Neurology Reviews

Until 2006, when a breakthrough therapy first made treatment possible, Pompe disease was a little-known metabolic myopathy fatal to infants. Those with later-onset disease experienced progressive, often severe disability into adulthood.

In this rare autosomal recessive disorder, which occurs in approximately one in 40,000 births worldwide, a deficiency or absence of the enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase causes glycogen to build up in the lysosomes of cells. While many tissues are affected, skeletal and cardiac muscle see the earliest involvement, with muscle hypotonia, cardiomyopathy, and breathing difficulties (mainly due to diaphragm weakness) comprising the hallmark symptoms of the infantile form. Muscle weakness and progressive respiratory failure are prominent in later-onset disease.

Diagnosis: Still room to improve

“Most neurologists will encounter a patient with Pompe disease,” said Dr. Kishnani, who has been working with Pompe for her entire career as a pediatrician and medical geneticist, treating patients of all ages and disease phenotypes.

“In newborns, diagnosis is more straightforward, because you’ve got an enlarged heart,” she said. And thanks to efforts of researchers like Dr. Kishnani and Pompe advocacy groups, Pompe disease is now a part of the RUSP (Recommended Uniform Screening Panel) for newborns; currently 28 U.S. states are screening for Pompe disease.

“The challenge really is for the later-onset cases, which are 80% of all cases,” Dr. Kishnani said.

Previously, muscle biopsies were the first step toward diagnosis. Dried blot spot assays to detect enzyme deficiency have since become the standard, along with other biochemical tests. Confirmation of the diagnosis is through gene sequencing panels to detect GAA mutations.

“Now that there is a treatment for Pompe disease and the availability of blood-based testing, many previously undiagnosed patients with limb girdle weakness are evaluated and the diagnostic odyssey ends,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is still a diagnostic delay, and many cases remain undiagnosed.”

Routine blood tests for creatine kinase and for liver enzymes can help point to Pompe disease. But elevated liver enzymes are often misinterpreted. “It’s about the ratios,” Dr. Kishnani said. “ALT is usually much more elevated if it is coming from a liver cause, and AST is usually higher than ALT if it is coming from muscle. But patients often end up getting a liver biopsy due to so-called elevated liver enzymes. As the workup continues, it is often later recognized that the source of the elevated enzymes is muscle involvement, and a referral to the geneticist or neurologist is made. Only then is appropriate testing to confirm a diagnosis initiated.”

Dr. Toscano, a neurologist who specializes in Pompe disease and other myopathies and who has published on tools for diagnosing late-onset Pompe disease,¹ said that clinicians should be vigilant when evaluating any patient with limb girdle weakness and elevated creatine kinase (CK) – “especially if the CK is under 2,000,” he said, “because it is very rare that patients with Pompe disease have a more elevated CK than that.”

“Elevated CK, myalgia, and exercise intolerance” should prompt clinicians to suspect Pompe disease in a patient of any age, Dr. Toscano said. “When you come across this, you should be very persistent and get to the end of the story.”

Dr. Toscano noted that the blood spot assay, while an important early step, is not fully diagnostic, “because you can have false positives.” The molecular GAA assay is used to confirm Pompe disease. But detecting pathogenic variants on the GAA gene – of which there are more than 500 – can be more complicated than it sounds. Whereas two mutations are required for Pompe disease, sometimes only one can be detected. Dr. Toscano said he also treated some patients for Pompe with only one known mutation but with unequivocal clinical and biochemical aspects of Pompe disease.

While delays in diagnosis for late-onset Pompe disease remain significant -- between 5 and 6 years on average for older patients, and up to 20 years for those with pediatric onset – both Dr. Kishnani and Dr. Toscano said they perceive them to be improving. With McArdle disease, another inherited glycogen storage disorder that is more common than Pompe disease but for which there is no treatment, “the delay is nearly 12 years,” Dr. Toscano said.
 

ERT: The sooner the better

Enzyme replacement therapy is indicated for all patients with Pompe disease. Currently two are commercially available: alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme, Sanofi Genzyme), indicated for all forms of Pompe disease, and avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), approved in 2021 for later-onset Pompe, though its indications have yet to be fully defined.

The semimonthly infusions represent, to date, the only disease-modifying therapies commercially available. Enzyme replacement therapy can reverse cardiac damage seen in infants and allow them to meet developmental milestones previously unthinkable. In adults, it can slow progression, though many treated patients will still develop chronic disability and require a wheelchair, respiratory support, or both. “The phenotype of the patients we are seeing today is not as involved as it was prior to enzyme therapy,” said Dr. Kishnani, who was part of the research team that developed ERT and launched the first clinical trials. “This is across the disease spectrum.”

But optimal management means more than just getting a patient on therapy fast, Dr. Kishnani said.

“Very often the thinking is if the patient is on ERT, we’ve done right by the patient. Aspects we don’t look at enough include: Are we monitoring these patients well? Are patients being followed by a multidisciplinary team that includes cardiology, physical therapy, and pulmonary medicine? Are we doing appropriate musculoskeletal assessments? They might have sleep hypoventilation. The BiPap settings may not be correct. Or they have not been assessed for antibodies,” she said.

Many infants with severe phenotypes, notably those who produce no enzyme naturally, will develop immune reactions to the exogenous enzyme therapy. High antibody titers also have been seen and are associated with poor therapeutic response. While this is very clear in the infantile setting, late-onset patients also develop antibodies in response to ERT. In one study in 64 patients,² Dr. Toscano and his colleagues saw that antibodies may affect clinical response during the first 3 years of treatment, while a small study³ by Dr. Kishnani’s group saw clinical decline associated with high antibody titers in patients with late-onset disease.

While the relationship of specific titers to therapeutic response remains unclear, it is important to consider antibodies, along with other factors, in the monitoring of patients with Pompe disease. “We need to always ask, if a patient is falling behind, what could be the reason?” Dr. Kishnani said. “These are the things we as clinicians can do to improve or enhance the impact of ERT.”

Dr. Toscano noted that a common misconception about late-onset Pompe disease is that cardiac manifestations are minimal or absent, whereas as many as about 20% of patients will have heart problems and need to be carefully monitored.
 

Neurological manifestations

With patients surviving longer on ERT, researchers have been able to develop a deeper understanding of the natural history of Pompe disease. Increasingly, they are seeing it as a multisystem disease that includes central nervous system involvement.

“Is Pompe an overt neurodegenerative disease? I would say no,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is a neurological component that we’ve got to understand and follow more.”

Glycogen accumulation, she noted, has been found in anterior horn cells, motor neurons, and other parts of the brain. “We have been doing MRIs on children with infantile Pompe, and we have seen some white matter hyperintensities. The clinical significance of this finding is still emerging. Sometimes it is present, but the child is cognitively intact. We have had college graduates who have white matter hyperintensities. So putting it in context will be important. But we know that glycogen is ubiquitous, and autopsy studies have shown that it is present in the brain.”

In recent years, Dr. Toscano’s group has investigated neurovascular complications of Pompe in late-onset patients. “This was something that really surprised us because for several years we have investigated mainly heart, muscle, or respiratory manifestations of the disease, but the central nervous system was really neglected,” he said.

“Occasionally we did some brain MRIs and we found in even young patients some ischemic areas. We thought this was related to slowed circulation – that blood vessels in these patients are weak because they are impaired by glycogen accumulation.” Dr. Toscano and his colleagues followed that observation with a study of late-onset patients,⁴ in which they found that more than half had cerebrovascular abnormalities. “Even in, say, patients 30 to 35 years old we saw this – it’s unusual to have a vascular disorder at that age.”

Dr. Toscano and his colleagues also reported cerebral aneurysms⁵ in patients with Pompe disease and have recommended that clinicians conduct MRI or cerebral angiograms on patients as part of routine follow-up. Blood pressure in Pompe patients should be carefully watched and managed with antihypertensive medication as needed, he said.

Part of the problem is that the proteins in ERT are not able to cross the blood-brain barrier, Dr. Toscano noted, adding that researchers are investigating other treatments that can.
 

Pompe disease as a research model

The successful development of ERT for Pompe disease marked a boom in research interest into not just Pompe – for which several experimental therapies are currently in the pipeline – but for other myopathies and glycogen storage disorders.

“I think that Pompe has served as a template both as a muscle disease and a lysosomal storage disease, and so some of our learnings from Pompe have been applied across different diseases,” Dr. Kishnani said.

Studies in spinal muscular atrophy, for example, “in some ways mirrored what was done for Pompe – treatment trials were initiated in babies at the most severe end of the disease population with infantile disease, and used similar clinical trial endpoints,” Dr. Kishnani said. “Even for the later-onset end of the spectrum, the endpoints we used in Pompe for muscle strength and function have been relevant to many other neuromuscular disorders.”

Pompe disease research also ushered in a new appreciation of immune responses in protein replacement therapies, Dr. Kishnani noted.

“In the field today, you hear the term cross-reactive immunological material, or CRIM, all the time,” she said. “But when we first started talking about it in the space of Pompe disease, there was a lot of scientific debate about what the significance of CRIM-negative status was in relationship to the risk for development of high and sustained antibody titer and a poor clinical response. To understand this involved a lot of going back to the data and digging into the small subset of nonresponders. One of the powers of rare disease research is that every patient matters, and it’s important to understand what’s going on at the patient level rather than just the group data level.”
 

A robust pipeline

The decade and a half since the advent of ERT has seen what Dr. Toscano described as “an explosion of interest” in Pompe disease.

“We’re seeing an extraordinary number of papers on everything from clinical, biomarkers, genetics, and rehabilitation – this disease is now considered from every point of view, and this is very important for patients,” Dr. Toscano said. Alongside this has come industry interest in this rare disease, with several companies investigating a range of treatment approaches.

The existence of a treatment, “while not perfect,” he said, “has interested the patient associations and doctors to try and improve service to patients. Patients with Pompe disease are well attended, probably more so than patients with degenerative disorders in which there is no therapy.”

Last year the second ERT, avalglucosidase alfa (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat late-onset Pompe disease. The drug, currently being investigated in infants as well, was designed to improve the delivery of the therapeutic enzyme to muscles and enhance glycogen clearance, and results from ongoing trials suggest some functional and clinical benefit over standard ERT.

Other drugs in development for Pompe disease include substrate reduction therapies, which aim to reduce the storage of glycogen in cells, and therapies that improve residual function of mutant GAA enzyme in the body. These and other therapies in development have the potential to modify nervous system manifestations of Pompe disease.⁶

Because a single gene is implicated in Pompe disease, it has long been considered a good candidate for gene therapies that prompt the body to make stable enzyme. Seven companies are now investigating gene therapies in Pompe disease.⁷ Some of these deliver to skeletal muscles and others aim for the liver, where proteins are synthesized and secreted and adverse immune responses might be more easily mitigated. Other gene therapies use an ex vivo approach, removing and replacing cells in bone marrow.

Dr. Kishnani’s research group at Duke University is leading a small clinical trial in late-onset patients of a GAA gene transfer to the liver using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors.⁸

“We have started AAV gene therapy trials in in adults with Pompe disease and will later evaluate children because ERT is available as a standard of care, and so from a safety perspective this makes the most sense,” Dr. Kishnani said. “We do have challenges in the field of gene therapy, but I think if we are able to overcome the immune responses, and … to treat at a lower dose, there’s a very good pathway forward.”

Dr. Toscano and Dr. Kishnani have received reimbursement from Sanofi and other manufacturers for participation on advisory boards and as speakers.



Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist and editor specializing in medicine and health.

References

1. Musumeci O, Toscano A. Diagnostic tools in late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):286. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.06.60.

2. Filosto M et al. Assessing the role of anti rh-GAA in modulating response to ERT in a late-onset Pompe disease cohort from the Italian GSDII Study Group. Adv Ther. 2019 May;36(5):1177-1189. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00926-5.

3. Patel TT et al. The impact of antibodies in late-onset Pompe disease: A case series and literature review. Mol Genet Metab. 2012 Jul;106(3):301-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2012.04.027.

4. Montagnese F et al. Intracranial arterial abnormalities in patients with late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). J Inherit Metab Dis. 2016 May;39(3):391-398. doi: 10.1007/s10545-015-9913-x.

5. Musumeci O et al. Central nervous system involvement in late-onset Pompe disease: Clues from neuroimaging and neuropsychological analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2019 Mar;26(3):442-e35. doi: 10.1111/ene.13835.

6. Edelmann MJ, Maegawa GHB. CNS-targeting therapies for lysosomal storage diseases: Current advances and challenges. Front Mol Biosci. 2020 Nov 12;7:559804. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.559804

7. Ronzitti G et al. Progress and challenges of gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):287. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.04.67.

8. Kishnani PS, Koeberl DD. Liver depot gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):288. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.05.02.

Until 2006, when a breakthrough therapy first made treatment possible, Pompe disease was a little-known metabolic myopathy fatal to infants. Those with later-onset disease experienced progressive, often severe disability into adulthood.

In this rare autosomal recessive disorder, which occurs in approximately one in 40,000 births worldwide, a deficiency or absence of the enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase causes glycogen to build up in the lysosomes of cells. While many tissues are affected, skeletal and cardiac muscle see the earliest involvement, with muscle hypotonia, cardiomyopathy, and breathing difficulties (mainly due to diaphragm weakness) comprising the hallmark symptoms of the infantile form. Muscle weakness and progressive respiratory failure are prominent in later-onset disease.

Diagnosis: Still room to improve

“Most neurologists will encounter a patient with Pompe disease,” said Dr. Kishnani, who has been working with Pompe for her entire career as a pediatrician and medical geneticist, treating patients of all ages and disease phenotypes.

“In newborns, diagnosis is more straightforward, because you’ve got an enlarged heart,” she said. And thanks to efforts of researchers like Dr. Kishnani and Pompe advocacy groups, Pompe disease is now a part of the RUSP (Recommended Uniform Screening Panel) for newborns; currently 28 U.S. states are screening for Pompe disease.

“The challenge really is for the later-onset cases, which are 80% of all cases,” Dr. Kishnani said.

Previously, muscle biopsies were the first step toward diagnosis. Dried blot spot assays to detect enzyme deficiency have since become the standard, along with other biochemical tests. Confirmation of the diagnosis is through gene sequencing panels to detect GAA mutations.

“Now that there is a treatment for Pompe disease and the availability of blood-based testing, many previously undiagnosed patients with limb girdle weakness are evaluated and the diagnostic odyssey ends,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is still a diagnostic delay, and many cases remain undiagnosed.”

Routine blood tests for creatine kinase and for liver enzymes can help point to Pompe disease. But elevated liver enzymes are often misinterpreted. “It’s about the ratios,” Dr. Kishnani said. “ALT is usually much more elevated if it is coming from a liver cause, and AST is usually higher than ALT if it is coming from muscle. But patients often end up getting a liver biopsy due to so-called elevated liver enzymes. As the workup continues, it is often later recognized that the source of the elevated enzymes is muscle involvement, and a referral to the geneticist or neurologist is made. Only then is appropriate testing to confirm a diagnosis initiated.”

Dr. Toscano, a neurologist who specializes in Pompe disease and other myopathies and who has published on tools for diagnosing late-onset Pompe disease,¹ said that clinicians should be vigilant when evaluating any patient with limb girdle weakness and elevated creatine kinase (CK) – “especially if the CK is under 2,000,” he said, “because it is very rare that patients with Pompe disease have a more elevated CK than that.”

“Elevated CK, myalgia, and exercise intolerance” should prompt clinicians to suspect Pompe disease in a patient of any age, Dr. Toscano said. “When you come across this, you should be very persistent and get to the end of the story.”

Dr. Toscano noted that the blood spot assay, while an important early step, is not fully diagnostic, “because you can have false positives.” The molecular GAA assay is used to confirm Pompe disease. But detecting pathogenic variants on the GAA gene – of which there are more than 500 – can be more complicated than it sounds. Whereas two mutations are required for Pompe disease, sometimes only one can be detected. Dr. Toscano said he also treated some patients for Pompe with only one known mutation but with unequivocal clinical and biochemical aspects of Pompe disease.

While delays in diagnosis for late-onset Pompe disease remain significant -- between 5 and 6 years on average for older patients, and up to 20 years for those with pediatric onset – both Dr. Kishnani and Dr. Toscano said they perceive them to be improving. With McArdle disease, another inherited glycogen storage disorder that is more common than Pompe disease but for which there is no treatment, “the delay is nearly 12 years,” Dr. Toscano said.
 

ERT: The sooner the better

Enzyme replacement therapy is indicated for all patients with Pompe disease. Currently two are commercially available: alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme, Sanofi Genzyme), indicated for all forms of Pompe disease, and avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), approved in 2021 for later-onset Pompe, though its indications have yet to be fully defined.

The semimonthly infusions represent, to date, the only disease-modifying therapies commercially available. Enzyme replacement therapy can reverse cardiac damage seen in infants and allow them to meet developmental milestones previously unthinkable. In adults, it can slow progression, though many treated patients will still develop chronic disability and require a wheelchair, respiratory support, or both. “The phenotype of the patients we are seeing today is not as involved as it was prior to enzyme therapy,” said Dr. Kishnani, who was part of the research team that developed ERT and launched the first clinical trials. “This is across the disease spectrum.”

But optimal management means more than just getting a patient on therapy fast, Dr. Kishnani said.

“Very often the thinking is if the patient is on ERT, we’ve done right by the patient. Aspects we don’t look at enough include: Are we monitoring these patients well? Are patients being followed by a multidisciplinary team that includes cardiology, physical therapy, and pulmonary medicine? Are we doing appropriate musculoskeletal assessments? They might have sleep hypoventilation. The BiPap settings may not be correct. Or they have not been assessed for antibodies,” she said.

Many infants with severe phenotypes, notably those who produce no enzyme naturally, will develop immune reactions to the exogenous enzyme therapy. High antibody titers also have been seen and are associated with poor therapeutic response. While this is very clear in the infantile setting, late-onset patients also develop antibodies in response to ERT. In one study in 64 patients,² Dr. Toscano and his colleagues saw that antibodies may affect clinical response during the first 3 years of treatment, while a small study³ by Dr. Kishnani’s group saw clinical decline associated with high antibody titers in patients with late-onset disease.

While the relationship of specific titers to therapeutic response remains unclear, it is important to consider antibodies, along with other factors, in the monitoring of patients with Pompe disease. “We need to always ask, if a patient is falling behind, what could be the reason?” Dr. Kishnani said. “These are the things we as clinicians can do to improve or enhance the impact of ERT.”

Dr. Toscano noted that a common misconception about late-onset Pompe disease is that cardiac manifestations are minimal or absent, whereas as many as about 20% of patients will have heart problems and need to be carefully monitored.
 

Neurological manifestations

With patients surviving longer on ERT, researchers have been able to develop a deeper understanding of the natural history of Pompe disease. Increasingly, they are seeing it as a multisystem disease that includes central nervous system involvement.

“Is Pompe an overt neurodegenerative disease? I would say no,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is a neurological component that we’ve got to understand and follow more.”

Glycogen accumulation, she noted, has been found in anterior horn cells, motor neurons, and other parts of the brain. “We have been doing MRIs on children with infantile Pompe, and we have seen some white matter hyperintensities. The clinical significance of this finding is still emerging. Sometimes it is present, but the child is cognitively intact. We have had college graduates who have white matter hyperintensities. So putting it in context will be important. But we know that glycogen is ubiquitous, and autopsy studies have shown that it is present in the brain.”

In recent years, Dr. Toscano’s group has investigated neurovascular complications of Pompe in late-onset patients. “This was something that really surprised us because for several years we have investigated mainly heart, muscle, or respiratory manifestations of the disease, but the central nervous system was really neglected,” he said.

“Occasionally we did some brain MRIs and we found in even young patients some ischemic areas. We thought this was related to slowed circulation – that blood vessels in these patients are weak because they are impaired by glycogen accumulation.” Dr. Toscano and his colleagues followed that observation with a study of late-onset patients,⁴ in which they found that more than half had cerebrovascular abnormalities. “Even in, say, patients 30 to 35 years old we saw this – it’s unusual to have a vascular disorder at that age.”

Dr. Toscano and his colleagues also reported cerebral aneurysms⁵ in patients with Pompe disease and have recommended that clinicians conduct MRI or cerebral angiograms on patients as part of routine follow-up. Blood pressure in Pompe patients should be carefully watched and managed with antihypertensive medication as needed, he said.

Part of the problem is that the proteins in ERT are not able to cross the blood-brain barrier, Dr. Toscano noted, adding that researchers are investigating other treatments that can.
 

Pompe disease as a research model

The successful development of ERT for Pompe disease marked a boom in research interest into not just Pompe – for which several experimental therapies are currently in the pipeline – but for other myopathies and glycogen storage disorders.

“I think that Pompe has served as a template both as a muscle disease and a lysosomal storage disease, and so some of our learnings from Pompe have been applied across different diseases,” Dr. Kishnani said.

Studies in spinal muscular atrophy, for example, “in some ways mirrored what was done for Pompe – treatment trials were initiated in babies at the most severe end of the disease population with infantile disease, and used similar clinical trial endpoints,” Dr. Kishnani said. “Even for the later-onset end of the spectrum, the endpoints we used in Pompe for muscle strength and function have been relevant to many other neuromuscular disorders.”

Pompe disease research also ushered in a new appreciation of immune responses in protein replacement therapies, Dr. Kishnani noted.

“In the field today, you hear the term cross-reactive immunological material, or CRIM, all the time,” she said. “But when we first started talking about it in the space of Pompe disease, there was a lot of scientific debate about what the significance of CRIM-negative status was in relationship to the risk for development of high and sustained antibody titer and a poor clinical response. To understand this involved a lot of going back to the data and digging into the small subset of nonresponders. One of the powers of rare disease research is that every patient matters, and it’s important to understand what’s going on at the patient level rather than just the group data level.”
 

A robust pipeline

The decade and a half since the advent of ERT has seen what Dr. Toscano described as “an explosion of interest” in Pompe disease.

“We’re seeing an extraordinary number of papers on everything from clinical, biomarkers, genetics, and rehabilitation – this disease is now considered from every point of view, and this is very important for patients,” Dr. Toscano said. Alongside this has come industry interest in this rare disease, with several companies investigating a range of treatment approaches.

The existence of a treatment, “while not perfect,” he said, “has interested the patient associations and doctors to try and improve service to patients. Patients with Pompe disease are well attended, probably more so than patients with degenerative disorders in which there is no therapy.”

Last year the second ERT, avalglucosidase alfa (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat late-onset Pompe disease. The drug, currently being investigated in infants as well, was designed to improve the delivery of the therapeutic enzyme to muscles and enhance glycogen clearance, and results from ongoing trials suggest some functional and clinical benefit over standard ERT.

Other drugs in development for Pompe disease include substrate reduction therapies, which aim to reduce the storage of glycogen in cells, and therapies that improve residual function of mutant GAA enzyme in the body. These and other therapies in development have the potential to modify nervous system manifestations of Pompe disease.⁶

Because a single gene is implicated in Pompe disease, it has long been considered a good candidate for gene therapies that prompt the body to make stable enzyme. Seven companies are now investigating gene therapies in Pompe disease.⁷ Some of these deliver to skeletal muscles and others aim for the liver, where proteins are synthesized and secreted and adverse immune responses might be more easily mitigated. Other gene therapies use an ex vivo approach, removing and replacing cells in bone marrow.

Dr. Kishnani’s research group at Duke University is leading a small clinical trial in late-onset patients of a GAA gene transfer to the liver using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors.⁸

“We have started AAV gene therapy trials in in adults with Pompe disease and will later evaluate children because ERT is available as a standard of care, and so from a safety perspective this makes the most sense,” Dr. Kishnani said. “We do have challenges in the field of gene therapy, but I think if we are able to overcome the immune responses, and … to treat at a lower dose, there’s a very good pathway forward.”

Dr. Toscano and Dr. Kishnani have received reimbursement from Sanofi and other manufacturers for participation on advisory boards and as speakers.



Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist and editor specializing in medicine and health.

References

1. Musumeci O, Toscano A. Diagnostic tools in late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):286. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.06.60.

2. Filosto M et al. Assessing the role of anti rh-GAA in modulating response to ERT in a late-onset Pompe disease cohort from the Italian GSDII Study Group. Adv Ther. 2019 May;36(5):1177-1189. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00926-5.

3. Patel TT et al. The impact of antibodies in late-onset Pompe disease: A case series and literature review. Mol Genet Metab. 2012 Jul;106(3):301-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2012.04.027.

4. Montagnese F et al. Intracranial arterial abnormalities in patients with late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). J Inherit Metab Dis. 2016 May;39(3):391-398. doi: 10.1007/s10545-015-9913-x.

5. Musumeci O et al. Central nervous system involvement in late-onset Pompe disease: Clues from neuroimaging and neuropsychological analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2019 Mar;26(3):442-e35. doi: 10.1111/ene.13835.

6. Edelmann MJ, Maegawa GHB. CNS-targeting therapies for lysosomal storage diseases: Current advances and challenges. Front Mol Biosci. 2020 Nov 12;7:559804. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.559804

7. Ronzitti G et al. Progress and challenges of gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):287. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.04.67.

8. Kishnani PS, Koeberl DD. Liver depot gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):288. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.05.02.

Until 2006, when a breakthrough therapy first made treatment possible, Pompe disease was a little-known metabolic myopathy fatal to infants. Those with later-onset disease experienced progressive, often severe disability into adulthood.

In this rare autosomal recessive disorder, which occurs in approximately one in 40,000 births worldwide, a deficiency or absence of the enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase causes glycogen to build up in the lysosomes of cells. While many tissues are affected, skeletal and cardiac muscle see the earliest involvement, with muscle hypotonia, cardiomyopathy, and breathing difficulties (mainly due to diaphragm weakness) comprising the hallmark symptoms of the infantile form. Muscle weakness and progressive respiratory failure are prominent in later-onset disease.

Diagnosis: Still room to improve

“Most neurologists will encounter a patient with Pompe disease,” said Dr. Kishnani, who has been working with Pompe for her entire career as a pediatrician and medical geneticist, treating patients of all ages and disease phenotypes.

“In newborns, diagnosis is more straightforward, because you’ve got an enlarged heart,” she said. And thanks to efforts of researchers like Dr. Kishnani and Pompe advocacy groups, Pompe disease is now a part of the RUSP (Recommended Uniform Screening Panel) for newborns; currently 28 U.S. states are screening for Pompe disease.

“The challenge really is for the later-onset cases, which are 80% of all cases,” Dr. Kishnani said.

Previously, muscle biopsies were the first step toward diagnosis. Dried blot spot assays to detect enzyme deficiency have since become the standard, along with other biochemical tests. Confirmation of the diagnosis is through gene sequencing panels to detect GAA mutations.

“Now that there is a treatment for Pompe disease and the availability of blood-based testing, many previously undiagnosed patients with limb girdle weakness are evaluated and the diagnostic odyssey ends,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is still a diagnostic delay, and many cases remain undiagnosed.”

Routine blood tests for creatine kinase and for liver enzymes can help point to Pompe disease. But elevated liver enzymes are often misinterpreted. “It’s about the ratios,” Dr. Kishnani said. “ALT is usually much more elevated if it is coming from a liver cause, and AST is usually higher than ALT if it is coming from muscle. But patients often end up getting a liver biopsy due to so-called elevated liver enzymes. As the workup continues, it is often later recognized that the source of the elevated enzymes is muscle involvement, and a referral to the geneticist or neurologist is made. Only then is appropriate testing to confirm a diagnosis initiated.”

Dr. Toscano, a neurologist who specializes in Pompe disease and other myopathies and who has published on tools for diagnosing late-onset Pompe disease,¹ said that clinicians should be vigilant when evaluating any patient with limb girdle weakness and elevated creatine kinase (CK) – “especially if the CK is under 2,000,” he said, “because it is very rare that patients with Pompe disease have a more elevated CK than that.”

“Elevated CK, myalgia, and exercise intolerance” should prompt clinicians to suspect Pompe disease in a patient of any age, Dr. Toscano said. “When you come across this, you should be very persistent and get to the end of the story.”

Dr. Toscano noted that the blood spot assay, while an important early step, is not fully diagnostic, “because you can have false positives.” The molecular GAA assay is used to confirm Pompe disease. But detecting pathogenic variants on the GAA gene – of which there are more than 500 – can be more complicated than it sounds. Whereas two mutations are required for Pompe disease, sometimes only one can be detected. Dr. Toscano said he also treated some patients for Pompe with only one known mutation but with unequivocal clinical and biochemical aspects of Pompe disease.

While delays in diagnosis for late-onset Pompe disease remain significant -- between 5 and 6 years on average for older patients, and up to 20 years for those with pediatric onset – both Dr. Kishnani and Dr. Toscano said they perceive them to be improving. With McArdle disease, another inherited glycogen storage disorder that is more common than Pompe disease but for which there is no treatment, “the delay is nearly 12 years,” Dr. Toscano said.
 

ERT: The sooner the better

Enzyme replacement therapy is indicated for all patients with Pompe disease. Currently two are commercially available: alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme, Sanofi Genzyme), indicated for all forms of Pompe disease, and avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), approved in 2021 for later-onset Pompe, though its indications have yet to be fully defined.

The semimonthly infusions represent, to date, the only disease-modifying therapies commercially available. Enzyme replacement therapy can reverse cardiac damage seen in infants and allow them to meet developmental milestones previously unthinkable. In adults, it can slow progression, though many treated patients will still develop chronic disability and require a wheelchair, respiratory support, or both. “The phenotype of the patients we are seeing today is not as involved as it was prior to enzyme therapy,” said Dr. Kishnani, who was part of the research team that developed ERT and launched the first clinical trials. “This is across the disease spectrum.”

But optimal management means more than just getting a patient on therapy fast, Dr. Kishnani said.

“Very often the thinking is if the patient is on ERT, we’ve done right by the patient. Aspects we don’t look at enough include: Are we monitoring these patients well? Are patients being followed by a multidisciplinary team that includes cardiology, physical therapy, and pulmonary medicine? Are we doing appropriate musculoskeletal assessments? They might have sleep hypoventilation. The BiPap settings may not be correct. Or they have not been assessed for antibodies,” she said.

Many infants with severe phenotypes, notably those who produce no enzyme naturally, will develop immune reactions to the exogenous enzyme therapy. High antibody titers also have been seen and are associated with poor therapeutic response. While this is very clear in the infantile setting, late-onset patients also develop antibodies in response to ERT. In one study in 64 patients,² Dr. Toscano and his colleagues saw that antibodies may affect clinical response during the first 3 years of treatment, while a small study³ by Dr. Kishnani’s group saw clinical decline associated with high antibody titers in patients with late-onset disease.

While the relationship of specific titers to therapeutic response remains unclear, it is important to consider antibodies, along with other factors, in the monitoring of patients with Pompe disease. “We need to always ask, if a patient is falling behind, what could be the reason?” Dr. Kishnani said. “These are the things we as clinicians can do to improve or enhance the impact of ERT.”

Dr. Toscano noted that a common misconception about late-onset Pompe disease is that cardiac manifestations are minimal or absent, whereas as many as about 20% of patients will have heart problems and need to be carefully monitored.
 

Neurological manifestations

With patients surviving longer on ERT, researchers have been able to develop a deeper understanding of the natural history of Pompe disease. Increasingly, they are seeing it as a multisystem disease that includes central nervous system involvement.

“Is Pompe an overt neurodegenerative disease? I would say no,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is a neurological component that we’ve got to understand and follow more.”

Glycogen accumulation, she noted, has been found in anterior horn cells, motor neurons, and other parts of the brain. “We have been doing MRIs on children with infantile Pompe, and we have seen some white matter hyperintensities. The clinical significance of this finding is still emerging. Sometimes it is present, but the child is cognitively intact. We have had college graduates who have white matter hyperintensities. So putting it in context will be important. But we know that glycogen is ubiquitous, and autopsy studies have shown that it is present in the brain.”

In recent years, Dr. Toscano’s group has investigated neurovascular complications of Pompe in late-onset patients. “This was something that really surprised us because for several years we have investigated mainly heart, muscle, or respiratory manifestations of the disease, but the central nervous system was really neglected,” he said.

“Occasionally we did some brain MRIs and we found in even young patients some ischemic areas. We thought this was related to slowed circulation – that blood vessels in these patients are weak because they are impaired by glycogen accumulation.” Dr. Toscano and his colleagues followed that observation with a study of late-onset patients,⁴ in which they found that more than half had cerebrovascular abnormalities. “Even in, say, patients 30 to 35 years old we saw this – it’s unusual to have a vascular disorder at that age.”

Dr. Toscano and his colleagues also reported cerebral aneurysms⁵ in patients with Pompe disease and have recommended that clinicians conduct MRI or cerebral angiograms on patients as part of routine follow-up. Blood pressure in Pompe patients should be carefully watched and managed with antihypertensive medication as needed, he said.

Part of the problem is that the proteins in ERT are not able to cross the blood-brain barrier, Dr. Toscano noted, adding that researchers are investigating other treatments that can.
 

Pompe disease as a research model

The successful development of ERT for Pompe disease marked a boom in research interest into not just Pompe – for which several experimental therapies are currently in the pipeline – but for other myopathies and glycogen storage disorders.

“I think that Pompe has served as a template both as a muscle disease and a lysosomal storage disease, and so some of our learnings from Pompe have been applied across different diseases,” Dr. Kishnani said.

Studies in spinal muscular atrophy, for example, “in some ways mirrored what was done for Pompe – treatment trials were initiated in babies at the most severe end of the disease population with infantile disease, and used similar clinical trial endpoints,” Dr. Kishnani said. “Even for the later-onset end of the spectrum, the endpoints we used in Pompe for muscle strength and function have been relevant to many other neuromuscular disorders.”

Pompe disease research also ushered in a new appreciation of immune responses in protein replacement therapies, Dr. Kishnani noted.

“In the field today, you hear the term cross-reactive immunological material, or CRIM, all the time,” she said. “But when we first started talking about it in the space of Pompe disease, there was a lot of scientific debate about what the significance of CRIM-negative status was in relationship to the risk for development of high and sustained antibody titer and a poor clinical response. To understand this involved a lot of going back to the data and digging into the small subset of nonresponders. One of the powers of rare disease research is that every patient matters, and it’s important to understand what’s going on at the patient level rather than just the group data level.”
 

A robust pipeline

The decade and a half since the advent of ERT has seen what Dr. Toscano described as “an explosion of interest” in Pompe disease.

“We’re seeing an extraordinary number of papers on everything from clinical, biomarkers, genetics, and rehabilitation – this disease is now considered from every point of view, and this is very important for patients,” Dr. Toscano said. Alongside this has come industry interest in this rare disease, with several companies investigating a range of treatment approaches.

The existence of a treatment, “while not perfect,” he said, “has interested the patient associations and doctors to try and improve service to patients. Patients with Pompe disease are well attended, probably more so than patients with degenerative disorders in which there is no therapy.”

Last year the second ERT, avalglucosidase alfa (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat late-onset Pompe disease. The drug, currently being investigated in infants as well, was designed to improve the delivery of the therapeutic enzyme to muscles and enhance glycogen clearance, and results from ongoing trials suggest some functional and clinical benefit over standard ERT.

Other drugs in development for Pompe disease include substrate reduction therapies, which aim to reduce the storage of glycogen in cells, and therapies that improve residual function of mutant GAA enzyme in the body. These and other therapies in development have the potential to modify nervous system manifestations of Pompe disease.⁶

Because a single gene is implicated in Pompe disease, it has long been considered a good candidate for gene therapies that prompt the body to make stable enzyme. Seven companies are now investigating gene therapies in Pompe disease.⁷ Some of these deliver to skeletal muscles and others aim for the liver, where proteins are synthesized and secreted and adverse immune responses might be more easily mitigated. Other gene therapies use an ex vivo approach, removing and replacing cells in bone marrow.

Dr. Kishnani’s research group at Duke University is leading a small clinical trial in late-onset patients of a GAA gene transfer to the liver using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors.⁸

“We have started AAV gene therapy trials in in adults with Pompe disease and will later evaluate children because ERT is available as a standard of care, and so from a safety perspective this makes the most sense,” Dr. Kishnani said. “We do have challenges in the field of gene therapy, but I think if we are able to overcome the immune responses, and … to treat at a lower dose, there’s a very good pathway forward.”

Dr. Toscano and Dr. Kishnani have received reimbursement from Sanofi and other manufacturers for participation on advisory boards and as speakers.



Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist and editor specializing in medicine and health.

References

1. Musumeci O, Toscano A. Diagnostic tools in late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):286. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.06.60.

2. Filosto M et al. Assessing the role of anti rh-GAA in modulating response to ERT in a late-onset Pompe disease cohort from the Italian GSDII Study Group. Adv Ther. 2019 May;36(5):1177-1189. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00926-5.

3. Patel TT et al. The impact of antibodies in late-onset Pompe disease: A case series and literature review. Mol Genet Metab. 2012 Jul;106(3):301-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2012.04.027.

4. Montagnese F et al. Intracranial arterial abnormalities in patients with late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). J Inherit Metab Dis. 2016 May;39(3):391-398. doi: 10.1007/s10545-015-9913-x.

5. Musumeci O et al. Central nervous system involvement in late-onset Pompe disease: Clues from neuroimaging and neuropsychological analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2019 Mar;26(3):442-e35. doi: 10.1111/ene.13835.

6. Edelmann MJ, Maegawa GHB. CNS-targeting therapies for lysosomal storage diseases: Current advances and challenges. Front Mol Biosci. 2020 Nov 12;7:559804. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.559804

7. Ronzitti G et al. Progress and challenges of gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):287. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.04.67.

8. Kishnani PS, Koeberl DD. Liver depot gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):288. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.05.02.

The number of cataloged rare diseases continues to grow every day. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, more than 6,800 rare diseases have been identified and between 25 million and 30 million Americans are living with rare diseases today.

Thinking of rare diseases in categories

Many patients with undiagnosed rare diseases undergo what’s commonly referred to as a “diagnostic odyssey,” moving from one provider to another to try to find an explanation for a condition they may or may not know is rare. For some patients, this process can take many years or even decades. From the patient’s perspective, the main challenges are recognizing they have a problem that doesn’t fit a common disease model. Once they recognize they have a potential rare disease, working with a provider to find the right diagnosis among the “vast number of disease diagnoses and designations, and actually sifting through it to find the one that’s right for that patient” is the next challenge, said Dr. Summar.

However, knowledge of rare diseases among health care professionals is low, according to a 2019 paper published in the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. In a survey from that paper asking general practitioners, pediatricians, specialists caring for adults, and specialists caring for children to evaluate their own knowledge of rare diseases, 42% of general practitioners said they had poor knowledge and 44% said they had a substandard understanding of rare diseases.

From a clinician’s standpoint, diagnosing rare diseases in their patients can be challenging, with the potential for overreferral or overdiagnosis. However, it is also easy to underdiagnose rare diseases by missing them, noted Dr. Summar. This issue can vary based on the experience of the provider, he said, because while general practitioners who recently began practicing may have had more exposure to rare diseases, for health care professionals who have been practicing for decades, “this is a new arrival in their field.”

During a busy day finding that extra time in an appointment to stop and question whether a patient might have a rare disease is another problem generalists face. “It is really tough for those general practitioners, because if you see 40 or 50 patients per day, how do you know which one of those [patients] were the ones that had something that wasn’t quite fitting or wasn’t quite ordinary?” he said.

When it comes to considering rare diseases in their patients, health care professionals in general practice should think in categories, rather than a particular rare disease, according to Dr. Summar. As the generalist is typically on the front lines of patient care, they don’t necessarily need to know everything about the rare disease they suspect a patient of having to help them. “You don’t need to know the specific gene and the specific mutation to make the diagnosis, or to even move the patient forward in the process,” he said.

The first steps a clinician can take include noticing when something with a patient is amiss, thinking about the disease category, and then creating a plan to move forward, such as referring the patient to a subspecialist. Learning to recognize when a cluster of symptoms doesn’t fit a pattern is important, as patients and their providers tend to gravitate toward diagnoses they are used to seeing, rather than suspecting a disease outside a usual pattern.

The framing of rare diseases as categories is a change in thinking over the last decade, said Dr. Summar. Whereas rare disease diagnoses previously focused on fitting certain criteria, the development of more refined genetic sequencing has allowed specialists to focus on categories and genes that affect rare diseases. “Getting at a diagnosis has really been turned up on its head, so that by employing both next-generation sequencing, newborn screening, and other [tools], we can actually get to diagnoses faster than we could before,” he said.

In terms of assessing for symptoms, health care professionals should be aware that “common” symptoms can be a sign of rare disease. What to look out for are the uncommon symptoms that create an “aha moment.” Having a “good filter” for sensing when something isn’t quite right with a patient is key. “It’s like any time when you’re screening things: You want high sensitivity, but you also have to have high specificity,” he said.

Another clinical pearl is that good communication between patient and provider is paramount. “We’re not always good listeners. Sometimes we hear what we expect to hear,” said Dr. Summar.
 

Rare disease warning signs

Within the context of rare neurological diseases, Dr. Summar noted one major category is delays in neurological development, which is typically identified in children or adolescents. As the most complex organ in the body, “the brain probably expresses more genes than any other tissue on a regular basis, both in its formation and its function,” said Dr. Summar. He said the single disease that rare disease specialists see most often is Down syndrome.

Another separate but overlapping major category is autism, identified in younger children through trouble with social interaction, lack of eye contact, and delays in speech and communication skills. A third major category is physical manifestations of neurological problems, such as in patients who have epilepsy.

A telltale sign in identifying a child with a potential rare neurological disease is when they are “not thriving in their development or not doing the things on track that you would expect, and you don’t have a really good answer for it,” said Dr. Summar. Generalists are normally on watch for developmental delays in newborns born premature or with a rough course in the nursery, but they should also be aware of delays in children born under otherwise typical circumstances. “If I have a patient who had normal pregnancy, normal labor and delivery, no real illnesses or anything like that, and yet wasn’t meeting those milestones, that’s a patient I would pay attention to,” he said.

Another clue general practitioners can use for suspecting rare diseases is when a patient is much sicker than usual during a routine illness like a cold or flu. “Those are patients we should be paying attention to because it may be there’s an underlying biochemical disorder or some disorder in how they’re responding to stress that’s just not quite right,” said Dr. Summar. How a patient responds to stressful situations can be a warning sign “because that can often unmask more severe symptoms in that rare disease and make it a little more apparent,” he said.
 

Learning more about rare diseases

Dr. Summar said he and his colleagues in the rare disease field have spent a lot of time working with medical schools to teach this mindset in their curricula. The concept is introduced in basic medical science courses and then reinforced in clinical rotations in the third or fourth year, he explained.

“One of the best places is during the pediatrics rotations in medical school,” he said. “Remember, kids are basically healthy. If a child has a chronic illness or a chronic disease, more often than not, it is probably a rare disease.”

For medical professionals not in pediatric practice, the concept is applied the same way for adult medicine. “You just want to make sure everyone takes a second when they have a patient and try not to assume. Don’t assume it’s exactly what it seems. Look at it carefully and make sure there’s not something else going on,” he said.

Health care professionals in general practice looking to learn more about rare diseases can increasingly find rare disease topics in their CME programs. Rare disease topics in CME programs are “one of the best places” to learn about the latest developments in the field, said Dr. Summar.
 

Will rare disease screening tools come to primary care?

Asking more doctors to refer out to rare disease specialists raises an issue: There simply aren’t enough rare disease specialists in the field to go around.

Dr. Summar said partnering testing – where a general practitioner contacts a specialist to begin the process of testing based on the suspected condition – is a good stopgap solution. Telemedicine, which rose in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, can also play an important role in connecting patients and their providers with rare disease specialists, especially for generalists in remote communities. Dr. Summar noted he continues to see approximately 30% of his patients this way today. Telemedicine appointments can take place in the patient’s home or at the provider’s office.

“It actually provides access to folks who otherwise might not be able to either take off from work for a day – particularly some of our single parent households – or have a child who just doesn’t travel well, or can’t really get there, even if it’s the patient themselves,” he explained. “We can see patients that historically would have had trouble or difficulty coming in, so for me, that’s been a good thing.”

Telemedicine also helps give access to care for more medically fragile patients, many of whom have rare diseases, he added. While some aspects of care need to occur in person, “it’s a good 80% or 90% solution for a lot of these things,” he said.

Sharing educational videos is another way for health care providers in general practice to inform patients and their families about rare diseases. Children’s National Medical Center has created a collection of these videos in a free app called GeneClips, which is available on major smartphone app stores. However, Dr. Summar emphasized that genetic counseling should still be performed by a rare disease specialist prior to testing.

“We’re still at the point where I think having genetic counseling for a family before they’re going into testing is really advisable, since a lot of the results have a probability assigned to them,” he said. “I don’t think we’re really at the level where a practitioner is going to, first of all, have the time to do those, and I don’t think there’s enough general public awareness of what these things mean.”

Although primary care providers may one day be able to perform more generalized sequencing in their own practice, that time has not yet come – but it is closer than you think. “The technology is there, and actually the cost has come down a lot,” said Dr. Summar.

One potential issue this would create is an additional discussion to manage expectations of test results with family when the results are unclear, which “actually takes more time than counseling about a yes or no, or even an outcome that is unexpected,” explained Dr. Summar.

“[W]e’re in a midlife period right now where we’re bringing forward this new technology, but we’ve got to continually prepare the field for it first,” he said. “I think in the future we’ll see that it has much greater utility in the general setting,” he said.


Jeff Craven is a freelance journalist specializing in medicine and health.

Suggested reading

Vandeborne L et al. Information needs of physicians regarding the diagnosis of rare diseases: A questionnaire-based study in Belgium. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):99.

The number of cataloged rare diseases continues to grow every day. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, more than 6,800 rare diseases have been identified and between 25 million and 30 million Americans are living with rare diseases today.

Thinking of rare diseases in categories

Many patients with undiagnosed rare diseases undergo what’s commonly referred to as a “diagnostic odyssey,” moving from one provider to another to try to find an explanation for a condition they may or may not know is rare. For some patients, this process can take many years or even decades. From the patient’s perspective, the main challenges are recognizing they have a problem that doesn’t fit a common disease model. Once they recognize they have a potential rare disease, working with a provider to find the right diagnosis among the “vast number of disease diagnoses and designations, and actually sifting through it to find the one that’s right for that patient” is the next challenge, said Dr. Summar.

However, knowledge of rare diseases among health care professionals is low, according to a 2019 paper published in the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. In a survey from that paper asking general practitioners, pediatricians, specialists caring for adults, and specialists caring for children to evaluate their own knowledge of rare diseases, 42% of general practitioners said they had poor knowledge and 44% said they had a substandard understanding of rare diseases.

From a clinician’s standpoint, diagnosing rare diseases in their patients can be challenging, with the potential for overreferral or overdiagnosis. However, it is also easy to underdiagnose rare diseases by missing them, noted Dr. Summar. This issue can vary based on the experience of the provider, he said, because while general practitioners who recently began practicing may have had more exposure to rare diseases, for health care professionals who have been practicing for decades, “this is a new arrival in their field.”

During a busy day finding that extra time in an appointment to stop and question whether a patient might have a rare disease is another problem generalists face. “It is really tough for those general practitioners, because if you see 40 or 50 patients per day, how do you know which one of those [patients] were the ones that had something that wasn’t quite fitting or wasn’t quite ordinary?” he said.

When it comes to considering rare diseases in their patients, health care professionals in general practice should think in categories, rather than a particular rare disease, according to Dr. Summar. As the generalist is typically on the front lines of patient care, they don’t necessarily need to know everything about the rare disease they suspect a patient of having to help them. “You don’t need to know the specific gene and the specific mutation to make the diagnosis, or to even move the patient forward in the process,” he said.

The first steps a clinician can take include noticing when something with a patient is amiss, thinking about the disease category, and then creating a plan to move forward, such as referring the patient to a subspecialist. Learning to recognize when a cluster of symptoms doesn’t fit a pattern is important, as patients and their providers tend to gravitate toward diagnoses they are used to seeing, rather than suspecting a disease outside a usual pattern.

The framing of rare diseases as categories is a change in thinking over the last decade, said Dr. Summar. Whereas rare disease diagnoses previously focused on fitting certain criteria, the development of more refined genetic sequencing has allowed specialists to focus on categories and genes that affect rare diseases. “Getting at a diagnosis has really been turned up on its head, so that by employing both next-generation sequencing, newborn screening, and other [tools], we can actually get to diagnoses faster than we could before,” he said.

In terms of assessing for symptoms, health care professionals should be aware that “common” symptoms can be a sign of rare disease. What to look out for are the uncommon symptoms that create an “aha moment.” Having a “good filter” for sensing when something isn’t quite right with a patient is key. “It’s like any time when you’re screening things: You want high sensitivity, but you also have to have high specificity,” he said.

Another clinical pearl is that good communication between patient and provider is paramount. “We’re not always good listeners. Sometimes we hear what we expect to hear,” said Dr. Summar.
 

Rare disease warning signs

Within the context of rare neurological diseases, Dr. Summar noted one major category is delays in neurological development, which is typically identified in children or adolescents. As the most complex organ in the body, “the brain probably expresses more genes than any other tissue on a regular basis, both in its formation and its function,” said Dr. Summar. He said the single disease that rare disease specialists see most often is Down syndrome.

Another separate but overlapping major category is autism, identified in younger children through trouble with social interaction, lack of eye contact, and delays in speech and communication skills. A third major category is physical manifestations of neurological problems, such as in patients who have epilepsy.

A telltale sign in identifying a child with a potential rare neurological disease is when they are “not thriving in their development or not doing the things on track that you would expect, and you don’t have a really good answer for it,” said Dr. Summar. Generalists are normally on watch for developmental delays in newborns born premature or with a rough course in the nursery, but they should also be aware of delays in children born under otherwise typical circumstances. “If I have a patient who had normal pregnancy, normal labor and delivery, no real illnesses or anything like that, and yet wasn’t meeting those milestones, that’s a patient I would pay attention to,” he said.

Another clue general practitioners can use for suspecting rare diseases is when a patient is much sicker than usual during a routine illness like a cold or flu. “Those are patients we should be paying attention to because it may be there’s an underlying biochemical disorder or some disorder in how they’re responding to stress that’s just not quite right,” said Dr. Summar. How a patient responds to stressful situations can be a warning sign “because that can often unmask more severe symptoms in that rare disease and make it a little more apparent,” he said.
 

Learning more about rare diseases

Dr. Summar said he and his colleagues in the rare disease field have spent a lot of time working with medical schools to teach this mindset in their curricula. The concept is introduced in basic medical science courses and then reinforced in clinical rotations in the third or fourth year, he explained.

“One of the best places is during the pediatrics rotations in medical school,” he said. “Remember, kids are basically healthy. If a child has a chronic illness or a chronic disease, more often than not, it is probably a rare disease.”

For medical professionals not in pediatric practice, the concept is applied the same way for adult medicine. “You just want to make sure everyone takes a second when they have a patient and try not to assume. Don’t assume it’s exactly what it seems. Look at it carefully and make sure there’s not something else going on,” he said.

Health care professionals in general practice looking to learn more about rare diseases can increasingly find rare disease topics in their CME programs. Rare disease topics in CME programs are “one of the best places” to learn about the latest developments in the field, said Dr. Summar.
 

Will rare disease screening tools come to primary care?

Asking more doctors to refer out to rare disease specialists raises an issue: There simply aren’t enough rare disease specialists in the field to go around.

Dr. Summar said partnering testing – where a general practitioner contacts a specialist to begin the process of testing based on the suspected condition – is a good stopgap solution. Telemedicine, which rose in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, can also play an important role in connecting patients and their providers with rare disease specialists, especially for generalists in remote communities. Dr. Summar noted he continues to see approximately 30% of his patients this way today. Telemedicine appointments can take place in the patient’s home or at the provider’s office.

“It actually provides access to folks who otherwise might not be able to either take off from work for a day – particularly some of our single parent households – or have a child who just doesn’t travel well, or can’t really get there, even if it’s the patient themselves,” he explained. “We can see patients that historically would have had trouble or difficulty coming in, so for me, that’s been a good thing.”

Telemedicine also helps give access to care for more medically fragile patients, many of whom have rare diseases, he added. While some aspects of care need to occur in person, “it’s a good 80% or 90% solution for a lot of these things,” he said.

Sharing educational videos is another way for health care providers in general practice to inform patients and their families about rare diseases. Children’s National Medical Center has created a collection of these videos in a free app called GeneClips, which is available on major smartphone app stores. However, Dr. Summar emphasized that genetic counseling should still be performed by a rare disease specialist prior to testing.

“We’re still at the point where I think having genetic counseling for a family before they’re going into testing is really advisable, since a lot of the results have a probability assigned to them,” he said. “I don’t think we’re really at the level where a practitioner is going to, first of all, have the time to do those, and I don’t think there’s enough general public awareness of what these things mean.”

Although primary care providers may one day be able to perform more generalized sequencing in their own practice, that time has not yet come – but it is closer than you think. “The technology is there, and actually the cost has come down a lot,” said Dr. Summar.

One potential issue this would create is an additional discussion to manage expectations of test results with family when the results are unclear, which “actually takes more time than counseling about a yes or no, or even an outcome that is unexpected,” explained Dr. Summar.

“[W]e’re in a midlife period right now where we’re bringing forward this new technology, but we’ve got to continually prepare the field for it first,” he said. “I think in the future we’ll see that it has much greater utility in the general setting,” he said.


Jeff Craven is a freelance journalist specializing in medicine and health.

Suggested reading

Vandeborne L et al. Information needs of physicians regarding the diagnosis of rare diseases: A questionnaire-based study in Belgium. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):99.

The number of cataloged rare diseases continues to grow every day. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, more than 6,800 rare diseases have been identified and between 25 million and 30 million Americans are living with rare diseases today.

Thinking of rare diseases in categories

Many patients with undiagnosed rare diseases undergo what’s commonly referred to as a “diagnostic odyssey,” moving from one provider to another to try to find an explanation for a condition they may or may not know is rare. For some patients, this process can take many years or even decades. From the patient’s perspective, the main challenges are recognizing they have a problem that doesn’t fit a common disease model. Once they recognize they have a potential rare disease, working with a provider to find the right diagnosis among the “vast number of disease diagnoses and designations, and actually sifting through it to find the one that’s right for that patient” is the next challenge, said Dr. Summar.

However, knowledge of rare diseases among health care professionals is low, according to a 2019 paper published in the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. In a survey from that paper asking general practitioners, pediatricians, specialists caring for adults, and specialists caring for children to evaluate their own knowledge of rare diseases, 42% of general practitioners said they had poor knowledge and 44% said they had a substandard understanding of rare diseases.

From a clinician’s standpoint, diagnosing rare diseases in their patients can be challenging, with the potential for overreferral or overdiagnosis. However, it is also easy to underdiagnose rare diseases by missing them, noted Dr. Summar. This issue can vary based on the experience of the provider, he said, because while general practitioners who recently began practicing may have had more exposure to rare diseases, for health care professionals who have been practicing for decades, “this is a new arrival in their field.”

During a busy day finding that extra time in an appointment to stop and question whether a patient might have a rare disease is another problem generalists face. “It is really tough for those general practitioners, because if you see 40 or 50 patients per day, how do you know which one of those [patients] were the ones that had something that wasn’t quite fitting or wasn’t quite ordinary?” he said.

When it comes to considering rare diseases in their patients, health care professionals in general practice should think in categories, rather than a particular rare disease, according to Dr. Summar. As the generalist is typically on the front lines of patient care, they don’t necessarily need to know everything about the rare disease they suspect a patient of having to help them. “You don’t need to know the specific gene and the specific mutation to make the diagnosis, or to even move the patient forward in the process,” he said.

The first steps a clinician can take include noticing when something with a patient is amiss, thinking about the disease category, and then creating a plan to move forward, such as referring the patient to a subspecialist. Learning to recognize when a cluster of symptoms doesn’t fit a pattern is important, as patients and their providers tend to gravitate toward diagnoses they are used to seeing, rather than suspecting a disease outside a usual pattern.

The framing of rare diseases as categories is a change in thinking over the last decade, said Dr. Summar. Whereas rare disease diagnoses previously focused on fitting certain criteria, the development of more refined genetic sequencing has allowed specialists to focus on categories and genes that affect rare diseases. “Getting at a diagnosis has really been turned up on its head, so that by employing both next-generation sequencing, newborn screening, and other [tools], we can actually get to diagnoses faster than we could before,” he said.

In terms of assessing for symptoms, health care professionals should be aware that “common” symptoms can be a sign of rare disease. What to look out for are the uncommon symptoms that create an “aha moment.” Having a “good filter” for sensing when something isn’t quite right with a patient is key. “It’s like any time when you’re screening things: You want high sensitivity, but you also have to have high specificity,” he said.

Another clinical pearl is that good communication between patient and provider is paramount. “We’re not always good listeners. Sometimes we hear what we expect to hear,” said Dr. Summar.
 

Rare disease warning signs

Within the context of rare neurological diseases, Dr. Summar noted one major category is delays in neurological development, which is typically identified in children or adolescents. As the most complex organ in the body, “the brain probably expresses more genes than any other tissue on a regular basis, both in its formation and its function,” said Dr. Summar. He said the single disease that rare disease specialists see most often is Down syndrome.

Another separate but overlapping major category is autism, identified in younger children through trouble with social interaction, lack of eye contact, and delays in speech and communication skills. A third major category is physical manifestations of neurological problems, such as in patients who have epilepsy.

A telltale sign in identifying a child with a potential rare neurological disease is when they are “not thriving in their development or not doing the things on track that you would expect, and you don’t have a really good answer for it,” said Dr. Summar. Generalists are normally on watch for developmental delays in newborns born premature or with a rough course in the nursery, but they should also be aware of delays in children born under otherwise typical circumstances. “If I have a patient who had normal pregnancy, normal labor and delivery, no real illnesses or anything like that, and yet wasn’t meeting those milestones, that’s a patient I would pay attention to,” he said.

Another clue general practitioners can use for suspecting rare diseases is when a patient is much sicker than usual during a routine illness like a cold or flu. “Those are patients we should be paying attention to because it may be there’s an underlying biochemical disorder or some disorder in how they’re responding to stress that’s just not quite right,” said Dr. Summar. How a patient responds to stressful situations can be a warning sign “because that can often unmask more severe symptoms in that rare disease and make it a little more apparent,” he said.
 

Learning more about rare diseases

Dr. Summar said he and his colleagues in the rare disease field have spent a lot of time working with medical schools to teach this mindset in their curricula. The concept is introduced in basic medical science courses and then reinforced in clinical rotations in the third or fourth year, he explained.

“One of the best places is during the pediatrics rotations in medical school,” he said. “Remember, kids are basically healthy. If a child has a chronic illness or a chronic disease, more often than not, it is probably a rare disease.”

For medical professionals not in pediatric practice, the concept is applied the same way for adult medicine. “You just want to make sure everyone takes a second when they have a patient and try not to assume. Don’t assume it’s exactly what it seems. Look at it carefully and make sure there’s not something else going on,” he said.

Health care professionals in general practice looking to learn more about rare diseases can increasingly find rare disease topics in their CME programs. Rare disease topics in CME programs are “one of the best places” to learn about the latest developments in the field, said Dr. Summar.
 

Will rare disease screening tools come to primary care?

Asking more doctors to refer out to rare disease specialists raises an issue: There simply aren’t enough rare disease specialists in the field to go around.

Dr. Summar said partnering testing – where a general practitioner contacts a specialist to begin the process of testing based on the suspected condition – is a good stopgap solution. Telemedicine, which rose in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, can also play an important role in connecting patients and their providers with rare disease specialists, especially for generalists in remote communities. Dr. Summar noted he continues to see approximately 30% of his patients this way today. Telemedicine appointments can take place in the patient’s home or at the provider’s office.

“It actually provides access to folks who otherwise might not be able to either take off from work for a day – particularly some of our single parent households – or have a child who just doesn’t travel well, or can’t really get there, even if it’s the patient themselves,” he explained. “We can see patients that historically would have had trouble or difficulty coming in, so for me, that’s been a good thing.”

Telemedicine also helps give access to care for more medically fragile patients, many of whom have rare diseases, he added. While some aspects of care need to occur in person, “it’s a good 80% or 90% solution for a lot of these things,” he said.

Sharing educational videos is another way for health care providers in general practice to inform patients and their families about rare diseases. Children’s National Medical Center has created a collection of these videos in a free app called GeneClips, which is available on major smartphone app stores. However, Dr. Summar emphasized that genetic counseling should still be performed by a rare disease specialist prior to testing.

“We’re still at the point where I think having genetic counseling for a family before they’re going into testing is really advisable, since a lot of the results have a probability assigned to them,” he said. “I don’t think we’re really at the level where a practitioner is going to, first of all, have the time to do those, and I don’t think there’s enough general public awareness of what these things mean.”

Although primary care providers may one day be able to perform more generalized sequencing in their own practice, that time has not yet come – but it is closer than you think. “The technology is there, and actually the cost has come down a lot,” said Dr. Summar.

One potential issue this would create is an additional discussion to manage expectations of test results with family when the results are unclear, which “actually takes more time than counseling about a yes or no, or even an outcome that is unexpected,” explained Dr. Summar.

“[W]e’re in a midlife period right now where we’re bringing forward this new technology, but we’ve got to continually prepare the field for it first,” he said. “I think in the future we’ll see that it has much greater utility in the general setting,” he said.


Jeff Craven is a freelance journalist specializing in medicine and health.

Suggested reading

Vandeborne L et al. Information needs of physicians regarding the diagnosis of rare diseases: A questionnaire-based study in Belgium. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):99.

The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD)is tremendously grateful to the dedicated healthcare professionals who, despite long days and heavy workloads, continue to seek the latest information on medical advances that might be helpful to their patients. Please know that your commitment and support are tremendously important to the patients and families whom we serve.

As you may be aware, NORD is a nonprofit organization that was established in 1983 to provide advocacy, education, patient/family services and research on behalf of all Americans affected by rare diseases and the medical professionals providing their care.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

As we approach NORD’s 40th anniversary, it is astonishing to realize how far we all have come since the early 1980s, when rare disease patients and their medical providers were essentially on their own to navigate the challenging waters of rare disease diagnosis and treatment.

Today, we are living in one of the most exciting periods in medical history, with innovative new diagnostics and treatments being developed or on the horizon. You’ll find information about these medical advances, as well as resources for yourself and your patients, on the NORD website including our Rare Disease Database, Video Library, CME programs and resources, and newsletter for medical professionals.

You’ll also find information about the annual NORD Rare Diseases and Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit, the largest annual conference for professionals and patients in the rare community, along with our annual conference specifically for patients and families, the “Living Rare, Living Stronger Family Forum.”

This issue of the Rare Neurological Diseases Special Report features articles from rare disease medical experts on specific diseases, including spinal muscular atrophy, Pompe disease, and Rett syndrome, as well as more general topics such as genetic therapies for neuromuscular diseases.

Also in this issue are articles on new and exciting initiatives such as the “NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence.” These 31 centers, geographically dispersed across the nation, represent an attempt to provide a strong, national network of support for both patients and medical professionals to promote earlier diagnosis and optimal care, regardless of location.

An interview in this issue with one of NORD’s longtime medical advisors and a leading rare disease expert provides advice for community physicians and other HCPs related to diagnosing rare diseases and approaches that may help shorten the diagnostic odyssey for patients. In addition, you can read about how patient advocacy organizations are collecting and managing a precious asset – patient data – to advance understanding of diseases, even extremely rare ones, and support research.

We are grateful for the work you do and for your commitment to your patients, including those with extremely rare or newly identified diseases. We invite you to visit the NORD website often, sign up for our newsletter for medical professionals and contact NORD at any time if we can be helpful to you.

Peter L. Saltonstall, president and CEO 
National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD)

The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD)is tremendously grateful to the dedicated healthcare professionals who, despite long days and heavy workloads, continue to seek the latest information on medical advances that might be helpful to their patients. Please know that your commitment and support are tremendously important to the patients and families whom we serve.

As you may be aware, NORD is a nonprofit organization that was established in 1983 to provide advocacy, education, patient/family services and research on behalf of all Americans affected by rare diseases and the medical professionals providing their care.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

As we approach NORD’s 40th anniversary, it is astonishing to realize how far we all have come since the early 1980s, when rare disease patients and their medical providers were essentially on their own to navigate the challenging waters of rare disease diagnosis and treatment.

Today, we are living in one of the most exciting periods in medical history, with innovative new diagnostics and treatments being developed or on the horizon. You’ll find information about these medical advances, as well as resources for yourself and your patients, on the NORD website including our Rare Disease Database, Video Library, CME programs and resources, and newsletter for medical professionals.

You’ll also find information about the annual NORD Rare Diseases and Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit, the largest annual conference for professionals and patients in the rare community, along with our annual conference specifically for patients and families, the “Living Rare, Living Stronger Family Forum.”

This issue of the Rare Neurological Diseases Special Report features articles from rare disease medical experts on specific diseases, including spinal muscular atrophy, Pompe disease, and Rett syndrome, as well as more general topics such as genetic therapies for neuromuscular diseases.

Also in this issue are articles on new and exciting initiatives such as the “NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence.” These 31 centers, geographically dispersed across the nation, represent an attempt to provide a strong, national network of support for both patients and medical professionals to promote earlier diagnosis and optimal care, regardless of location.

An interview in this issue with one of NORD’s longtime medical advisors and a leading rare disease expert provides advice for community physicians and other HCPs related to diagnosing rare diseases and approaches that may help shorten the diagnostic odyssey for patients. In addition, you can read about how patient advocacy organizations are collecting and managing a precious asset – patient data – to advance understanding of diseases, even extremely rare ones, and support research.

We are grateful for the work you do and for your commitment to your patients, including those with extremely rare or newly identified diseases. We invite you to visit the NORD website often, sign up for our newsletter for medical professionals and contact NORD at any time if we can be helpful to you.

Peter L. Saltonstall, president and CEO 
National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD)

The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD)is tremendously grateful to the dedicated healthcare professionals who, despite long days and heavy workloads, continue to seek the latest information on medical advances that might be helpful to their patients. Please know that your commitment and support are tremendously important to the patients and families whom we serve.

As you may be aware, NORD is a nonprofit organization that was established in 1983 to provide advocacy, education, patient/family services and research on behalf of all Americans affected by rare diseases and the medical professionals providing their care.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

As we approach NORD’s 40th anniversary, it is astonishing to realize how far we all have come since the early 1980s, when rare disease patients and their medical providers were essentially on their own to navigate the challenging waters of rare disease diagnosis and treatment.

Today, we are living in one of the most exciting periods in medical history, with innovative new diagnostics and treatments being developed or on the horizon. You’ll find information about these medical advances, as well as resources for yourself and your patients, on the NORD website including our Rare Disease Database, Video Library, CME programs and resources, and newsletter for medical professionals.

You’ll also find information about the annual NORD Rare Diseases and Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit, the largest annual conference for professionals and patients in the rare community, along with our annual conference specifically for patients and families, the “Living Rare, Living Stronger Family Forum.”

This issue of the Rare Neurological Diseases Special Report features articles from rare disease medical experts on specific diseases, including spinal muscular atrophy, Pompe disease, and Rett syndrome, as well as more general topics such as genetic therapies for neuromuscular diseases.

Also in this issue are articles on new and exciting initiatives such as the “NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence.” These 31 centers, geographically dispersed across the nation, represent an attempt to provide a strong, national network of support for both patients and medical professionals to promote earlier diagnosis and optimal care, regardless of location.

An interview in this issue with one of NORD’s longtime medical advisors and a leading rare disease expert provides advice for community physicians and other HCPs related to diagnosing rare diseases and approaches that may help shorten the diagnostic odyssey for patients. In addition, you can read about how patient advocacy organizations are collecting and managing a precious asset – patient data – to advance understanding of diseases, even extremely rare ones, and support research.

We are grateful for the work you do and for your commitment to your patients, including those with extremely rare or newly identified diseases. We invite you to visit the NORD website often, sign up for our newsletter for medical professionals and contact NORD at any time if we can be helpful to you.

Peter L. Saltonstall, president and CEO 
National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD)

Thankfully, the COVID pandemic has not killed the spirit of innovation and the relentless search for answers in the rare disease community. There were several notable FDA approvals in 2021 and early 2022, emerging genetic therapies for monogenetic disorders, and recent advances in rare disease diagnosis and testing. This 7th annual issue of the Rare Neurological Disease Special Report highlights some of these developments.

For those of you who have been following the Rare Neurological Disease Special Report over the years, it is with great pride that I report that last year’s issue won a prestigious B2B award. The 2021 issue, our 6th annual issue, won an American Society of Business Publication Editors (ASBPE) Silver Regional Award for excellence in an annual publication. It has been our honor over the years to partner with the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) to serve the rare neurological disease community. That effort is rewarding enough. Winning an award is icing on the cake but much appreciated.

—Glenn Williams, VP, Group Editor; Neurology Reviews and MDedge Neurology

Thankfully, the COVID pandemic has not killed the spirit of innovation and the relentless search for answers in the rare disease community. There were several notable FDA approvals in 2021 and early 2022, emerging genetic therapies for monogenetic disorders, and recent advances in rare disease diagnosis and testing. This 7th annual issue of the Rare Neurological Disease Special Report highlights some of these developments.

For those of you who have been following the Rare Neurological Disease Special Report over the years, it is with great pride that I report that last year’s issue won a prestigious B2B award. The 2021 issue, our 6th annual issue, won an American Society of Business Publication Editors (ASBPE) Silver Regional Award for excellence in an annual publication. It has been our honor over the years to partner with the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) to serve the rare neurological disease community. That effort is rewarding enough. Winning an award is icing on the cake but much appreciated.

—Glenn Williams, VP, Group Editor; Neurology Reviews and MDedge Neurology

Thankfully, the COVID pandemic has not killed the spirit of innovation and the relentless search for answers in the rare disease community. There were several notable FDA approvals in 2021 and early 2022, emerging genetic therapies for monogenetic disorders, and recent advances in rare disease diagnosis and testing. This 7th annual issue of the Rare Neurological Disease Special Report highlights some of these developments.

For those of you who have been following the Rare Neurological Disease Special Report over the years, it is with great pride that I report that last year’s issue won a prestigious B2B award. The 2021 issue, our 6th annual issue, won an American Society of Business Publication Editors (ASBPE) Silver Regional Award for excellence in an annual publication. It has been our honor over the years to partner with the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) to serve the rare neurological disease community. That effort is rewarding enough. Winning an award is icing on the cake but much appreciated.

—Glenn Williams, VP, Group Editor; Neurology Reviews and MDedge Neurology

The term myasthenia gravis (MG), from the Latin “grave muscle weakness,” denotes the rare autoimmune disorder characterized by dysfunction at the neuromuscular junction.¹ The clinical presentation of the disease is variable but most often includes ocular symptoms, such as ptosis and diplopia, bulbar weakness, and muscle fatigue upon exertion.^2,3 Severe symptoms can lead to myasthenic crisis, in which generalized weakness can affect respiratory muscles, leading to possible intubation or death.^2,3

Onset of disease ranges from childhood to late adulthood, and largely depends on the subgroup of disease and the age of the patient.⁴ Although complications from MG can arise, treatment methods have considerably reduced the risk of MG-associated mortality, with the current rate estimated to be 0.06 to 0.89 deaths for every 1 million person-years (that is, approximately 5% of cases).^3,5
 

Pathophysiology

MG is caused by binding of autoimmune antibodies to postsynaptic receptors and by molecules that prevent signal transduction at the muscle endplate.^2,4,6,7 The main culprit behind the pathology (in approximately 85% of cases) is an autoimmune antibody for the acetylcholine receptor (AChR); however, other offending antibodies – against muscle-specific serine kinases (MuSK), low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 (LRP4), and the proteoglycan agrin – are known, although at a lower frequency (in approximately 15% of cases).^4,8 These antibodies prevent signal transmission by blocking, destroying, or disrupting the clustering of AChR at the muscle endplate, a necessary step in formation of the neuromuscular junction.^4,8,9

• AChR antibody-positive.
• MuSK antibody-positive.
• LRP4 antibody-positive.
• Seronegative MG.

Classifying MG into subgroups gives insight into the functional expectations and potential treatment options for a given patient, although expectations can vary.²

Regrettably, the well-understood pathophysiology, diagnosis, and prognosis of MG have limited investigation and development of new therapies. Additionally, mainstay treatments, such as thymectomy and prednisone, work to alleviate symptoms for most patients, and have also contributed to periods of slowed research and development. However, treatment of refractory MG has, in recent years, become the subject of research on new therapeutic options, aimed at treating heterogeneous disease populations.¹⁰

In this review, we discuss the diagnosis of, and treatment options for, MG, and provide an update on promising options in the therapeutic pipeline.

Diagnosis

Distinguishing MG from other neuromuscular junction disorders is a pertinent step before treatment. Although the biomarkers discussed in this section are sensitive for making a diagnosis of MG, additional research is needed to classify seronegative patients who do not have circulating autoantibodies that are pathognomonic for MG.¹¹

Consensus on treatment standards

A quantitative assessment of best options for treating MG was conducted by leading experts,¹³ who reached consensus that primary outcomes in treating MG are reached when a patient presents without symptoms or limitations on daily activities; or has only slight weakness or fatigue in some muscles.¹³

Emerging therapies

Although conventional treatments for MG are well-established, 10% to 20% of MG patients remain refractory to therapeutic intervention.²¹ These patients are more susceptible to myasthenic crisis, which can result in hospitalization, intubation, and death.²¹ As mentioned, rescue therapies, including plasmapheresis and IVIg, are imperative to achieve remission of refractory MG, but such remission is unsustainable. Risks associated with these therapies, including contraindications and patient comorbidity, and their limited availability have prevented plasmapheresis and IVIg from being reliable interventions.¹²

These shortcomings, along with promising results from randomized clinical trials of newer modes of pharmacotherapeutic intervention, have increased interest in new therapies for MG. For example, complement pathway and neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) inhibitors have recently shown promise in removing pathogenic autoimmune antibodies.¹⁸

Efgartigimod. FcRn is of interest in treating generalized MG because of its capacity to recycle and extend the half-life of IgG.²² Efgartigimod is a high-affinity FcRn inhibitor that simultaneously reduces IgG recycling and increases its degradation.²² This therapy is unique: it is highly selective for IgG, whereas other FcRn therapies are nonspecific, causing an undesirable decrease in other immunoglobulin and albumin levels.²² In December 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved efgartigimod for the treatment of AChR-positive generalized MG.²³

Zilucoplan is a subcutaneously administered complement inhibitor that has completed phase 3 clinical trials.^18,24 The drug works by inhibiting cleavage of proteins C5a and C5b in the terminal complement complex, a necessary step in forming cytotoxic pores on targeted cells.^18,24 Zilucoplan also prevents tissue damage and destruction of signal transmission at the postsynaptic membrane.²⁵ Clinical trials have already established improvement in the Quantitative MG Score and the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living Score in patients with generalized MG.^18,24

Zilucoplan is similar to eculizumab, but targets a different binding site, allowing for treatment of heterogeneous MG populations who have a mutation in the eculizumab target antigen.²⁶ Additionally, due to specific drug-body interactions, parameters for treatment using zilucoplan are broader than for therapies such as eculizumab. In a Zilucoplan press-release, the complement inhibitor showed statistically significant improvement in the treatment group of generalized, AChR-positive MG patients compared to the placebo group. Tolerability and safety was also a favorable finding in this study. However, a similar rate of treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded between the treatment group (76.7%) and placebo group (70.5%) which could indicate that the clinical application of this treatment is still forthcoming.²⁷ If zilucoplan is approved by the FDA, it will be used earlier in disease progression and for a larger subset of patients.²⁶

Nipocalimab is another immunoglobulin G1, FcRn antibody that reduces IgG levels in blood.^27,28 A phase 2 clinical study in patients with AChR-positive or MuSK antibody–associated MG showed that 52% of patients who received nipocalimab had a significant reduction in the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living Score 4 weeks after infusion.²⁸ Phase 3 studies for adults with generalized MG are underway and are expected to conclude in April 2026.²⁹
 

Looking forward

Despite emerging therapies aimed at treating IgG in both refractory and nonrefractory MG, there is still a need for research into biomarkers that further differentiate disease. Developing research into new biomarkers, such as circulating microRNAs, gives insight into the promise of personalized medicine, which can shape the landscape of MG and other disorders.³⁰ As of August 2022, only two clinical trials are slated for investigation into new biomarkers for MG.

Although the treatment of MG might have once been considered stagnant, newer expert consensus and novel research are generating optimism for innovative therapies in coming years.
 

Mr. van der Eb is a second-year candidate in the master’s of science in applied life sciences program, Keck Graduate Institute, Claremont, Calif.; he has an associate’s degree in natural sciences from Pasadena City College, Calif., and a bachelor’s degree in biological sciences from the University of California, Irvine. Ms. Toruno is a graduate from the master’s of science in applied life sciences program, Keck Graduate Institute; she has a bachelor’s degree in psychology, with a minor in biological sciences, from the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Laird is director of clinical education and professor of practice for the master’s of science in physician assistant studies program, Keck Graduate Institute; he practices clinically in general and thoracic surgery.

The authors report no conflict of interest related to this article.

References

1. Gilhus NE et al. Myasthenia gravis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 May 2;5(1):30. doi: 10.1038/s41572-019-0079-y.

2. Gilhus NE, Verschuuren JJ. Myasthenia gravis: Subgroup classification and therapeutic strategies. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Oct;14(10):1023-36. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00145-3.

3. Dresser L et al. Myasthenia gravis: Epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical manifestations. J Clin Med. 2021 May;10(11):2235. doi: 10.3390/jcm10112235.

4. Iyer SR et al. The neuromuscular junction: Roles in aging and neuromuscular disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Jul;22(15):8058. doi: 10.3390/ijms22158058.

5. Hehir MK, Silvestri NJ. Generalized myasthenia gravis: Classification, clinical presentation, natural history, and epidemiology. Neurol Clin. 2018 May;36(2):253-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2018.01.002.

6. Prüss H. Autoantibodies in neurological disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2021 Dec;21(12):798-813. doi: 10.1038/s41577-021-00543-w.

7. Drachman DB et al. Myasthenic antibodies cross-link acetylcholine receptors to accelerate degradation. N Engl J Med. 1978 May 18;298(20):1116-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197805182982004.

8. Meriggioli MN. Myasthenia gravis with anti-acetylcholine receptor antibodies. Front Neurol Neurosci. 2009;26:94-108. doi: 10.1159/000212371.

9. Zhang HL, Peng HB. Mechanism of acetylcholine receptor cluster formation induced by DC electric field. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026805.

10. Fichtner ML et al. Autoimmune pathology in myasthenia gravis disease subtypes is governed by divergent mechanisms of immunopathology. Front Immunol. 2020 May 27;11:776. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00776.

11. Tzartos JS et al. LRP4 antibodies in serum and CSF from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2014 Feb;1(2):80-87. doi: 10.1002/acn3.26.

12. Narayanaswami P et al. International consensus guidance for management of myasthenia gravis: 2020 update. Neurology. 2021;96(3):114-22. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011124.

13. Cortés-Vicente E et al. Myasthenia gravis treatment updates. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2020 Jul 15;22(8):24. doi: 10.1007/s11940-020-00632-6.

14. Tannemaat MR, Verschuuren JJGM. Emerging therapies for autoimmune myasthenia gravis: Towards treatment without corticosteroids. Neuromuscul Disord. 2020 Feb;30(2):111-9. doi: 10.1016/j.nmd.2019.12.003.

15. Silvestri NJ, Wolfe GI. Treatment-refractory myasthenia gravis. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2014 Jun;15(4):167-78. doi: 10.1097/CND.0000000000000034.

16. Sanders DB et al. International consensus guidance for management of myasthenia gravis: Executive summary. Neurology. 2016 Jul 26;87(4):419-25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002790.

17. Evoli A, Meacci E. An update on thymectomy in myasthenia gravis. Expert Rev Neurother. 2019 Sep;19(9):823-33. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2019.1600404.

18. Habib AA et al. Update on immune-mediated therapies for myasthenia gravis. Muscle Nerve. 2020 Nov;62(5):579-92. doi: 10.1002/mus.26919.

19. O’Sullivan KE et al. A systematic review of robotic versus open and video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) approaches for thymectomy. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Mar;8(2):174-93. doi: 10.21037/acs.2019.02.04.

20. Wolfe GI et al; MGTX Study Group. Randomized trial of thymectomy in myasthenia gravis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(6):511-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602489.

21. Schneider-Gold C et al. Understanding the burden of refractory myasthenia gravis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2019 Mar 1;12:1756286419832242. doi: 10.1177/1756286419832242.

22. Howard JF Jr et al; ADAPT Investigator Study Group. Safety, efficacy, and tolerability of efgartigimod in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis (ADAPT): A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jul;20(7):526-36. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00159-9.

23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves new treatment for myasthenia gravis. News release. Dec 17, 2021. Accessed Feb 21, 2022. http://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-treatment-myasthenia-gravis.

24. Ra Pharmaceuticals. A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study to confirm the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of zilucoplan in subjects with generalized myasthenia gravis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04115293. Updated Jan 28, 2022. Accessed Feb 21, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04115293.

25. Howard JF Jr et al. Zilucoplan: An investigational complement C5 inhibitor for the treatment of acetylcholine receptor autoantibody–positive generalized myasthenia gravis. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2021 May;30(5):483-93. doi: 10.1080/13543784.2021.1897567.

26. Albazli K et al. Complement inhibitor therapy for myasthenia gravis. Front Immunol. 2020 Jun 3;11:917. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00917.

27. UCB announces positive Phase 3 results for rozanolixizumab in generalized myasthenia gravis. UCB press release. December 10. 2021. Accessed August 15, 2022. https://www.ucb.com/stories-media/Press-Releases/article/UCB-announces-positive-Phase-3-results-for-rozanolixizumab-in-generalized-myasthenia-gravis.

28. Keller CW et al. Fc-receptor targeted therapies for the treatment of myasthenia gravis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May;22(11):5755. doi: 10.3390/ijms22115755.

29. Janssen Research & Development LLC. Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of nipocalimab administered to adults with generalized myasthenia gravis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04951622. Updated Feb 17, 2022. Accessed Feb 21, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04951622.

30. Sabre L et al. Circulating miRNAs as potential biomarkers in myasthenia gravis: Tools for personalized medicine. Front Immunol. 2020 Mar 4;11:213. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00213.


 

The term myasthenia gravis (MG), from the Latin “grave muscle weakness,” denotes the rare autoimmune disorder characterized by dysfunction at the neuromuscular junction.¹ The clinical presentation of the disease is variable but most often includes ocular symptoms, such as ptosis and diplopia, bulbar weakness, and muscle fatigue upon exertion.^2,3 Severe symptoms can lead to myasthenic crisis, in which generalized weakness can affect respiratory muscles, leading to possible intubation or death.^2,3

Onset of disease ranges from childhood to late adulthood, and largely depends on the subgroup of disease and the age of the patient.⁴ Although complications from MG can arise, treatment methods have considerably reduced the risk of MG-associated mortality, with the current rate estimated to be 0.06 to 0.89 deaths for every 1 million person-years (that is, approximately 5% of cases).^3,5
 

Pathophysiology

MG is caused by binding of autoimmune antibodies to postsynaptic receptors and by molecules that prevent signal transduction at the muscle endplate.^2,4,6,7 The main culprit behind the pathology (in approximately 85% of cases) is an autoimmune antibody for the acetylcholine receptor (AChR); however, other offending antibodies – against muscle-specific serine kinases (MuSK), low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 (LRP4), and the proteoglycan agrin – are known, although at a lower frequency (in approximately 15% of cases).^4,8 These antibodies prevent signal transmission by blocking, destroying, or disrupting the clustering of AChR at the muscle endplate, a necessary step in formation of the neuromuscular junction.^4,8,9

• AChR antibody-positive.
• MuSK antibody-positive.
• LRP4 antibody-positive.
• Seronegative MG.

Classifying MG into subgroups gives insight into the functional expectations and potential treatment options for a given patient, although expectations can vary.²

Regrettably, the well-understood pathophysiology, diagnosis, and prognosis of MG have limited investigation and development of new therapies. Additionally, mainstay treatments, such as thymectomy and prednisone, work to alleviate symptoms for most patients, and have also contributed to periods of slowed research and development. However, treatment of refractory MG has, in recent years, become the subject of research on new therapeutic options, aimed at treating heterogeneous disease populations.¹⁰

In this review, we discuss the diagnosis of, and treatment options for, MG, and provide an update on promising options in the therapeutic pipeline.

Diagnosis

Distinguishing MG from other neuromuscular junction disorders is a pertinent step before treatment. Although the biomarkers discussed in this section are sensitive for making a diagnosis of MG, additional research is needed to classify seronegative patients who do not have circulating autoantibodies that are pathognomonic for MG.¹¹

Consensus on treatment standards

A quantitative assessment of best options for treating MG was conducted by leading experts,¹³ who reached consensus that primary outcomes in treating MG are reached when a patient presents without symptoms or limitations on daily activities; or has only slight weakness or fatigue in some muscles.¹³

Emerging therapies

Although conventional treatments for MG are well-established, 10% to 20% of MG patients remain refractory to therapeutic intervention.²¹ These patients are more susceptible to myasthenic crisis, which can result in hospitalization, intubation, and death.²¹ As mentioned, rescue therapies, including plasmapheresis and IVIg, are imperative to achieve remission of refractory MG, but such remission is unsustainable. Risks associated with these therapies, including contraindications and patient comorbidity, and their limited availability have prevented plasmapheresis and IVIg from being reliable interventions.¹²

These shortcomings, along with promising results from randomized clinical trials of newer modes of pharmacotherapeutic intervention, have increased interest in new therapies for MG. For example, complement pathway and neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) inhibitors have recently shown promise in removing pathogenic autoimmune antibodies.¹⁸

Efgartigimod. FcRn is of interest in treating generalized MG because of its capacity to recycle and extend the half-life of IgG.²² Efgartigimod is a high-affinity FcRn inhibitor that simultaneously reduces IgG recycling and increases its degradation.²² This therapy is unique: it is highly selective for IgG, whereas other FcRn therapies are nonspecific, causing an undesirable decrease in other immunoglobulin and albumin levels.²² In December 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved efgartigimod for the treatment of AChR-positive generalized MG.²³

Zilucoplan is a subcutaneously administered complement inhibitor that has completed phase 3 clinical trials.^18,24 The drug works by inhibiting cleavage of proteins C5a and C5b in the terminal complement complex, a necessary step in forming cytotoxic pores on targeted cells.^18,24 Zilucoplan also prevents tissue damage and destruction of signal transmission at the postsynaptic membrane.²⁵ Clinical trials have already established improvement in the Quantitative MG Score and the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living Score in patients with generalized MG.^18,24

Zilucoplan is similar to eculizumab, but targets a different binding site, allowing for treatment of heterogeneous MG populations who have a mutation in the eculizumab target antigen.²⁶ Additionally, due to specific drug-body interactions, parameters for treatment using zilucoplan are broader than for therapies such as eculizumab. In a Zilucoplan press-release, the complement inhibitor showed statistically significant improvement in the treatment group of generalized, AChR-positive MG patients compared to the placebo group. Tolerability and safety was also a favorable finding in this study. However, a similar rate of treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded between the treatment group (76.7%) and placebo group (70.5%) which could indicate that the clinical application of this treatment is still forthcoming.²⁷ If zilucoplan is approved by the FDA, it will be used earlier in disease progression and for a larger subset of patients.²⁶

Nipocalimab is another immunoglobulin G1, FcRn antibody that reduces IgG levels in blood.^27,28 A phase 2 clinical study in patients with AChR-positive or MuSK antibody–associated MG showed that 52% of patients who received nipocalimab had a significant reduction in the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living Score 4 weeks after infusion.²⁸ Phase 3 studies for adults with generalized MG are underway and are expected to conclude in April 2026.²⁹
 

Looking forward

Despite emerging therapies aimed at treating IgG in both refractory and nonrefractory MG, there is still a need for research into biomarkers that further differentiate disease. Developing research into new biomarkers, such as circulating microRNAs, gives insight into the promise of personalized medicine, which can shape the landscape of MG and other disorders.³⁰ As of August 2022, only two clinical trials are slated for investigation into new biomarkers for MG.

Although the treatment of MG might have once been considered stagnant, newer expert consensus and novel research are generating optimism for innovative therapies in coming years.
 

Mr. van der Eb is a second-year candidate in the master’s of science in applied life sciences program, Keck Graduate Institute, Claremont, Calif.; he has an associate’s degree in natural sciences from Pasadena City College, Calif., and a bachelor’s degree in biological sciences from the University of California, Irvine. Ms. Toruno is a graduate from the master’s of science in applied life sciences program, Keck Graduate Institute; she has a bachelor’s degree in psychology, with a minor in biological sciences, from the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Laird is director of clinical education and professor of practice for the master’s of science in physician assistant studies program, Keck Graduate Institute; he practices clinically in general and thoracic surgery.

The authors report no conflict of interest related to this article.

References

1. Gilhus NE et al. Myasthenia gravis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 May 2;5(1):30. doi: 10.1038/s41572-019-0079-y.

2. Gilhus NE, Verschuuren JJ. Myasthenia gravis: Subgroup classification and therapeutic strategies. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Oct;14(10):1023-36. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00145-3.

3. Dresser L et al. Myasthenia gravis: Epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical manifestations. J Clin Med. 2021 May;10(11):2235. doi: 10.3390/jcm10112235.

4. Iyer SR et al. The neuromuscular junction: Roles in aging and neuromuscular disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Jul;22(15):8058. doi: 10.3390/ijms22158058.

5. Hehir MK, Silvestri NJ. Generalized myasthenia gravis: Classification, clinical presentation, natural history, and epidemiology. Neurol Clin. 2018 May;36(2):253-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2018.01.002.

6. Prüss H. Autoantibodies in neurological disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2021 Dec;21(12):798-813. doi: 10.1038/s41577-021-00543-w.

7. Drachman DB et al. Myasthenic antibodies cross-link acetylcholine receptors to accelerate degradation. N Engl J Med. 1978 May 18;298(20):1116-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197805182982004.

8. Meriggioli MN. Myasthenia gravis with anti-acetylcholine receptor antibodies. Front Neurol Neurosci. 2009;26:94-108. doi: 10.1159/000212371.

9. Zhang HL, Peng HB. Mechanism of acetylcholine receptor cluster formation induced by DC electric field. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026805.

10. Fichtner ML et al. Autoimmune pathology in myasthenia gravis disease subtypes is governed by divergent mechanisms of immunopathology. Front Immunol. 2020 May 27;11:776. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00776.

11. Tzartos JS et al. LRP4 antibodies in serum and CSF from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2014 Feb;1(2):80-87. doi: 10.1002/acn3.26.

12. Narayanaswami P et al. International consensus guidance for management of myasthenia gravis: 2020 update. Neurology. 2021;96(3):114-22. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011124.

13. Cortés-Vicente E et al. Myasthenia gravis treatment updates. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2020 Jul 15;22(8):24. doi: 10.1007/s11940-020-00632-6.

14. Tannemaat MR, Verschuuren JJGM. Emerging therapies for autoimmune myasthenia gravis: Towards treatment without corticosteroids. Neuromuscul Disord. 2020 Feb;30(2):111-9. doi: 10.1016/j.nmd.2019.12.003.

15. Silvestri NJ, Wolfe GI. Treatment-refractory myasthenia gravis. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2014 Jun;15(4):167-78. doi: 10.1097/CND.0000000000000034.

16. Sanders DB et al. International consensus guidance for management of myasthenia gravis: Executive summary. Neurology. 2016 Jul 26;87(4):419-25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002790.

17. Evoli A, Meacci E. An update on thymectomy in myasthenia gravis. Expert Rev Neurother. 2019 Sep;19(9):823-33. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2019.1600404.

18. Habib AA et al. Update on immune-mediated therapies for myasthenia gravis. Muscle Nerve. 2020 Nov;62(5):579-92. doi: 10.1002/mus.26919.

19. O’Sullivan KE et al. A systematic review of robotic versus open and video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) approaches for thymectomy. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Mar;8(2):174-93. doi: 10.21037/acs.2019.02.04.

20. Wolfe GI et al; MGTX Study Group. Randomized trial of thymectomy in myasthenia gravis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(6):511-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602489.

21. Schneider-Gold C et al. Understanding the burden of refractory myasthenia gravis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2019 Mar 1;12:1756286419832242. doi: 10.1177/1756286419832242.

22. Howard JF Jr et al; ADAPT Investigator Study Group. Safety, efficacy, and tolerability of efgartigimod in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis (ADAPT): A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jul;20(7):526-36. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00159-9.

23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves new treatment for myasthenia gravis. News release. Dec 17, 2021. Accessed Feb 21, 2022. http://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-treatment-myasthenia-gravis.

24. Ra Pharmaceuticals. A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study to confirm the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of zilucoplan in subjects with generalized myasthenia gravis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04115293. Updated Jan 28, 2022. Accessed Feb 21, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04115293.

25. Howard JF Jr et al. Zilucoplan: An investigational complement C5 inhibitor for the treatment of acetylcholine receptor autoantibody–positive generalized myasthenia gravis. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2021 May;30(5):483-93. doi: 10.1080/13543784.2021.1897567.

26. Albazli K et al. Complement inhibitor therapy for myasthenia gravis. Front Immunol. 2020 Jun 3;11:917. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00917.

27. UCB announces positive Phase 3 results for rozanolixizumab in generalized myasthenia gravis. UCB press release. December 10. 2021. Accessed August 15, 2022. https://www.ucb.com/stories-media/Press-Releases/article/UCB-announces-positive-Phase-3-results-for-rozanolixizumab-in-generalized-myasthenia-gravis.

28. Keller CW et al. Fc-receptor targeted therapies for the treatment of myasthenia gravis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May;22(11):5755. doi: 10.3390/ijms22115755.

29. Janssen Research & Development LLC. Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of nipocalimab administered to adults with generalized myasthenia gravis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04951622. Updated Feb 17, 2022. Accessed Feb 21, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04951622.

30. Sabre L et al. Circulating miRNAs as potential biomarkers in myasthenia gravis: Tools for personalized medicine. Front Immunol. 2020 Mar 4;11:213. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00213.


 

The term myasthenia gravis (MG), from the Latin “grave muscle weakness,” denotes the rare autoimmune disorder characterized by dysfunction at the neuromuscular junction.¹ The clinical presentation of the disease is variable but most often includes ocular symptoms, such as ptosis and diplopia, bulbar weakness, and muscle fatigue upon exertion.^2,3 Severe symptoms can lead to myasthenic crisis, in which generalized weakness can affect respiratory muscles, leading to possible intubation or death.^2,3

Onset of disease ranges from childhood to late adulthood, and largely depends on the subgroup of disease and the age of the patient.⁴ Although complications from MG can arise, treatment methods have considerably reduced the risk of MG-associated mortality, with the current rate estimated to be 0.06 to 0.89 deaths for every 1 million person-years (that is, approximately 5% of cases).^3,5
 

Pathophysiology

MG is caused by binding of autoimmune antibodies to postsynaptic receptors and by molecules that prevent signal transduction at the muscle endplate.^2,4,6,7 The main culprit behind the pathology (in approximately 85% of cases) is an autoimmune antibody for the acetylcholine receptor (AChR); however, other offending antibodies – against muscle-specific serine kinases (MuSK), low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 (LRP4), and the proteoglycan agrin – are known, although at a lower frequency (in approximately 15% of cases).^4,8 These antibodies prevent signal transmission by blocking, destroying, or disrupting the clustering of AChR at the muscle endplate, a necessary step in formation of the neuromuscular junction.^4,8,9

• AChR antibody-positive.
• MuSK antibody-positive.
• LRP4 antibody-positive.
• Seronegative MG.

Classifying MG into subgroups gives insight into the functional expectations and potential treatment options for a given patient, although expectations can vary.²

Regrettably, the well-understood pathophysiology, diagnosis, and prognosis of MG have limited investigation and development of new therapies. Additionally, mainstay treatments, such as thymectomy and prednisone, work to alleviate symptoms for most patients, and have also contributed to periods of slowed research and development. However, treatment of refractory MG has, in recent years, become the subject of research on new therapeutic options, aimed at treating heterogeneous disease populations.¹⁰

In this review, we discuss the diagnosis of, and treatment options for, MG, and provide an update on promising options in the therapeutic pipeline.

Diagnosis

Distinguishing MG from other neuromuscular junction disorders is a pertinent step before treatment. Although the biomarkers discussed in this section are sensitive for making a diagnosis of MG, additional research is needed to classify seronegative patients who do not have circulating autoantibodies that are pathognomonic for MG.¹¹

Consensus on treatment standards

A quantitative assessment of best options for treating MG was conducted by leading experts,¹³ who reached consensus that primary outcomes in treating MG are reached when a patient presents without symptoms or limitations on daily activities; or has only slight weakness or fatigue in some muscles.¹³

Emerging therapies

Although conventional treatments for MG are well-established, 10% to 20% of MG patients remain refractory to therapeutic intervention.²¹ These patients are more susceptible to myasthenic crisis, which can result in hospitalization, intubation, and death.²¹ As mentioned, rescue therapies, including plasmapheresis and IVIg, are imperative to achieve remission of refractory MG, but such remission is unsustainable. Risks associated with these therapies, including contraindications and patient comorbidity, and their limited availability have prevented plasmapheresis and IVIg from being reliable interventions.¹²

These shortcomings, along with promising results from randomized clinical trials of newer modes of pharmacotherapeutic intervention, have increased interest in new therapies for MG. For example, complement pathway and neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) inhibitors have recently shown promise in removing pathogenic autoimmune antibodies.¹⁸

Efgartigimod. FcRn is of interest in treating generalized MG because of its capacity to recycle and extend the half-life of IgG.²² Efgartigimod is a high-affinity FcRn inhibitor that simultaneously reduces IgG recycling and increases its degradation.²² This therapy is unique: it is highly selective for IgG, whereas other FcRn therapies are nonspecific, causing an undesirable decrease in other immunoglobulin and albumin levels.²² In December 2021, the Food and Drug Administration approved efgartigimod for the treatment of AChR-positive generalized MG.²³

Zilucoplan is a subcutaneously administered complement inhibitor that has completed phase 3 clinical trials.^18,24 The drug works by inhibiting cleavage of proteins C5a and C5b in the terminal complement complex, a necessary step in forming cytotoxic pores on targeted cells.^18,24 Zilucoplan also prevents tissue damage and destruction of signal transmission at the postsynaptic membrane.²⁵ Clinical trials have already established improvement in the Quantitative MG Score and the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living Score in patients with generalized MG.^18,24

Zilucoplan is similar to eculizumab, but targets a different binding site, allowing for treatment of heterogeneous MG populations who have a mutation in the eculizumab target antigen.²⁶ Additionally, due to specific drug-body interactions, parameters for treatment using zilucoplan are broader than for therapies such as eculizumab. In a Zilucoplan press-release, the complement inhibitor showed statistically significant improvement in the treatment group of generalized, AChR-positive MG patients compared to the placebo group. Tolerability and safety was also a favorable finding in this study. However, a similar rate of treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded between the treatment group (76.7%) and placebo group (70.5%) which could indicate that the clinical application of this treatment is still forthcoming.²⁷ If zilucoplan is approved by the FDA, it will be used earlier in disease progression and for a larger subset of patients.²⁶

Nipocalimab is another immunoglobulin G1, FcRn antibody that reduces IgG levels in blood.^27,28 A phase 2 clinical study in patients with AChR-positive or MuSK antibody–associated MG showed that 52% of patients who received nipocalimab had a significant reduction in the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living Score 4 weeks after infusion.²⁸ Phase 3 studies for adults with generalized MG are underway and are expected to conclude in April 2026.²⁹
 

Looking forward

Despite emerging therapies aimed at treating IgG in both refractory and nonrefractory MG, there is still a need for research into biomarkers that further differentiate disease. Developing research into new biomarkers, such as circulating microRNAs, gives insight into the promise of personalized medicine, which can shape the landscape of MG and other disorders.³⁰ As of August 2022, only two clinical trials are slated for investigation into new biomarkers for MG.

Although the treatment of MG might have once been considered stagnant, newer expert consensus and novel research are generating optimism for innovative therapies in coming years.
 

Mr. van der Eb is a second-year candidate in the master’s of science in applied life sciences program, Keck Graduate Institute, Claremont, Calif.; he has an associate’s degree in natural sciences from Pasadena City College, Calif., and a bachelor’s degree in biological sciences from the University of California, Irvine. Ms. Toruno is a graduate from the master’s of science in applied life sciences program, Keck Graduate Institute; she has a bachelor’s degree in psychology, with a minor in biological sciences, from the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Laird is director of clinical education and professor of practice for the master’s of science in physician assistant studies program, Keck Graduate Institute; he practices clinically in general and thoracic surgery.

The authors report no conflict of interest related to this article.

References

1. Gilhus NE et al. Myasthenia gravis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 May 2;5(1):30. doi: 10.1038/s41572-019-0079-y.

2. Gilhus NE, Verschuuren JJ. Myasthenia gravis: Subgroup classification and therapeutic strategies. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Oct;14(10):1023-36. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00145-3.

3. Dresser L et al. Myasthenia gravis: Epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical manifestations. J Clin Med. 2021 May;10(11):2235. doi: 10.3390/jcm10112235.

4. Iyer SR et al. The neuromuscular junction: Roles in aging and neuromuscular disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Jul;22(15):8058. doi: 10.3390/ijms22158058.

5. Hehir MK, Silvestri NJ. Generalized myasthenia gravis: Classification, clinical presentation, natural history, and epidemiology. Neurol Clin. 2018 May;36(2):253-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2018.01.002.

6. Prüss H. Autoantibodies in neurological disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2021 Dec;21(12):798-813. doi: 10.1038/s41577-021-00543-w.

7. Drachman DB et al. Myasthenic antibodies cross-link acetylcholine receptors to accelerate degradation. N Engl J Med. 1978 May 18;298(20):1116-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197805182982004.

8. Meriggioli MN. Myasthenia gravis with anti-acetylcholine receptor antibodies. Front Neurol Neurosci. 2009;26:94-108. doi: 10.1159/000212371.

9. Zhang HL, Peng HB. Mechanism of acetylcholine receptor cluster formation induced by DC electric field. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026805.

10. Fichtner ML et al. Autoimmune pathology in myasthenia gravis disease subtypes is governed by divergent mechanisms of immunopathology. Front Immunol. 2020 May 27;11:776. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00776.

11. Tzartos JS et al. LRP4 antibodies in serum and CSF from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2014 Feb;1(2):80-87. doi: 10.1002/acn3.26.

12. Narayanaswami P et al. International consensus guidance for management of myasthenia gravis: 2020 update. Neurology. 2021;96(3):114-22. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011124.

13. Cortés-Vicente E et al. Myasthenia gravis treatment updates. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2020 Jul 15;22(8):24. doi: 10.1007/s11940-020-00632-6.

14. Tannemaat MR, Verschuuren JJGM. Emerging therapies for autoimmune myasthenia gravis: Towards treatment without corticosteroids. Neuromuscul Disord. 2020 Feb;30(2):111-9. doi: 10.1016/j.nmd.2019.12.003.

15. Silvestri NJ, Wolfe GI. Treatment-refractory myasthenia gravis. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2014 Jun;15(4):167-78. doi: 10.1097/CND.0000000000000034.

16. Sanders DB et al. International consensus guidance for management of myasthenia gravis: Executive summary. Neurology. 2016 Jul 26;87(4):419-25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002790.

17. Evoli A, Meacci E. An update on thymectomy in myasthenia gravis. Expert Rev Neurother. 2019 Sep;19(9):823-33. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2019.1600404.

18. Habib AA et al. Update on immune-mediated therapies for myasthenia gravis. Muscle Nerve. 2020 Nov;62(5):579-92. doi: 10.1002/mus.26919.

19. O’Sullivan KE et al. A systematic review of robotic versus open and video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) approaches for thymectomy. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Mar;8(2):174-93. doi: 10.21037/acs.2019.02.04.

20. Wolfe GI et al; MGTX Study Group. Randomized trial of thymectomy in myasthenia gravis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(6):511-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602489.

21. Schneider-Gold C et al. Understanding the burden of refractory myasthenia gravis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2019 Mar 1;12:1756286419832242. doi: 10.1177/1756286419832242.

22. Howard JF Jr et al; ADAPT Investigator Study Group. Safety, efficacy, and tolerability of efgartigimod in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis (ADAPT): A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jul;20(7):526-36. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00159-9.

23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves new treatment for myasthenia gravis. News release. Dec 17, 2021. Accessed Feb 21, 2022. http://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-treatment-myasthenia-gravis.

24. Ra Pharmaceuticals. A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study to confirm the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of zilucoplan in subjects with generalized myasthenia gravis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04115293. Updated Jan 28, 2022. Accessed Feb 21, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04115293.

25. Howard JF Jr et al. Zilucoplan: An investigational complement C5 inhibitor for the treatment of acetylcholine receptor autoantibody–positive generalized myasthenia gravis. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2021 May;30(5):483-93. doi: 10.1080/13543784.2021.1897567.

26. Albazli K et al. Complement inhibitor therapy for myasthenia gravis. Front Immunol. 2020 Jun 3;11:917. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00917.

27. UCB announces positive Phase 3 results for rozanolixizumab in generalized myasthenia gravis. UCB press release. December 10. 2021. Accessed August 15, 2022. https://www.ucb.com/stories-media/Press-Releases/article/UCB-announces-positive-Phase-3-results-for-rozanolixizumab-in-generalized-myasthenia-gravis.

28. Keller CW et al. Fc-receptor targeted therapies for the treatment of myasthenia gravis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May;22(11):5755. doi: 10.3390/ijms22115755.

29. Janssen Research & Development LLC. Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of nipocalimab administered to adults with generalized myasthenia gravis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04951622. Updated Feb 17, 2022. Accessed Feb 21, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04951622.

30. Sabre L et al. Circulating miRNAs as potential biomarkers in myasthenia gravis: Tools for personalized medicine. Front Immunol. 2020 Mar 4;11:213. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00213.


 

Babies born from the 37th week of pregnancy who are mild to moderately small for gestational age (SGA) could benefit from monitoring to check for developmental problems, a study suggested.

A team of researchers at Coventry (England) University found that birth weight below the 25th percentile was associated with more developmental concerns in early childhood than a weight between the 25th and 74th percentile.

Those difficulties were apparent at percentiles higher than the conventional threshold defining SGA, they noted.

Low and high extremes of birth weight have been associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal health outcomes, but little is known about the effects on motor skills, socialization, language, and other developmental markers for the entire range of birth weights for nonpremature babies.
 

Study linked health databases to child assessment results

To find out more, researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of 686,284 singleton infants born from 37 weeks of gestation, linking pregnancy and birth records from health databases covering all of Scotland to child development assessments carried out between the ages of 2 and 3.5 years.

The researchers looked for associations between birth weight and early childhood developmental concerns, taking into account confounders, such as maternal age, the mother’s medical history during pregnancy, early pregnancy body mass index, deprivation, ethnicity, alcohol use, and smoking history.

The study, published in the open access journal PLOS Medicine, found that babies born below the 25th percentile for birth weight had a higher risk of developmental concerns, compared with babies born between the 25th and 74th percentiles, with the infants who had the lowest birth weight most at risk of later developmental difficulties.

Those born between the 10th and 24th percentile had a relative risk of 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.12; P < .001); between the 3rd and 9th percentile, the RR was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25, P < .001), and below the 3rd percentile the RR was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.24-1.50; P < .001).

No substantial increase in the risk of early childhood developmental concerns was identified for larger birth weight categories in the 75th-89th percentile range, the researchers reported.
 

Monitoring and support

The researchers concluded that having mild to moderate SGA “is an unrecognized, potentially important contributor to the prevalence of developmental concerns.”

Before this study, babies below the 10th percentile were usually considered at risk for developmental concerns. However, the investigation found a greater number of babies within the 10th-24th percentile range of birth weights with these issues, simply because there were a larger number of babies within that population.

Abiodun Adanikin, MBBS, PhD, MPH, of Coventry University’s Centre for Healthcare Research, and study first author, said: “Though it is mostly unrecognized, babies who are mild to moderately small at birth are key contributors to the burden of childhood developmental concerns. They may need closer monitoring and increased support to reduce the risk of developmental concerns.”

The study also involved colleagues from the University of Bristol (England), the University of Glasgow, the University of Cambridge (England), and Queen Mary University of London.

This work was supported by a Wellbeing of Women Research Grant. One author has received research support from Roche Diagnostics, GSK, Illumina, and Sera Prognostics (fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia and preterm birth). He has been a paid consultant to GSK (preterm birth) and is a member of a Data Monitoring Committee for GSK trials of RSV vaccination in pregnancy. He is one of three named inventors on a patent application filed by Cambridge Enterprise for novel predictive test for fetal growth disorder. He is an academic editor on PLOS Medicine’s editorial board. The authors declare no other competing interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Babies born from the 37th week of pregnancy who are mild to moderately small for gestational age (SGA) could benefit from monitoring to check for developmental problems, a study suggested.

A team of researchers at Coventry (England) University found that birth weight below the 25th percentile was associated with more developmental concerns in early childhood than a weight between the 25th and 74th percentile.

Those difficulties were apparent at percentiles higher than the conventional threshold defining SGA, they noted.

Low and high extremes of birth weight have been associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal health outcomes, but little is known about the effects on motor skills, socialization, language, and other developmental markers for the entire range of birth weights for nonpremature babies.
 

Study linked health databases to child assessment results

To find out more, researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of 686,284 singleton infants born from 37 weeks of gestation, linking pregnancy and birth records from health databases covering all of Scotland to child development assessments carried out between the ages of 2 and 3.5 years.

The researchers looked for associations between birth weight and early childhood developmental concerns, taking into account confounders, such as maternal age, the mother’s medical history during pregnancy, early pregnancy body mass index, deprivation, ethnicity, alcohol use, and smoking history.

The study, published in the open access journal PLOS Medicine, found that babies born below the 25th percentile for birth weight had a higher risk of developmental concerns, compared with babies born between the 25th and 74th percentiles, with the infants who had the lowest birth weight most at risk of later developmental difficulties.

Those born between the 10th and 24th percentile had a relative risk of 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.12; P < .001); between the 3rd and 9th percentile, the RR was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25, P < .001), and below the 3rd percentile the RR was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.24-1.50; P < .001).

No substantial increase in the risk of early childhood developmental concerns was identified for larger birth weight categories in the 75th-89th percentile range, the researchers reported.
 

Monitoring and support

The researchers concluded that having mild to moderate SGA “is an unrecognized, potentially important contributor to the prevalence of developmental concerns.”

Before this study, babies below the 10th percentile were usually considered at risk for developmental concerns. However, the investigation found a greater number of babies within the 10th-24th percentile range of birth weights with these issues, simply because there were a larger number of babies within that population.

Abiodun Adanikin, MBBS, PhD, MPH, of Coventry University’s Centre for Healthcare Research, and study first author, said: “Though it is mostly unrecognized, babies who are mild to moderately small at birth are key contributors to the burden of childhood developmental concerns. They may need closer monitoring and increased support to reduce the risk of developmental concerns.”

The study also involved colleagues from the University of Bristol (England), the University of Glasgow, the University of Cambridge (England), and Queen Mary University of London.

This work was supported by a Wellbeing of Women Research Grant. One author has received research support from Roche Diagnostics, GSK, Illumina, and Sera Prognostics (fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia and preterm birth). He has been a paid consultant to GSK (preterm birth) and is a member of a Data Monitoring Committee for GSK trials of RSV vaccination in pregnancy. He is one of three named inventors on a patent application filed by Cambridge Enterprise for novel predictive test for fetal growth disorder. He is an academic editor on PLOS Medicine’s editorial board. The authors declare no other competing interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Babies born from the 37th week of pregnancy who are mild to moderately small for gestational age (SGA) could benefit from monitoring to check for developmental problems, a study suggested.

A team of researchers at Coventry (England) University found that birth weight below the 25th percentile was associated with more developmental concerns in early childhood than a weight between the 25th and 74th percentile.

Those difficulties were apparent at percentiles higher than the conventional threshold defining SGA, they noted.

Low and high extremes of birth weight have been associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal health outcomes, but little is known about the effects on motor skills, socialization, language, and other developmental markers for the entire range of birth weights for nonpremature babies.
 

Study linked health databases to child assessment results

To find out more, researchers conducted a population-based cohort study of 686,284 singleton infants born from 37 weeks of gestation, linking pregnancy and birth records from health databases covering all of Scotland to child development assessments carried out between the ages of 2 and 3.5 years.

The researchers looked for associations between birth weight and early childhood developmental concerns, taking into account confounders, such as maternal age, the mother’s medical history during pregnancy, early pregnancy body mass index, deprivation, ethnicity, alcohol use, and smoking history.

The study, published in the open access journal PLOS Medicine, found that babies born below the 25th percentile for birth weight had a higher risk of developmental concerns, compared with babies born between the 25th and 74th percentiles, with the infants who had the lowest birth weight most at risk of later developmental difficulties.

Those born between the 10th and 24th percentile had a relative risk of 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.12; P < .001); between the 3rd and 9th percentile, the RR was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25, P < .001), and below the 3rd percentile the RR was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.24-1.50; P < .001).

No substantial increase in the risk of early childhood developmental concerns was identified for larger birth weight categories in the 75th-89th percentile range, the researchers reported.
 

Monitoring and support

The researchers concluded that having mild to moderate SGA “is an unrecognized, potentially important contributor to the prevalence of developmental concerns.”

Before this study, babies below the 10th percentile were usually considered at risk for developmental concerns. However, the investigation found a greater number of babies within the 10th-24th percentile range of birth weights with these issues, simply because there were a larger number of babies within that population.

Abiodun Adanikin, MBBS, PhD, MPH, of Coventry University’s Centre for Healthcare Research, and study first author, said: “Though it is mostly unrecognized, babies who are mild to moderately small at birth are key contributors to the burden of childhood developmental concerns. They may need closer monitoring and increased support to reduce the risk of developmental concerns.”

The study also involved colleagues from the University of Bristol (England), the University of Glasgow, the University of Cambridge (England), and Queen Mary University of London.

This work was supported by a Wellbeing of Women Research Grant. One author has received research support from Roche Diagnostics, GSK, Illumina, and Sera Prognostics (fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia and preterm birth). He has been a paid consultant to GSK (preterm birth) and is a member of a Data Monitoring Committee for GSK trials of RSV vaccination in pregnancy. He is one of three named inventors on a patent application filed by Cambridge Enterprise for novel predictive test for fetal growth disorder. He is an academic editor on PLOS Medicine’s editorial board. The authors declare no other competing interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I run the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Many of you know that President Biden created a loan forgiveness program, forgiving up to $10,000 against federal student loans, including graduate and undergraduate education. The Department of Education is supposed to provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients who have loans that are held by the Department of Education. Borrowers can get this relief if their income is less than $125,000 for an individual or $250,000 for married couples.

Many people have looked at this and said, “Hey, wait a minute. I paid off my loans. I didn’t get any reimbursement. That isn’t fair.”

One group saddled with massive debt are people who are still carrying their medical school loans, who often still have huge amounts of debt, and either because of the income limits or because they don’t qualify because this debt was accrued long in the past, they’re saying, “What about me? Don’t you want to give any relief to me?”

This is a topic near and dear to my heart because I happen to be at a medical school, NYU, that has decided for the two medical schools it runs – our main campus, NYU in Manhattan and NYU Langone out on Long Island – that we’re going to go tuition free. We’ve done it for a couple of years.

We did it because I think all the administrators and faculty understood the tremendous burden that debt poses on people who both carry forward their undergraduate debt and then have medical school debt. This really leads to very difficult situations – which we have great empathy for – about what specialty you’re going to go into, whether you have to moonlight, and how you’re going to manage a huge burden of debt.

Many people don’t have sympathy out in the public. They say doctors make a large amount of money and they live a nice lifestyle, so we’re not going to relieve their debt. The reality is that, whoever you are, short of Bill Gates or Elon Musk, having hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt is no easy task to live with and to work off.

Still, when we created free tuition at NYU for our medical school, there were many people who paid high tuition fees in the past. Some of them said to us, “What about me?” We decided not to try to do anything retrospectively. The plan was to build up enough money so that we could handle no-cost tuition going forward. We didn’t really have it in our pocketbook to help people who’d already paid their debts or were saddled with NYU debt. Is it fair? No, it’s probably not fair, but it’s an improvement.

That’s what I want people to think about who are saying, “What about my medical school debt? What about my undergraduate plus medical school debt?” I think we should be grateful when efforts are being made to reduce very burdensome student loans that people have. It’s good to give that benefit and move it forward.

Does that mean no one should get anything unless everyone with any kind of debt from school is covered? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s fair either.

It is possible that we could continue to agitate politically and say, let’s go after some of the health care debt. Let’s go after some of the things that are still driving people to have to work more than they would or to choose specialties that they really don’t want to be in because they have to make up that debt.

It doesn’t mean the last word has been said about the politics of debt relief or, for that matter, the price of going to medical school in the first place and trying to see whether that can be driven down.

I don’t think it’s right to say, “If I can’t benefit, given the huge burden that I’m carrying, then I’m not going to try to give relief to others.” I think we’re relieving debt to the extent that we can do it. The nation can afford it. Going forward is a good thing. It’s wrong to create those gigantic debts in the first place.

What are we going to do about the past? We may decide that we need some sort of forgiveness or reparations for loans that were built up for others going backwards. I wouldn’t hold hostage the future and our children to what was probably a very poor, unethical practice about saddling doctors and others in the past with huge debt.

I’m Art Caplan at the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thank you for watching.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I run the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Many of you know that President Biden created a loan forgiveness program, forgiving up to $10,000 against federal student loans, including graduate and undergraduate education. The Department of Education is supposed to provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients who have loans that are held by the Department of Education. Borrowers can get this relief if their income is less than $125,000 for an individual or $250,000 for married couples.

Many people have looked at this and said, “Hey, wait a minute. I paid off my loans. I didn’t get any reimbursement. That isn’t fair.”

One group saddled with massive debt are people who are still carrying their medical school loans, who often still have huge amounts of debt, and either because of the income limits or because they don’t qualify because this debt was accrued long in the past, they’re saying, “What about me? Don’t you want to give any relief to me?”

This is a topic near and dear to my heart because I happen to be at a medical school, NYU, that has decided for the two medical schools it runs – our main campus, NYU in Manhattan and NYU Langone out on Long Island – that we’re going to go tuition free. We’ve done it for a couple of years.

We did it because I think all the administrators and faculty understood the tremendous burden that debt poses on people who both carry forward their undergraduate debt and then have medical school debt. This really leads to very difficult situations – which we have great empathy for – about what specialty you’re going to go into, whether you have to moonlight, and how you’re going to manage a huge burden of debt.

Many people don’t have sympathy out in the public. They say doctors make a large amount of money and they live a nice lifestyle, so we’re not going to relieve their debt. The reality is that, whoever you are, short of Bill Gates or Elon Musk, having hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt is no easy task to live with and to work off.

Still, when we created free tuition at NYU for our medical school, there were many people who paid high tuition fees in the past. Some of them said to us, “What about me?” We decided not to try to do anything retrospectively. The plan was to build up enough money so that we could handle no-cost tuition going forward. We didn’t really have it in our pocketbook to help people who’d already paid their debts or were saddled with NYU debt. Is it fair? No, it’s probably not fair, but it’s an improvement.

That’s what I want people to think about who are saying, “What about my medical school debt? What about my undergraduate plus medical school debt?” I think we should be grateful when efforts are being made to reduce very burdensome student loans that people have. It’s good to give that benefit and move it forward.

Does that mean no one should get anything unless everyone with any kind of debt from school is covered? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s fair either.

It is possible that we could continue to agitate politically and say, let’s go after some of the health care debt. Let’s go after some of the things that are still driving people to have to work more than they would or to choose specialties that they really don’t want to be in because they have to make up that debt.

It doesn’t mean the last word has been said about the politics of debt relief or, for that matter, the price of going to medical school in the first place and trying to see whether that can be driven down.

I don’t think it’s right to say, “If I can’t benefit, given the huge burden that I’m carrying, then I’m not going to try to give relief to others.” I think we’re relieving debt to the extent that we can do it. The nation can afford it. Going forward is a good thing. It’s wrong to create those gigantic debts in the first place.

What are we going to do about the past? We may decide that we need some sort of forgiveness or reparations for loans that were built up for others going backwards. I wouldn’t hold hostage the future and our children to what was probably a very poor, unethical practice about saddling doctors and others in the past with huge debt.

I’m Art Caplan at the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thank you for watching.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I run the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Many of you know that President Biden created a loan forgiveness program, forgiving up to $10,000 against federal student loans, including graduate and undergraduate education. The Department of Education is supposed to provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients who have loans that are held by the Department of Education. Borrowers can get this relief if their income is less than $125,000 for an individual or $250,000 for married couples.

Many people have looked at this and said, “Hey, wait a minute. I paid off my loans. I didn’t get any reimbursement. That isn’t fair.”

One group saddled with massive debt are people who are still carrying their medical school loans, who often still have huge amounts of debt, and either because of the income limits or because they don’t qualify because this debt was accrued long in the past, they’re saying, “What about me? Don’t you want to give any relief to me?”

This is a topic near and dear to my heart because I happen to be at a medical school, NYU, that has decided for the two medical schools it runs – our main campus, NYU in Manhattan and NYU Langone out on Long Island – that we’re going to go tuition free. We’ve done it for a couple of years.

We did it because I think all the administrators and faculty understood the tremendous burden that debt poses on people who both carry forward their undergraduate debt and then have medical school debt. This really leads to very difficult situations – which we have great empathy for – about what specialty you’re going to go into, whether you have to moonlight, and how you’re going to manage a huge burden of debt.

Many people don’t have sympathy out in the public. They say doctors make a large amount of money and they live a nice lifestyle, so we’re not going to relieve their debt. The reality is that, whoever you are, short of Bill Gates or Elon Musk, having hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt is no easy task to live with and to work off.

Still, when we created free tuition at NYU for our medical school, there were many people who paid high tuition fees in the past. Some of them said to us, “What about me?” We decided not to try to do anything retrospectively. The plan was to build up enough money so that we could handle no-cost tuition going forward. We didn’t really have it in our pocketbook to help people who’d already paid their debts or were saddled with NYU debt. Is it fair? No, it’s probably not fair, but it’s an improvement.

That’s what I want people to think about who are saying, “What about my medical school debt? What about my undergraduate plus medical school debt?” I think we should be grateful when efforts are being made to reduce very burdensome student loans that people have. It’s good to give that benefit and move it forward.

Does that mean no one should get anything unless everyone with any kind of debt from school is covered? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s fair either.

It is possible that we could continue to agitate politically and say, let’s go after some of the health care debt. Let’s go after some of the things that are still driving people to have to work more than they would or to choose specialties that they really don’t want to be in because they have to make up that debt.

It doesn’t mean the last word has been said about the politics of debt relief or, for that matter, the price of going to medical school in the first place and trying to see whether that can be driven down.

I don’t think it’s right to say, “If I can’t benefit, given the huge burden that I’m carrying, then I’m not going to try to give relief to others.” I think we’re relieving debt to the extent that we can do it. The nation can afford it. Going forward is a good thing. It’s wrong to create those gigantic debts in the first place.

What are we going to do about the past? We may decide that we need some sort of forgiveness or reparations for loans that were built up for others going backwards. I wouldn’t hold hostage the future and our children to what was probably a very poor, unethical practice about saddling doctors and others in the past with huge debt.

I’m Art Caplan at the division of medical ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thank you for watching.

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

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Headache as a symptom of COVID-19 could help predict survival for inpatients with the disease, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

In the systematic review and meta-analysis, Víctor J. Gallardo, MSc, of the headache and neurologic pain research group, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues performed a search of studies in PubMed involving headache symptoms, disease survival, and inpatient COVID-19 cases published between December 2019 and December 2020. Overall, 48 studies were identified, consisting of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19. Using random-effects pooling models, Mr. Gallardo and colleagues estimated the prevalence of headache for inpatients who survived COVID-19, compared with those who did not survive.

Within those studies, 35,132 inpatients (81.4%) survived, while 8,037 inpatients (18.6%) died from COVID-19. The researchers found that inpatients with COVID-19 and headache symptoms had a significantly higher survival rate compared with inpatients with COVID-19 without headache symptoms (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.47; P < .0001). There was an overall pooled prevalence of headache as a COVID-19 symptom in 10.4% of inpatients, which was reduced to an estimated pooled prevalence of 9.7% after the researchers removed outlier studies in a sensitivity analysis.

Other COVID-19 symptoms that led to improved rates of survival among inpatients were anosmia (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.94-4.45) and myalgia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83) as well as nausea or vomiting (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), while symptoms such as dyspnea, diabetes, chronic liver diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and chronic kidney diseases were more likely to increase the risk of dying from COVID-19.

The researchers noted several limitations in their meta-analysis that may make their findings less generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as including only studies that were published before COVID-19 vaccines were available and before more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants like the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant emerged. They also included studies where inpatients were not tested for COVID-19 because access to testing was not widely available.

“Our meta-analysis points toward a novel possibility: Headache arising secondary to an infection is not a ‘nonspecific’ symptom, but rather it may be a marker of enhanced likelihood of survival. That is, we find that patients reporting headache in the setting of COVID-19 are at reduced risk of death,” Mr. Gallardo and colleagues wrote.
 

More data needed on association between headache and COVID-19

While headache appeared to affect a small proportion of overall inpatients with COVID-19, the researchers noted this might be because individuals with COVID-19 and headache symptoms are less likely to require hospitalization or a visit to the ED. Another potential explanation is that “people with primary headache disorders, including migraine, may be more likely to report symptoms of COVID-19, but they also may be relatively less likely to experience a life-threatening COVID-19 disease course.”

The researchers said this potential association should be explored in future studies as well as in other viral infections or postviral syndromes such as long COVID. “Defining specific headache mechanisms that could enhance survival from viral infections represents an opportunity for the potential discovery of improved viral therapeutics, as well as for understanding whether, and how, primary headache disorders may be adaptive.”

In a comment, Morris Levin, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco Headache Center, said the findings “of this very thought-provoking review suggest that reporting a headache during a COVID-19 infection seems to be associated with better recovery in hospitalized patients.”

Dr. Levin, who was not involved with the study, acknowledged the researchers’ explanation for the overall low rate of headache in these inpatients as one possible explanation.

“Another could be that sick COVID patients were much more troubled by other symptoms like respiratory distress, which overshadowed their headache symptoms, particularly if they were very ill or if the headache pain was of only mild to moderate severity,” he said. “That could also be an alternate explanation for why less dangerously ill hospitalized patients seemed to have more headaches.”

One limitation he saw in the meta-analysis was how clearly the clinicians characterized headache symptoms in each reviewed study. Dr. Levin suggested a retrospective assessment of premorbid migraine history in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including survivors and fatalities, might have helped clarify this issue. “The headaches themselves were not characterized so drawing conclusions regarding migraine is challenging.”

Dr. Levin noted it is still not well understood how acute and persistent headaches and other neurological symptoms like mental fog occur in patients with COVID-19. We also do not fully understand the natural history of post-COVID headaches and other neurologic sequelae and the management options for acute and persistent neurological sequelae.

Three authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, speaker’s bureau positions, guidelines committee member appointments, and editorial board positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. Mr. Gallardo reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Levin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Headache as a symptom of COVID-19 could help predict survival for inpatients with the disease, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

In the systematic review and meta-analysis, Víctor J. Gallardo, MSc, of the headache and neurologic pain research group, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues performed a search of studies in PubMed involving headache symptoms, disease survival, and inpatient COVID-19 cases published between December 2019 and December 2020. Overall, 48 studies were identified, consisting of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19. Using random-effects pooling models, Mr. Gallardo and colleagues estimated the prevalence of headache for inpatients who survived COVID-19, compared with those who did not survive.

Within those studies, 35,132 inpatients (81.4%) survived, while 8,037 inpatients (18.6%) died from COVID-19. The researchers found that inpatients with COVID-19 and headache symptoms had a significantly higher survival rate compared with inpatients with COVID-19 without headache symptoms (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.47; P < .0001). There was an overall pooled prevalence of headache as a COVID-19 symptom in 10.4% of inpatients, which was reduced to an estimated pooled prevalence of 9.7% after the researchers removed outlier studies in a sensitivity analysis.

Other COVID-19 symptoms that led to improved rates of survival among inpatients were anosmia (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.94-4.45) and myalgia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83) as well as nausea or vomiting (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), while symptoms such as dyspnea, diabetes, chronic liver diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and chronic kidney diseases were more likely to increase the risk of dying from COVID-19.

The researchers noted several limitations in their meta-analysis that may make their findings less generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as including only studies that were published before COVID-19 vaccines were available and before more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants like the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant emerged. They also included studies where inpatients were not tested for COVID-19 because access to testing was not widely available.

“Our meta-analysis points toward a novel possibility: Headache arising secondary to an infection is not a ‘nonspecific’ symptom, but rather it may be a marker of enhanced likelihood of survival. That is, we find that patients reporting headache in the setting of COVID-19 are at reduced risk of death,” Mr. Gallardo and colleagues wrote.
 

More data needed on association between headache and COVID-19

While headache appeared to affect a small proportion of overall inpatients with COVID-19, the researchers noted this might be because individuals with COVID-19 and headache symptoms are less likely to require hospitalization or a visit to the ED. Another potential explanation is that “people with primary headache disorders, including migraine, may be more likely to report symptoms of COVID-19, but they also may be relatively less likely to experience a life-threatening COVID-19 disease course.”

The researchers said this potential association should be explored in future studies as well as in other viral infections or postviral syndromes such as long COVID. “Defining specific headache mechanisms that could enhance survival from viral infections represents an opportunity for the potential discovery of improved viral therapeutics, as well as for understanding whether, and how, primary headache disorders may be adaptive.”

In a comment, Morris Levin, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco Headache Center, said the findings “of this very thought-provoking review suggest that reporting a headache during a COVID-19 infection seems to be associated with better recovery in hospitalized patients.”

Dr. Levin, who was not involved with the study, acknowledged the researchers’ explanation for the overall low rate of headache in these inpatients as one possible explanation.

“Another could be that sick COVID patients were much more troubled by other symptoms like respiratory distress, which overshadowed their headache symptoms, particularly if they were very ill or if the headache pain was of only mild to moderate severity,” he said. “That could also be an alternate explanation for why less dangerously ill hospitalized patients seemed to have more headaches.”

One limitation he saw in the meta-analysis was how clearly the clinicians characterized headache symptoms in each reviewed study. Dr. Levin suggested a retrospective assessment of premorbid migraine history in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including survivors and fatalities, might have helped clarify this issue. “The headaches themselves were not characterized so drawing conclusions regarding migraine is challenging.”

Dr. Levin noted it is still not well understood how acute and persistent headaches and other neurological symptoms like mental fog occur in patients with COVID-19. We also do not fully understand the natural history of post-COVID headaches and other neurologic sequelae and the management options for acute and persistent neurological sequelae.

Three authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, speaker’s bureau positions, guidelines committee member appointments, and editorial board positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. Mr. Gallardo reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Levin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Headache as a symptom of COVID-19 could help predict survival for inpatients with the disease, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

In the systematic review and meta-analysis, Víctor J. Gallardo, MSc, of the headache and neurologic pain research group, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues performed a search of studies in PubMed involving headache symptoms, disease survival, and inpatient COVID-19 cases published between December 2019 and December 2020. Overall, 48 studies were identified, consisting of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19. Using random-effects pooling models, Mr. Gallardo and colleagues estimated the prevalence of headache for inpatients who survived COVID-19, compared with those who did not survive.

Within those studies, 35,132 inpatients (81.4%) survived, while 8,037 inpatients (18.6%) died from COVID-19. The researchers found that inpatients with COVID-19 and headache symptoms had a significantly higher survival rate compared with inpatients with COVID-19 without headache symptoms (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.47; P < .0001). There was an overall pooled prevalence of headache as a COVID-19 symptom in 10.4% of inpatients, which was reduced to an estimated pooled prevalence of 9.7% after the researchers removed outlier studies in a sensitivity analysis.

Other COVID-19 symptoms that led to improved rates of survival among inpatients were anosmia (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.94-4.45) and myalgia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83) as well as nausea or vomiting (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), while symptoms such as dyspnea, diabetes, chronic liver diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and chronic kidney diseases were more likely to increase the risk of dying from COVID-19.

The researchers noted several limitations in their meta-analysis that may make their findings less generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as including only studies that were published before COVID-19 vaccines were available and before more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants like the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant emerged. They also included studies where inpatients were not tested for COVID-19 because access to testing was not widely available.

“Our meta-analysis points toward a novel possibility: Headache arising secondary to an infection is not a ‘nonspecific’ symptom, but rather it may be a marker of enhanced likelihood of survival. That is, we find that patients reporting headache in the setting of COVID-19 are at reduced risk of death,” Mr. Gallardo and colleagues wrote.
 

More data needed on association between headache and COVID-19

While headache appeared to affect a small proportion of overall inpatients with COVID-19, the researchers noted this might be because individuals with COVID-19 and headache symptoms are less likely to require hospitalization or a visit to the ED. Another potential explanation is that “people with primary headache disorders, including migraine, may be more likely to report symptoms of COVID-19, but they also may be relatively less likely to experience a life-threatening COVID-19 disease course.”

The researchers said this potential association should be explored in future studies as well as in other viral infections or postviral syndromes such as long COVID. “Defining specific headache mechanisms that could enhance survival from viral infections represents an opportunity for the potential discovery of improved viral therapeutics, as well as for understanding whether, and how, primary headache disorders may be adaptive.”

In a comment, Morris Levin, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco Headache Center, said the findings “of this very thought-provoking review suggest that reporting a headache during a COVID-19 infection seems to be associated with better recovery in hospitalized patients.”

Dr. Levin, who was not involved with the study, acknowledged the researchers’ explanation for the overall low rate of headache in these inpatients as one possible explanation.

“Another could be that sick COVID patients were much more troubled by other symptoms like respiratory distress, which overshadowed their headache symptoms, particularly if they were very ill or if the headache pain was of only mild to moderate severity,” he said. “That could also be an alternate explanation for why less dangerously ill hospitalized patients seemed to have more headaches.”

One limitation he saw in the meta-analysis was how clearly the clinicians characterized headache symptoms in each reviewed study. Dr. Levin suggested a retrospective assessment of premorbid migraine history in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including survivors and fatalities, might have helped clarify this issue. “The headaches themselves were not characterized so drawing conclusions regarding migraine is challenging.”

Dr. Levin noted it is still not well understood how acute and persistent headaches and other neurological symptoms like mental fog occur in patients with COVID-19. We also do not fully understand the natural history of post-COVID headaches and other neurologic sequelae and the management options for acute and persistent neurological sequelae.

Three authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, speaker’s bureau positions, guidelines committee member appointments, and editorial board positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. Mr. Gallardo reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Levin reported no relevant financial disclosures.