoldering of the disease. With these and other therapeutic advances, Dr. Lublin hopes to see better control of progressive disease.
 

An agenda for the future

In addition, barriers such as access to care, cost, insurance coverage, and tolerance remain ongoing stressors that will likely continue weighing on the MS community and its stakeholders into the future.

Dr. Gudesblatt concluded that advancing MS outcomes in the future hinges on several additional factors.

“We need medicines that are better for relapse and progression; medicines that are better tolerated and safer; and better medicine to address the underlying disease as well as its symptoms. But we also need to appreciate, recognize, and address cognitive impairment along the MS continuum and develop effective reparative options,” he said.

Regardless, he emphasized that these “amazing advancements” in MS therapy have renewed hope that research may identify and expand effective treatments for multiple other neurologic conditions such as muscular dystrophies, neurodegenerative and genetic disorders, movement disorders, and dysautonomia-related diseases. Like MS, all of these conditions have limited therapies, some of which have minimal efficacy. But none of these other disorders has disease-modifying therapies currently available.
 

‘A beacon of hope’

“MS is the beacon of hope for multiple disease states because it’s cracked the door wide open,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. Relapse no longer gauges the prognosis of today’s MS patient – a prognosis both experts think will only continue to improve with forthcoming innovations.

While the challenges for MS still exist, the bright future that lies ahead may eventually eclipse them.

Prior to 1993, a multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis could often mean an abbreviated lifespan marked by progressive disability and loss of function. That changed when the Food and Drug Administration approved interferon beta-1b (Betaseron) in 1993, which revolutionized MS therapy and gave hope to the entire MS community.

"The most surprising thing about MS management over the last 30 years is that we’ve been able to treat MS – especially relapsing MS,” said Fred D. Lublin, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis in Mount Sinai in New York. “The approval of interferon was a major therapeutic advancement because it was the first treatment for what was an untreatable disease.”

Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center of South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., agrees.

“For people with MS, it’s an extraordinarily lucky and amazingly optimistic time,” he said. “Before interferon beta-1b, MS was called ‘the crippler of young adults’ because more than 50% of these people would require a walker 10 years after diagnosis, and a large number of young and middle-age patients with MS were residing in nursing homes.”

Treatment options, treatment challenges

Dr. Gudesblatt points out that having numerous therapies from which to choose is both a blessing and a problem.

“The good news is that there are so many options for treating relapsing MS today,” he said. “The bad news is there are so many options. Like doctors who are treating high blood pressure, doctors managing patients with MS often struggle to determine which medication is best for individual patients.”

Despite the promise of vastly better outcomes and prolonged lifespan, MS therapy still faces its share of challenges, including effective therapies for progressive MS and reparative-restorative therapies.

“Choice in route of administration and timing of administration allow for larger and broader discussions to try to meet patients’ needs,” Dr. Lublin said. “We’ve been extremely successful at treating relapses, but not as successful in treating progressive disease.”

The unclear mechanism of pathogenesis amplifies the challenges clinicians face in successful management of patients with MS. For example, experts agree that the therapies for progressive MS have only proven moderately effective at best. The paucity of therapies available for progressive MS and the limitations of the current therapies further limit the outcomes.
 

Looking ahead

Experts expressed optimistic views about the future of MS therapy as a whole. From Dr. Lublin’s perspective, the MS community stands to gain valuable insights from emerging research focused on treating progressive disease along with new testing to understand the underlying mechanism of progressive disease. Enhanced understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of progressive MS coupled with the ability to diagnose MS – such as improved MRI techniques – have facilitated this process.

Among the therapies with novel mechanisms of action in the pipeline include agents that generate myelin sheath repair. Another potential therapeutic class on the horizon, known as TPK inhibitors, addresses the smoldering of the disease. With these and other therapeutic advances, Dr. Lublin hopes to see better control of progressive disease.
 

An agenda for the future

In addition, barriers such as access to care, cost, insurance coverage, and tolerance remain ongoing stressors that will likely continue weighing on the MS community and its stakeholders into the future.

Dr. Gudesblatt concluded that advancing MS outcomes in the future hinges on several additional factors.

“We need medicines that are better for relapse and progression; medicines that are better tolerated and safer; and better medicine to address the underlying disease as well as its symptoms. But we also need to appreciate, recognize, and address cognitive impairment along the MS continuum and develop effective reparative options,” he said.

Regardless, he emphasized that these “amazing advancements” in MS therapy have renewed hope that research may identify and expand effective treatments for multiple other neurologic conditions such as muscular dystrophies, neurodegenerative and genetic disorders, movement disorders, and dysautonomia-related diseases. Like MS, all of these conditions have limited therapies, some of which have minimal efficacy. But none of these other disorders has disease-modifying therapies currently available.
 

‘A beacon of hope’

“MS is the beacon of hope for multiple disease states because it’s cracked the door wide open,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. Relapse no longer gauges the prognosis of today’s MS patient – a prognosis both experts think will only continue to improve with forthcoming innovations.

While the challenges for MS still exist, the bright future that lies ahead may eventually eclipse them.