User login
Ulcerative Colitis Treatment
Better survival in older cancer patients who take metformin
according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.
The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.
Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).
Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).
Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.
“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).
Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.
Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”
The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.
The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.
Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).
Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).
Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.
“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).
Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.
Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”
The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.
The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.
Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).
Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).
Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.
“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).
Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.
Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”
The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 2022
SCLC Workup
Psoriatic Arthritis Workup
Survivor’s story foreshadows one of oncology’s greatest successes
At 32 years old, the world was at Larry Unger’s feet. He was vice president at one of Wall Street’s most successful investment management firms, selling mutual funds to more than 1,000 brokers across New York. His clients relied on him for good advice, great jokes, and superlative Yankees tickets. His recent memories included fraternity days at Cornell University and a Harvard law degree. His childhood on the Lower East Side was behind him. He had his own apartment and a beautiful girlfriend.
Then his back started hurting, and he was drenched in sweat at night. His physician suggested it was a basketball injury. Weeks of tests followed, and he changed doctors. Mr. Unger met with an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who wouldn’t let him go home after the appointment. The next day brought exploratory surgery and an answer to all the questions.
Mr. Unger was diagnosed with stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma.
Thirty years later, Mr. Unger credited his survival to the late Subhash Gulati, MD, PhD, then MSKCC’s director of stem cell transplantation. He still recalls Dr. Gulati’s words to him: “Radical situations call for radical solutions.” In 1992, that “radical solution” was an autologous bone-marrow transplant.
“Mr. Unger was a patient pioneer,” said Kenneth Offit, MD, another MSKCC oncologist who also cared for him at that time.
Transplantation for Hodgkin: The early 90s
Hodgkin lymphoma is fairly rare, accounting for just 0.5% of all cancers and 15% of lymphomas. It tends to target young, male adults like Mr. Unger. Today 88% of patients with Hodgkin survive at least 5 years.
When Dr. Gulati offered Mr. Unger his “radical solution” 3 decades ago, the idea of autologous bone marrow transplantation in Hodgkin lymphoma was not new. The first attempt appeared in the literature in the 1950s, but it was still unclear how patients could survive the procedure. It involved destroying the patient’s own immune system prior to the transplant, a huge risk in itself. Worse, the patient was pummeled with chemotherapy and/or radiation to clear out the cancerous bone marrow – a process called “conditioning.”
However, throughout the 1980s, MSKCC had been running clinical trials to perfect the conditioning mix, so by 1992 Dr. Gulati was well-placed to help Mr. Unger.
It is unclear what conditioning Mr. Unger received because his records were not made available. However, around the time that Mr. Unger underwent his transplant, Dr. Gulati and colleagues published the conditioning regimens in use at MSKCC. Patients with refractory or relapsed Hodgkin disease received a conditioning mix of total nodal irradiation (TNI), etoposide (Vepesid) and cyclophosphamide. Patients who had already been through radiotherapy were given carmustine instead of TNI.
In that early publication, Dr. Gulati and the MSKCC team reported 0 “toxic deaths” with the TNI mix, and at the 2-year point 75% of the patients were still alive (n = 28). Patients who had already received radiation treatment did less well, with 55% survival at 2 years, at a cost of 14% toxic deaths (n = 22).
Mr. Unger’s experience, 30 years ago
According to Mr. Unger, the initial treatment for his stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma was MOPP (mechlorethamine hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, procarbazine hydrochloride, and prednisone) plus ABVD (doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine).
“They wanted to give me two chemo programs at once because they said I was very sick,” Mr. Unger recalled. “I wound up staying in the hospital quite a bit because every time I got these [treatments] I’d get a fever. This went on for month after month after month. Finally, they said: ‘The tumors are starting to shrink. ... I want you to meet Dr. Gulati.’ ”
Mr. Unger said that Dr. Gulati told him: “There is another procedure called the bone marrow transplant which we’ve been doing. This would be like hitting it with a nuclear weapon. We would really wipe it out and make sure that you never come back.”
The alternative was high-dose radiotherapy. However, Dr. Gulati shared MSKCC’s hard-won knowledge that an autologous transplant was less successful after radiation. Dr. Gulati also told Mr. Unger that surgery was needed before the transplant: a laparotomy to restage his tumors.
After discussing the situation with his father, Mr. Unger decided to undergo the transplant.
The night before treatment started, he was laughing and joking with a friend in his room at MSKCC. The next day, the laughing stopped. The conditioning, he said, “was harrowing beyond belief ... 100 times worse than the chemo.”
Chemotherapy came first, followed 2 days later by radiation, presumably TNI. Mr. Unger experienced constant vomiting, intraocular bleeding and high fevers; the soft tissue of his throat “fell apart,” he said.
“I couldn’t move. It was like being dead,” he said. “Finally, maybe after a month or so, I could finally have a little water.” Mr. Unger said his immune system took 6-8 weeks to recover. He concluded, with heroic understatement, “it was rough.”
The battle against Hodgkin was over, but fallout from the chemotherapy lingered. Although Mr. Unger was able to return to his family and the job he loved, in the following years he was never entirely well. He contracted shingles soon after his transplant, then diabetes within 15 years. A heart attack followed in 2008 then, in 2015, an autoimmune disease that still affects his mobility.
However, Mr. Unger remains grateful: “The fact that we did these cutting-edge techniques with me got me to the point where – although I had some problems afterward, and I have problems now – it gave me well over 30 years of a really great life.”
“There are a lot of good doctors out there,” he added. “Some of them go to extraordinary lengths to help people. I try to do the same with the extra 30 years I’ve been given, try to be nice to people and make people feel good. I don’t really see any other reason to be on earth.”
Treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma: 2022
For a comparison of Mr. Unger’s experience with the current approach to Hodgkin lymphoma, this news organization spoke to Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, current chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC. Although Dr. Perales could not comment specifically on Mr. Unger’s case without his records, Dr. Perales was able to review the revolutions in treatment for all patients over the past 30 years.
Certainly, physicians no longer need to inflict a laparotomy on patients just to stage the disease, Dr. Perales said. “This sounds barbaric today. Nowadays we have PET scans.”
Another key change, Dr. Perales said, is in the up-front management of the disease.
For example, MOPP “is going back to the prehistory of chemotherapy,” Dr. Perales said. He was not surprised to learn that Mr. Unger later developed complications such as diabetes and heart disease.
“We’ve completely revolutionized the treatment,” Dr. Perales said. “We [now] use combinations that are much less toxic than MOPP, [and] we’re curing more patients up front.” Treatment is tailored by stage and the likelihood of response to therapy. Aggressive approaches are reserved for patients more likely to fail treatment.
Pretransplant conditioning has also changed for the better, with less toxicity and fewer long-term complications. Total body irradiation has “fallen by the wayside,” said Dr. Perales. Instead, patients get BEAM, a combination of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine (Cytosar-U, Ara-C), and melphalan (Alkeran), 1 week before the transplant.
Perhaps the most profound change, which began in the 1990s shortly after Larry’s transplant, was that peripheral-blood stem cells gradually replaced bone marrow for both autologous and allogeneic transplant. In 2022, nearly all autologous transplants use peripheral-blood stem cells.
Instead of onerous bone-marrow aspiration in the operating room, the stem cells are collected from the patient’s blood. First, the patient’s bone marrow is hyperstimulated with high doses of filgrastim (G-CSF, Neupogen, Granix) for several days. Stem cells spill into the patient’s blood. Once blood is collected from the patient, the stem cells are separated and stored ready for the transplant. (In theory, stem cell products are “cancer free”; in practice there may be some contaminating cells, said Dr. Perales.)
Nowadays “transplanting” the stem cells back into the body bears no relation to what happened in 1992. The stem-cell infusion is typically an outpatient procedure, and one-third of patients may never be admitted to the hospital at all.
In contrast to Mr. Unger’s excruciating 8-week hospital stay, immune recovery currently takes 12-14 days, often entirely in the patient’s own home, with the option of extra filgrastim to speed things up.
Despite these profound changes, said Dr. Perales, the real quantum leap has occurred post transplant.
In 2015, a multinational team led by MSKCC’s Dr. Craig Moskowitz published a trial in the Lancet showing that brentuximab vedotin halved the risk of relapse after autologous transplantation in high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .0013; n = 329). The CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate was so successful that the placebo patients were encouraged to cross over into the treatment group; many of them were salvaged.
As a result, Dr. Perales said, brentuximab vedotin has now become the standard in high-risk Hodgkin patients following a transplant.
The checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) have also been “transformational” in Hodgkin lymphoma, Dr. Perales said. He explained that Hodgkin lymphoma is “exquisitely sensitive” to these therapies because the disease expresses high levels of the binding proteins for these drugs. This allows the immunotherapies to hit both the immune system and the disease.
Most cancers have response rates for checkpoint inhibitors below 40%, according to a recent analysis by Anas Younes, former chief of lymphoma at MSKCC, and his colleague Eri Matsuki, then a visiting fellow. By contrast, in Hodgkin lymphoma response to these drugs is 66%-87%.
Dr. Perales said: “It tells you how effective these drugs are, that we could move from somebody getting MOPP, which is like throwing a nuclear bomb at somebody, to a combination of two drugs that can easily be given out-patient and that have very little, if any, side effects.”
The future: No chemo, no transplants?
“One of the holy grails in Hodgkin would be if we could treat patients with the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and brentuximab and what is being termed the ‘chemotherapy-free’ approach to Hodgkin disease,” said Dr. Perales.
What else remains to be done in the world of transplants for Hodgkin lymphoma?
Dr. Perales didn’t hesitate: “To eliminate the need for them. If we can have better targeted therapy up front that cures more patients, then we never even have to consider transplant. Basically, to put me out of work. I’m sure I’ll find other things to do.”
The current treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma “is really what we all consider one of the successes in oncology,” said Dr. Perales. “It’s a beautiful story.”
Dr. Perales reported receiving honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies; serves on data and safety monitoring boards for Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and Servier; and serves on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune. He has ownership interests in NexImmune and Omeros, and has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis.
At 32 years old, the world was at Larry Unger’s feet. He was vice president at one of Wall Street’s most successful investment management firms, selling mutual funds to more than 1,000 brokers across New York. His clients relied on him for good advice, great jokes, and superlative Yankees tickets. His recent memories included fraternity days at Cornell University and a Harvard law degree. His childhood on the Lower East Side was behind him. He had his own apartment and a beautiful girlfriend.
Then his back started hurting, and he was drenched in sweat at night. His physician suggested it was a basketball injury. Weeks of tests followed, and he changed doctors. Mr. Unger met with an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who wouldn’t let him go home after the appointment. The next day brought exploratory surgery and an answer to all the questions.
Mr. Unger was diagnosed with stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma.
Thirty years later, Mr. Unger credited his survival to the late Subhash Gulati, MD, PhD, then MSKCC’s director of stem cell transplantation. He still recalls Dr. Gulati’s words to him: “Radical situations call for radical solutions.” In 1992, that “radical solution” was an autologous bone-marrow transplant.
“Mr. Unger was a patient pioneer,” said Kenneth Offit, MD, another MSKCC oncologist who also cared for him at that time.
Transplantation for Hodgkin: The early 90s
Hodgkin lymphoma is fairly rare, accounting for just 0.5% of all cancers and 15% of lymphomas. It tends to target young, male adults like Mr. Unger. Today 88% of patients with Hodgkin survive at least 5 years.
When Dr. Gulati offered Mr. Unger his “radical solution” 3 decades ago, the idea of autologous bone marrow transplantation in Hodgkin lymphoma was not new. The first attempt appeared in the literature in the 1950s, but it was still unclear how patients could survive the procedure. It involved destroying the patient’s own immune system prior to the transplant, a huge risk in itself. Worse, the patient was pummeled with chemotherapy and/or radiation to clear out the cancerous bone marrow – a process called “conditioning.”
However, throughout the 1980s, MSKCC had been running clinical trials to perfect the conditioning mix, so by 1992 Dr. Gulati was well-placed to help Mr. Unger.
It is unclear what conditioning Mr. Unger received because his records were not made available. However, around the time that Mr. Unger underwent his transplant, Dr. Gulati and colleagues published the conditioning regimens in use at MSKCC. Patients with refractory or relapsed Hodgkin disease received a conditioning mix of total nodal irradiation (TNI), etoposide (Vepesid) and cyclophosphamide. Patients who had already been through radiotherapy were given carmustine instead of TNI.
In that early publication, Dr. Gulati and the MSKCC team reported 0 “toxic deaths” with the TNI mix, and at the 2-year point 75% of the patients were still alive (n = 28). Patients who had already received radiation treatment did less well, with 55% survival at 2 years, at a cost of 14% toxic deaths (n = 22).
Mr. Unger’s experience, 30 years ago
According to Mr. Unger, the initial treatment for his stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma was MOPP (mechlorethamine hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, procarbazine hydrochloride, and prednisone) plus ABVD (doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine).
“They wanted to give me two chemo programs at once because they said I was very sick,” Mr. Unger recalled. “I wound up staying in the hospital quite a bit because every time I got these [treatments] I’d get a fever. This went on for month after month after month. Finally, they said: ‘The tumors are starting to shrink. ... I want you to meet Dr. Gulati.’ ”
Mr. Unger said that Dr. Gulati told him: “There is another procedure called the bone marrow transplant which we’ve been doing. This would be like hitting it with a nuclear weapon. We would really wipe it out and make sure that you never come back.”
The alternative was high-dose radiotherapy. However, Dr. Gulati shared MSKCC’s hard-won knowledge that an autologous transplant was less successful after radiation. Dr. Gulati also told Mr. Unger that surgery was needed before the transplant: a laparotomy to restage his tumors.
After discussing the situation with his father, Mr. Unger decided to undergo the transplant.
The night before treatment started, he was laughing and joking with a friend in his room at MSKCC. The next day, the laughing stopped. The conditioning, he said, “was harrowing beyond belief ... 100 times worse than the chemo.”
Chemotherapy came first, followed 2 days later by radiation, presumably TNI. Mr. Unger experienced constant vomiting, intraocular bleeding and high fevers; the soft tissue of his throat “fell apart,” he said.
“I couldn’t move. It was like being dead,” he said. “Finally, maybe after a month or so, I could finally have a little water.” Mr. Unger said his immune system took 6-8 weeks to recover. He concluded, with heroic understatement, “it was rough.”
The battle against Hodgkin was over, but fallout from the chemotherapy lingered. Although Mr. Unger was able to return to his family and the job he loved, in the following years he was never entirely well. He contracted shingles soon after his transplant, then diabetes within 15 years. A heart attack followed in 2008 then, in 2015, an autoimmune disease that still affects his mobility.
However, Mr. Unger remains grateful: “The fact that we did these cutting-edge techniques with me got me to the point where – although I had some problems afterward, and I have problems now – it gave me well over 30 years of a really great life.”
“There are a lot of good doctors out there,” he added. “Some of them go to extraordinary lengths to help people. I try to do the same with the extra 30 years I’ve been given, try to be nice to people and make people feel good. I don’t really see any other reason to be on earth.”
Treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma: 2022
For a comparison of Mr. Unger’s experience with the current approach to Hodgkin lymphoma, this news organization spoke to Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, current chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC. Although Dr. Perales could not comment specifically on Mr. Unger’s case without his records, Dr. Perales was able to review the revolutions in treatment for all patients over the past 30 years.
Certainly, physicians no longer need to inflict a laparotomy on patients just to stage the disease, Dr. Perales said. “This sounds barbaric today. Nowadays we have PET scans.”
Another key change, Dr. Perales said, is in the up-front management of the disease.
For example, MOPP “is going back to the prehistory of chemotherapy,” Dr. Perales said. He was not surprised to learn that Mr. Unger later developed complications such as diabetes and heart disease.
“We’ve completely revolutionized the treatment,” Dr. Perales said. “We [now] use combinations that are much less toxic than MOPP, [and] we’re curing more patients up front.” Treatment is tailored by stage and the likelihood of response to therapy. Aggressive approaches are reserved for patients more likely to fail treatment.
Pretransplant conditioning has also changed for the better, with less toxicity and fewer long-term complications. Total body irradiation has “fallen by the wayside,” said Dr. Perales. Instead, patients get BEAM, a combination of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine (Cytosar-U, Ara-C), and melphalan (Alkeran), 1 week before the transplant.
Perhaps the most profound change, which began in the 1990s shortly after Larry’s transplant, was that peripheral-blood stem cells gradually replaced bone marrow for both autologous and allogeneic transplant. In 2022, nearly all autologous transplants use peripheral-blood stem cells.
Instead of onerous bone-marrow aspiration in the operating room, the stem cells are collected from the patient’s blood. First, the patient’s bone marrow is hyperstimulated with high doses of filgrastim (G-CSF, Neupogen, Granix) for several days. Stem cells spill into the patient’s blood. Once blood is collected from the patient, the stem cells are separated and stored ready for the transplant. (In theory, stem cell products are “cancer free”; in practice there may be some contaminating cells, said Dr. Perales.)
Nowadays “transplanting” the stem cells back into the body bears no relation to what happened in 1992. The stem-cell infusion is typically an outpatient procedure, and one-third of patients may never be admitted to the hospital at all.
In contrast to Mr. Unger’s excruciating 8-week hospital stay, immune recovery currently takes 12-14 days, often entirely in the patient’s own home, with the option of extra filgrastim to speed things up.
Despite these profound changes, said Dr. Perales, the real quantum leap has occurred post transplant.
In 2015, a multinational team led by MSKCC’s Dr. Craig Moskowitz published a trial in the Lancet showing that brentuximab vedotin halved the risk of relapse after autologous transplantation in high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .0013; n = 329). The CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate was so successful that the placebo patients were encouraged to cross over into the treatment group; many of them were salvaged.
As a result, Dr. Perales said, brentuximab vedotin has now become the standard in high-risk Hodgkin patients following a transplant.
The checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) have also been “transformational” in Hodgkin lymphoma, Dr. Perales said. He explained that Hodgkin lymphoma is “exquisitely sensitive” to these therapies because the disease expresses high levels of the binding proteins for these drugs. This allows the immunotherapies to hit both the immune system and the disease.
Most cancers have response rates for checkpoint inhibitors below 40%, according to a recent analysis by Anas Younes, former chief of lymphoma at MSKCC, and his colleague Eri Matsuki, then a visiting fellow. By contrast, in Hodgkin lymphoma response to these drugs is 66%-87%.
Dr. Perales said: “It tells you how effective these drugs are, that we could move from somebody getting MOPP, which is like throwing a nuclear bomb at somebody, to a combination of two drugs that can easily be given out-patient and that have very little, if any, side effects.”
The future: No chemo, no transplants?
“One of the holy grails in Hodgkin would be if we could treat patients with the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and brentuximab and what is being termed the ‘chemotherapy-free’ approach to Hodgkin disease,” said Dr. Perales.
What else remains to be done in the world of transplants for Hodgkin lymphoma?
Dr. Perales didn’t hesitate: “To eliminate the need for them. If we can have better targeted therapy up front that cures more patients, then we never even have to consider transplant. Basically, to put me out of work. I’m sure I’ll find other things to do.”
The current treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma “is really what we all consider one of the successes in oncology,” said Dr. Perales. “It’s a beautiful story.”
Dr. Perales reported receiving honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies; serves on data and safety monitoring boards for Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and Servier; and serves on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune. He has ownership interests in NexImmune and Omeros, and has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis.
At 32 years old, the world was at Larry Unger’s feet. He was vice president at one of Wall Street’s most successful investment management firms, selling mutual funds to more than 1,000 brokers across New York. His clients relied on him for good advice, great jokes, and superlative Yankees tickets. His recent memories included fraternity days at Cornell University and a Harvard law degree. His childhood on the Lower East Side was behind him. He had his own apartment and a beautiful girlfriend.
Then his back started hurting, and he was drenched in sweat at night. His physician suggested it was a basketball injury. Weeks of tests followed, and he changed doctors. Mr. Unger met with an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who wouldn’t let him go home after the appointment. The next day brought exploratory surgery and an answer to all the questions.
Mr. Unger was diagnosed with stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma.
Thirty years later, Mr. Unger credited his survival to the late Subhash Gulati, MD, PhD, then MSKCC’s director of stem cell transplantation. He still recalls Dr. Gulati’s words to him: “Radical situations call for radical solutions.” In 1992, that “radical solution” was an autologous bone-marrow transplant.
“Mr. Unger was a patient pioneer,” said Kenneth Offit, MD, another MSKCC oncologist who also cared for him at that time.
Transplantation for Hodgkin: The early 90s
Hodgkin lymphoma is fairly rare, accounting for just 0.5% of all cancers and 15% of lymphomas. It tends to target young, male adults like Mr. Unger. Today 88% of patients with Hodgkin survive at least 5 years.
When Dr. Gulati offered Mr. Unger his “radical solution” 3 decades ago, the idea of autologous bone marrow transplantation in Hodgkin lymphoma was not new. The first attempt appeared in the literature in the 1950s, but it was still unclear how patients could survive the procedure. It involved destroying the patient’s own immune system prior to the transplant, a huge risk in itself. Worse, the patient was pummeled with chemotherapy and/or radiation to clear out the cancerous bone marrow – a process called “conditioning.”
However, throughout the 1980s, MSKCC had been running clinical trials to perfect the conditioning mix, so by 1992 Dr. Gulati was well-placed to help Mr. Unger.
It is unclear what conditioning Mr. Unger received because his records were not made available. However, around the time that Mr. Unger underwent his transplant, Dr. Gulati and colleagues published the conditioning regimens in use at MSKCC. Patients with refractory or relapsed Hodgkin disease received a conditioning mix of total nodal irradiation (TNI), etoposide (Vepesid) and cyclophosphamide. Patients who had already been through radiotherapy were given carmustine instead of TNI.
In that early publication, Dr. Gulati and the MSKCC team reported 0 “toxic deaths” with the TNI mix, and at the 2-year point 75% of the patients were still alive (n = 28). Patients who had already received radiation treatment did less well, with 55% survival at 2 years, at a cost of 14% toxic deaths (n = 22).
Mr. Unger’s experience, 30 years ago
According to Mr. Unger, the initial treatment for his stage IIIB Hodgkin lymphoma was MOPP (mechlorethamine hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, procarbazine hydrochloride, and prednisone) plus ABVD (doxorubicin hydrochloride, bleomycin sulfate, vinblastine sulfate, and dacarbazine).
“They wanted to give me two chemo programs at once because they said I was very sick,” Mr. Unger recalled. “I wound up staying in the hospital quite a bit because every time I got these [treatments] I’d get a fever. This went on for month after month after month. Finally, they said: ‘The tumors are starting to shrink. ... I want you to meet Dr. Gulati.’ ”
Mr. Unger said that Dr. Gulati told him: “There is another procedure called the bone marrow transplant which we’ve been doing. This would be like hitting it with a nuclear weapon. We would really wipe it out and make sure that you never come back.”
The alternative was high-dose radiotherapy. However, Dr. Gulati shared MSKCC’s hard-won knowledge that an autologous transplant was less successful after radiation. Dr. Gulati also told Mr. Unger that surgery was needed before the transplant: a laparotomy to restage his tumors.
After discussing the situation with his father, Mr. Unger decided to undergo the transplant.
The night before treatment started, he was laughing and joking with a friend in his room at MSKCC. The next day, the laughing stopped. The conditioning, he said, “was harrowing beyond belief ... 100 times worse than the chemo.”
Chemotherapy came first, followed 2 days later by radiation, presumably TNI. Mr. Unger experienced constant vomiting, intraocular bleeding and high fevers; the soft tissue of his throat “fell apart,” he said.
“I couldn’t move. It was like being dead,” he said. “Finally, maybe after a month or so, I could finally have a little water.” Mr. Unger said his immune system took 6-8 weeks to recover. He concluded, with heroic understatement, “it was rough.”
The battle against Hodgkin was over, but fallout from the chemotherapy lingered. Although Mr. Unger was able to return to his family and the job he loved, in the following years he was never entirely well. He contracted shingles soon after his transplant, then diabetes within 15 years. A heart attack followed in 2008 then, in 2015, an autoimmune disease that still affects his mobility.
However, Mr. Unger remains grateful: “The fact that we did these cutting-edge techniques with me got me to the point where – although I had some problems afterward, and I have problems now – it gave me well over 30 years of a really great life.”
“There are a lot of good doctors out there,” he added. “Some of them go to extraordinary lengths to help people. I try to do the same with the extra 30 years I’ve been given, try to be nice to people and make people feel good. I don’t really see any other reason to be on earth.”
Treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma: 2022
For a comparison of Mr. Unger’s experience with the current approach to Hodgkin lymphoma, this news organization spoke to Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, current chief of the adult bone marrow transplant service at MSKCC. Although Dr. Perales could not comment specifically on Mr. Unger’s case without his records, Dr. Perales was able to review the revolutions in treatment for all patients over the past 30 years.
Certainly, physicians no longer need to inflict a laparotomy on patients just to stage the disease, Dr. Perales said. “This sounds barbaric today. Nowadays we have PET scans.”
Another key change, Dr. Perales said, is in the up-front management of the disease.
For example, MOPP “is going back to the prehistory of chemotherapy,” Dr. Perales said. He was not surprised to learn that Mr. Unger later developed complications such as diabetes and heart disease.
“We’ve completely revolutionized the treatment,” Dr. Perales said. “We [now] use combinations that are much less toxic than MOPP, [and] we’re curing more patients up front.” Treatment is tailored by stage and the likelihood of response to therapy. Aggressive approaches are reserved for patients more likely to fail treatment.
Pretransplant conditioning has also changed for the better, with less toxicity and fewer long-term complications. Total body irradiation has “fallen by the wayside,” said Dr. Perales. Instead, patients get BEAM, a combination of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine (Cytosar-U, Ara-C), and melphalan (Alkeran), 1 week before the transplant.
Perhaps the most profound change, which began in the 1990s shortly after Larry’s transplant, was that peripheral-blood stem cells gradually replaced bone marrow for both autologous and allogeneic transplant. In 2022, nearly all autologous transplants use peripheral-blood stem cells.
Instead of onerous bone-marrow aspiration in the operating room, the stem cells are collected from the patient’s blood. First, the patient’s bone marrow is hyperstimulated with high doses of filgrastim (G-CSF, Neupogen, Granix) for several days. Stem cells spill into the patient’s blood. Once blood is collected from the patient, the stem cells are separated and stored ready for the transplant. (In theory, stem cell products are “cancer free”; in practice there may be some contaminating cells, said Dr. Perales.)
Nowadays “transplanting” the stem cells back into the body bears no relation to what happened in 1992. The stem-cell infusion is typically an outpatient procedure, and one-third of patients may never be admitted to the hospital at all.
In contrast to Mr. Unger’s excruciating 8-week hospital stay, immune recovery currently takes 12-14 days, often entirely in the patient’s own home, with the option of extra filgrastim to speed things up.
Despite these profound changes, said Dr. Perales, the real quantum leap has occurred post transplant.
In 2015, a multinational team led by MSKCC’s Dr. Craig Moskowitz published a trial in the Lancet showing that brentuximab vedotin halved the risk of relapse after autologous transplantation in high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma patients versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .0013; n = 329). The CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate was so successful that the placebo patients were encouraged to cross over into the treatment group; many of them were salvaged.
As a result, Dr. Perales said, brentuximab vedotin has now become the standard in high-risk Hodgkin patients following a transplant.
The checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab (Opdivo) and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) have also been “transformational” in Hodgkin lymphoma, Dr. Perales said. He explained that Hodgkin lymphoma is “exquisitely sensitive” to these therapies because the disease expresses high levels of the binding proteins for these drugs. This allows the immunotherapies to hit both the immune system and the disease.
Most cancers have response rates for checkpoint inhibitors below 40%, according to a recent analysis by Anas Younes, former chief of lymphoma at MSKCC, and his colleague Eri Matsuki, then a visiting fellow. By contrast, in Hodgkin lymphoma response to these drugs is 66%-87%.
Dr. Perales said: “It tells you how effective these drugs are, that we could move from somebody getting MOPP, which is like throwing a nuclear bomb at somebody, to a combination of two drugs that can easily be given out-patient and that have very little, if any, side effects.”
The future: No chemo, no transplants?
“One of the holy grails in Hodgkin would be if we could treat patients with the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and brentuximab and what is being termed the ‘chemotherapy-free’ approach to Hodgkin disease,” said Dr. Perales.
What else remains to be done in the world of transplants for Hodgkin lymphoma?
Dr. Perales didn’t hesitate: “To eliminate the need for them. If we can have better targeted therapy up front that cures more patients, then we never even have to consider transplant. Basically, to put me out of work. I’m sure I’ll find other things to do.”
The current treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma “is really what we all consider one of the successes in oncology,” said Dr. Perales. “It’s a beautiful story.”
Dr. Perales reported receiving honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies; serves on data and safety monitoring boards for Cidara Therapeutics, Medigene, Sellas Life Sciences, and Servier; and serves on the scientific advisory board of NexImmune. He has ownership interests in NexImmune and Omeros, and has received institutional research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Nektar Therapeutics, and Novartis.
Woman who faked medical degree practiced for 3 years
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’
Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.
Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.
The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.
Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”
And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:
- Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
- An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
- Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
- TikTok videos qualify as CME.
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
Speak louder, I can’t see you
With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?
Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.
James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”
He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.
Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.
So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours
Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.
The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.
Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”
Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’
Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.
Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.
The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.
Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”
And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:
- Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
- An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
- Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
- TikTok videos qualify as CME.
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
Speak louder, I can’t see you
With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?
Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.
James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”
He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.
Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.
So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours
Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.
The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.
Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”
Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’
Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.
Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.
The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.
Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”
And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:
- Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
- An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
- Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
- TikTok videos qualify as CME.
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
Speak louder, I can’t see you
With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?
Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.
James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”
He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.
Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.
So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours
Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.
The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.
Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”
Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
Novel long-acting injection cuts schizophrenia relapse
A long-acting subcutaneous antipsychotic (LASCA) suspension that combines risperidone with a novel copolymer substantially reduces risk for relapse and prolongs time to impending relapse for patients with schizophrenia, new research suggests.
In the phase 3 Risperidone Subcutaneous Extended-Release (RISE) trial, which included more than 500 patients with schizophrenia, those who received the novel combination treatment, known as TV-46000, had relapse reduced by 80% with monthly administration and by 63.5% with the bimonthly dose.
“Long-acting injectable medications are grossly underutilized,” study investigator John M. Kane, MD, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.
The attributes of TV-46000, which include its subcutaneous delivery rather than intramuscular injections, its being active within 24 hours of first treatment, and its being administered monthly or bimonthly, “might be advantageous for some patients,” Dr. Kane noted.
Because it is also effective in reducing risk for relapse, TV-46000 is “another alternative when people are looking at the possibility of using a long-acting injectable formulation,” he added.
The findings were presented at the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.
Time to relapse
To examine the efficacy and safety of monthly and bimonthly doses of the drug, the researchers recruited patients aged 13-65 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia more than a year previously and who had experienced at least one relapse in the previous 24 months.
After a screening period of up to 4 weeks, participants entered a 12-week pretreatment phase, during which their condition was stabilized on oral risperidone. During this period, the patients’ conditions had to remain stable for at least 4 consecutive weeks.
Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive TV-46000 monthly, TV-46000 every 2 months, or matching placebo. All doses were given as subcutaneous injections.
Treatment was continued until participants experienced a relapse event, met at least one criteria for study withdrawal, or the study recorded a total of 90 or more relapse events.
Of 1,267 patients screened, 863 were enrolled in the study, and 544 underwent randomization. The median age of the patients who underwent randomization was 52 years; 61% were male; and the majority (59%) were Black.
In addition, the average length of time with the disease was 20.8 years, and the average time since the most recent relapse was 10.2 months.
The primary endpoint was time to impending relapse, the criteria for which included the following:
- Increases in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores from randomization.
- Hospitalization because of worsening psychotic symptoms.
- Violent behavior resulting in clinically significant injury or damage.
Well tolerated?
In the intent-to-treat population, which comprised all adults who underwent randomization, monthly TV-46000 was associated with a fivefold prolongation of time to impending relapse in comparison with placebo; TV-46000 given every 2 months prolonged the time 2.7-fold.
This translated into a significant benefit vs. placebo for both TV-46000 monthly (hazard ratio for impending relapse, 0.2) and TV-46000 every 2 months (HR, 0.375; P < .0001 for both comparisons).
At the trial’s endpoint, impending relapse rates were 29% in the placebo group vs. 7% in the TV-46000 monthly group and 13% in the group that received TV-46000 every 2 months (P < .0001 for both).
While more patients in the two active-treatment groups met the strict criteria for remission, which included no relapse during the study and PANSS scores of 3 or less for at least 6 months prior to the study endpoint, the differences were not significant.
Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 39%-42% of the TV-46000 groups and by 26% of the placebo group. Serious AEs were experienced by 4%-6% of the TV-46000 groups and by 8% of the placebo group.
The investigators note that TV-46000 was “well tolerated” and that there were no new safety signals in comparison with what is already known about risperidone and “other long-acting risperidone formulations.”
Expanding on the reasons why long-acting antipsychotics are underprescribed, Dr. Kane said that “doctors often overestimate how adherent their patients are.”
He added that doctors may worry they are “insulting” their patient by suggesting they receive injections in order to increase adherence and that doctors are “not very good” at having these types of conversation with their patients.
“We did a study where we trained the clinical staff on how to have those conversations, and the result was the uptake [in patients switching to long-acting antipsychotics] was very high,” Dr. Kane said.
The personnel who received training included all of the medical team, therapists, who spend “much more time” with the patient than does the prescriber, and also social workers, case managers, and rehabilitation counselors, who are typically “not very familiar” with the idea of long-acting medications, he added.
‘Highly desirable’ option
Commenting on the study, Stephen R. Saklad, PharmD, director of the psychiatric pharmacy program, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, said that to call TV-46000 a LASCA rather than a depot injection is merely a “change in nomenclature.”
However, compared with a once-monthly subcutaneous injection of risperidone (Perseris), which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of schizophrenia, the new drug has fewer injection site reactions, said Dr. Saklad, who was not involved with the current research.
That benefit plus having efficacy similar to that of oral risperidone and having the “more patient- and clinician-desirable administration location” of the upper arm as well as the abdomen means the option to switch a risperidone-stabilized patient directly to TV-46000 monthly or bimonthly is “highly desirable,” he added.
Dr. Saklad also noted the reduction in the likelihood of impending relapse with TV-46000 over placebo is a relatively large effect size “and shows the value toward improving the care of these patients.”
In addition, he agreed with Dr. Kane that the uptake of long-acting antipsychotics is “deplorably low.”
“This is due to a number of factors that include patient reluctance to get a ‘shot’ or ‘jab,’ clinician inexperience with LAIs during training, and the incorrect presentation of LAIs as a punishment paradigm for ‘bad’ patients,” Dr. Saklad said.
He added that “everyone tires of taking their medication or just forgets to take a dose,” and most patients with other disorders will resume their medication the next day.
However, patients with schizophrenia have a “specific cognitive difficulty” in making the connection between stopping their medication and a later relapse. If they miss a dose, they will “incorrectly conclude that they are now ‘well’ and don’t need the medication any longer,” he said.
Dr. Saklad stressed that for a patient with schizophrenia a relapse can mean substantial loss of function and of assets such as housing or support networks, and many “will complete suicide.”
The study was supported by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D. Dr. Kane reported relationships with Alkermes, Allergan, Dainioppon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, Indivior, Intracellular Therapies, Janssen, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocine, North Shore Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceutical, Otsuka, Reviva, Roche, Saladex, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva, Otsuka, Lundbeck, Sunovion, UptoDate, and Vanguard Research Group.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A long-acting subcutaneous antipsychotic (LASCA) suspension that combines risperidone with a novel copolymer substantially reduces risk for relapse and prolongs time to impending relapse for patients with schizophrenia, new research suggests.
In the phase 3 Risperidone Subcutaneous Extended-Release (RISE) trial, which included more than 500 patients with schizophrenia, those who received the novel combination treatment, known as TV-46000, had relapse reduced by 80% with monthly administration and by 63.5% with the bimonthly dose.
“Long-acting injectable medications are grossly underutilized,” study investigator John M. Kane, MD, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.
The attributes of TV-46000, which include its subcutaneous delivery rather than intramuscular injections, its being active within 24 hours of first treatment, and its being administered monthly or bimonthly, “might be advantageous for some patients,” Dr. Kane noted.
Because it is also effective in reducing risk for relapse, TV-46000 is “another alternative when people are looking at the possibility of using a long-acting injectable formulation,” he added.
The findings were presented at the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.
Time to relapse
To examine the efficacy and safety of monthly and bimonthly doses of the drug, the researchers recruited patients aged 13-65 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia more than a year previously and who had experienced at least one relapse in the previous 24 months.
After a screening period of up to 4 weeks, participants entered a 12-week pretreatment phase, during which their condition was stabilized on oral risperidone. During this period, the patients’ conditions had to remain stable for at least 4 consecutive weeks.
Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive TV-46000 monthly, TV-46000 every 2 months, or matching placebo. All doses were given as subcutaneous injections.
Treatment was continued until participants experienced a relapse event, met at least one criteria for study withdrawal, or the study recorded a total of 90 or more relapse events.
Of 1,267 patients screened, 863 were enrolled in the study, and 544 underwent randomization. The median age of the patients who underwent randomization was 52 years; 61% were male; and the majority (59%) were Black.
In addition, the average length of time with the disease was 20.8 years, and the average time since the most recent relapse was 10.2 months.
The primary endpoint was time to impending relapse, the criteria for which included the following:
- Increases in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores from randomization.
- Hospitalization because of worsening psychotic symptoms.
- Violent behavior resulting in clinically significant injury or damage.
Well tolerated?
In the intent-to-treat population, which comprised all adults who underwent randomization, monthly TV-46000 was associated with a fivefold prolongation of time to impending relapse in comparison with placebo; TV-46000 given every 2 months prolonged the time 2.7-fold.
This translated into a significant benefit vs. placebo for both TV-46000 monthly (hazard ratio for impending relapse, 0.2) and TV-46000 every 2 months (HR, 0.375; P < .0001 for both comparisons).
At the trial’s endpoint, impending relapse rates were 29% in the placebo group vs. 7% in the TV-46000 monthly group and 13% in the group that received TV-46000 every 2 months (P < .0001 for both).
While more patients in the two active-treatment groups met the strict criteria for remission, which included no relapse during the study and PANSS scores of 3 or less for at least 6 months prior to the study endpoint, the differences were not significant.
Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 39%-42% of the TV-46000 groups and by 26% of the placebo group. Serious AEs were experienced by 4%-6% of the TV-46000 groups and by 8% of the placebo group.
The investigators note that TV-46000 was “well tolerated” and that there were no new safety signals in comparison with what is already known about risperidone and “other long-acting risperidone formulations.”
Expanding on the reasons why long-acting antipsychotics are underprescribed, Dr. Kane said that “doctors often overestimate how adherent their patients are.”
He added that doctors may worry they are “insulting” their patient by suggesting they receive injections in order to increase adherence and that doctors are “not very good” at having these types of conversation with their patients.
“We did a study where we trained the clinical staff on how to have those conversations, and the result was the uptake [in patients switching to long-acting antipsychotics] was very high,” Dr. Kane said.
The personnel who received training included all of the medical team, therapists, who spend “much more time” with the patient than does the prescriber, and also social workers, case managers, and rehabilitation counselors, who are typically “not very familiar” with the idea of long-acting medications, he added.
‘Highly desirable’ option
Commenting on the study, Stephen R. Saklad, PharmD, director of the psychiatric pharmacy program, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, said that to call TV-46000 a LASCA rather than a depot injection is merely a “change in nomenclature.”
However, compared with a once-monthly subcutaneous injection of risperidone (Perseris), which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of schizophrenia, the new drug has fewer injection site reactions, said Dr. Saklad, who was not involved with the current research.
That benefit plus having efficacy similar to that of oral risperidone and having the “more patient- and clinician-desirable administration location” of the upper arm as well as the abdomen means the option to switch a risperidone-stabilized patient directly to TV-46000 monthly or bimonthly is “highly desirable,” he added.
Dr. Saklad also noted the reduction in the likelihood of impending relapse with TV-46000 over placebo is a relatively large effect size “and shows the value toward improving the care of these patients.”
In addition, he agreed with Dr. Kane that the uptake of long-acting antipsychotics is “deplorably low.”
“This is due to a number of factors that include patient reluctance to get a ‘shot’ or ‘jab,’ clinician inexperience with LAIs during training, and the incorrect presentation of LAIs as a punishment paradigm for ‘bad’ patients,” Dr. Saklad said.
He added that “everyone tires of taking their medication or just forgets to take a dose,” and most patients with other disorders will resume their medication the next day.
However, patients with schizophrenia have a “specific cognitive difficulty” in making the connection between stopping their medication and a later relapse. If they miss a dose, they will “incorrectly conclude that they are now ‘well’ and don’t need the medication any longer,” he said.
Dr. Saklad stressed that for a patient with schizophrenia a relapse can mean substantial loss of function and of assets such as housing or support networks, and many “will complete suicide.”
The study was supported by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D. Dr. Kane reported relationships with Alkermes, Allergan, Dainioppon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, Indivior, Intracellular Therapies, Janssen, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocine, North Shore Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceutical, Otsuka, Reviva, Roche, Saladex, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva, Otsuka, Lundbeck, Sunovion, UptoDate, and Vanguard Research Group.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A long-acting subcutaneous antipsychotic (LASCA) suspension that combines risperidone with a novel copolymer substantially reduces risk for relapse and prolongs time to impending relapse for patients with schizophrenia, new research suggests.
In the phase 3 Risperidone Subcutaneous Extended-Release (RISE) trial, which included more than 500 patients with schizophrenia, those who received the novel combination treatment, known as TV-46000, had relapse reduced by 80% with monthly administration and by 63.5% with the bimonthly dose.
“Long-acting injectable medications are grossly underutilized,” study investigator John M. Kane, MD, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.
The attributes of TV-46000, which include its subcutaneous delivery rather than intramuscular injections, its being active within 24 hours of first treatment, and its being administered monthly or bimonthly, “might be advantageous for some patients,” Dr. Kane noted.
Because it is also effective in reducing risk for relapse, TV-46000 is “another alternative when people are looking at the possibility of using a long-acting injectable formulation,” he added.
The findings were presented at the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.
Time to relapse
To examine the efficacy and safety of monthly and bimonthly doses of the drug, the researchers recruited patients aged 13-65 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia more than a year previously and who had experienced at least one relapse in the previous 24 months.
After a screening period of up to 4 weeks, participants entered a 12-week pretreatment phase, during which their condition was stabilized on oral risperidone. During this period, the patients’ conditions had to remain stable for at least 4 consecutive weeks.
Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive TV-46000 monthly, TV-46000 every 2 months, or matching placebo. All doses were given as subcutaneous injections.
Treatment was continued until participants experienced a relapse event, met at least one criteria for study withdrawal, or the study recorded a total of 90 or more relapse events.
Of 1,267 patients screened, 863 were enrolled in the study, and 544 underwent randomization. The median age of the patients who underwent randomization was 52 years; 61% were male; and the majority (59%) were Black.
In addition, the average length of time with the disease was 20.8 years, and the average time since the most recent relapse was 10.2 months.
The primary endpoint was time to impending relapse, the criteria for which included the following:
- Increases in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores from randomization.
- Hospitalization because of worsening psychotic symptoms.
- Violent behavior resulting in clinically significant injury or damage.
Well tolerated?
In the intent-to-treat population, which comprised all adults who underwent randomization, monthly TV-46000 was associated with a fivefold prolongation of time to impending relapse in comparison with placebo; TV-46000 given every 2 months prolonged the time 2.7-fold.
This translated into a significant benefit vs. placebo for both TV-46000 monthly (hazard ratio for impending relapse, 0.2) and TV-46000 every 2 months (HR, 0.375; P < .0001 for both comparisons).
At the trial’s endpoint, impending relapse rates were 29% in the placebo group vs. 7% in the TV-46000 monthly group and 13% in the group that received TV-46000 every 2 months (P < .0001 for both).
While more patients in the two active-treatment groups met the strict criteria for remission, which included no relapse during the study and PANSS scores of 3 or less for at least 6 months prior to the study endpoint, the differences were not significant.
Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 39%-42% of the TV-46000 groups and by 26% of the placebo group. Serious AEs were experienced by 4%-6% of the TV-46000 groups and by 8% of the placebo group.
The investigators note that TV-46000 was “well tolerated” and that there were no new safety signals in comparison with what is already known about risperidone and “other long-acting risperidone formulations.”
Expanding on the reasons why long-acting antipsychotics are underprescribed, Dr. Kane said that “doctors often overestimate how adherent their patients are.”
He added that doctors may worry they are “insulting” their patient by suggesting they receive injections in order to increase adherence and that doctors are “not very good” at having these types of conversation with their patients.
“We did a study where we trained the clinical staff on how to have those conversations, and the result was the uptake [in patients switching to long-acting antipsychotics] was very high,” Dr. Kane said.
The personnel who received training included all of the medical team, therapists, who spend “much more time” with the patient than does the prescriber, and also social workers, case managers, and rehabilitation counselors, who are typically “not very familiar” with the idea of long-acting medications, he added.
‘Highly desirable’ option
Commenting on the study, Stephen R. Saklad, PharmD, director of the psychiatric pharmacy program, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, said that to call TV-46000 a LASCA rather than a depot injection is merely a “change in nomenclature.”
However, compared with a once-monthly subcutaneous injection of risperidone (Perseris), which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of schizophrenia, the new drug has fewer injection site reactions, said Dr. Saklad, who was not involved with the current research.
That benefit plus having efficacy similar to that of oral risperidone and having the “more patient- and clinician-desirable administration location” of the upper arm as well as the abdomen means the option to switch a risperidone-stabilized patient directly to TV-46000 monthly or bimonthly is “highly desirable,” he added.
Dr. Saklad also noted the reduction in the likelihood of impending relapse with TV-46000 over placebo is a relatively large effect size “and shows the value toward improving the care of these patients.”
In addition, he agreed with Dr. Kane that the uptake of long-acting antipsychotics is “deplorably low.”
“This is due to a number of factors that include patient reluctance to get a ‘shot’ or ‘jab,’ clinician inexperience with LAIs during training, and the incorrect presentation of LAIs as a punishment paradigm for ‘bad’ patients,” Dr. Saklad said.
He added that “everyone tires of taking their medication or just forgets to take a dose,” and most patients with other disorders will resume their medication the next day.
However, patients with schizophrenia have a “specific cognitive difficulty” in making the connection between stopping their medication and a later relapse. If they miss a dose, they will “incorrectly conclude that they are now ‘well’ and don’t need the medication any longer,” he said.
Dr. Saklad stressed that for a patient with schizophrenia a relapse can mean substantial loss of function and of assets such as housing or support networks, and many “will complete suicide.”
The study was supported by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D. Dr. Kane reported relationships with Alkermes, Allergan, Dainioppon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, Indivior, Intracellular Therapies, Janssen, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocine, North Shore Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceutical, Otsuka, Reviva, Roche, Saladex, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva, Otsuka, Lundbeck, Sunovion, UptoDate, and Vanguard Research Group.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SIRS 2022
Treat or refer? New primary care flow diagrams for allergy patients
Most patients with allergy problems first see PCPs, not allergists, the authors write in Allergy. The new flow diagrams help PCPs treat anaphylaxis, asthma, drug allergy, food allergy, and urticaria.
“The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology established the Logogram Task Force to create a set of simple flow diagrams to assist allergy nonspecialist, generalist, and primary care teams in the diagnosis of five common allergic diseases encountered in primary care,” lead author Dermot Ryan, MB BCh, BAO, FRGCP, of the University of Edinburgh told this news organization.
“The source documents were mainstream guidelines coupled with ancillary literature,” he added in an email. “A multi-disciplinary taskforce ... distilled these guidelines into accessible, comprehensible, usable, and context-specific flow diagrams.”
The flow diagrams developed in Europe can be used by providers in the United States and elsewhere
“These diagrams are consistent with practices in the U.S.,” Christina E. Ciaccio, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics and the section chief of pediatric allergy and immunology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said in an email. “They will prove helpful to PCPs in the U.S. and elsewhere, particularly to young physicians new to practice.
“Treating allergies is part of the ‘bread-and-butter’ practice of primary care physicians in the U.S.,” Dr. Ciaccio, who was not involved in developing the flow diagrams, explained. “Up to 30% of Americans are atopic, and the vast majority seek treatment advice from their PCP first.”
The flow diagrams can help providers in developing countries, where allergic diseases are common, provide the best patient care possible, she said.
At some point, a PCP may need to think beyond flow diagrams and refer the patient to an allergist
“If the treatment plan for a patient falls outside first- or second-line medications, or if a diagnosis is unclear with preliminary testing, a PCP may reach out to an allergy/immunology specialist to assist in providing care,” Dr. Ciaccio advised. “Allergists may provide treatment options, such as immunotherapy, that the PCP does not offer. PCPs also often reach out to allergy team members for help with patients whose allergies are not ‘run-of-the-mill.’
“The flow diagrams are complex and may not be practical in the middle of a busy clinic,” she cautioned. “However, when a patient comes into a primary care clinic with an atypical presentation of an allergic disease, the diagrams are likely to help a physician feel confident that an allergist is the right physician for consultation.”
Patricia Lynne Lugar, MD, an associate professor of medicine in pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C., noted that providers in the U.S. can use the flow diagrams because the definitions, differential diagnosis, and treatments for the conditions they cover are similar.
“The flow diagrams are comprehensive, and they attempt to condense a great deal of information into summary points. They are very useful in the U.S., and not just for generalists,” Dr. Lugar, who also was not involved in the project, said. “Even emergency rooms would benefit from these flow diagrams, especially regarding the recognition of symptoms and differential diagnosis.”
Asthma and seasonal and environmental allergies are often managed by PCPs, and the flow diagrams would help them decide when to refer their patients to an allergist, she added in an email.
Dr. Lugar advises PCPs to “recognize the symptoms of an allergic condition, offer treatment based on confidence the diagnosis is correct, and offer a referral for testing to confirm the allergy.
“Because 50% or more of asthmatics are allergic, all asthmatics should be offered an allergy evaluation to determine their allergies and avoid exacerbating the asthma,” she added. “I do not see the flow diagrams as comprehensive enough to manage chronic urticaria, asthma, venom allergy, and drug allergy.”
With food allergy, environmental allergy, venom allergy, or anaphylaxis, “allergists are experts at considering the differential diagnosis and providing the next steps in the diagnostic workup,” Dr. Lugar said. “Allergists can also provide special treatments, such as allergen-specific immunotherapy or desensitization.”
The flow diagrams guide nonspecialists in diagnosis and treatment of their patients with allergy, with supplementary information as needed. The diagrams recommend referral to a specialist when appropriate, as in cases of anaphylaxis, or chronic urticaria.
The task force was funded by EAACI. Dr. Ryan and several other authors report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ciaccio and Dr. Lugar report no such relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most patients with allergy problems first see PCPs, not allergists, the authors write in Allergy. The new flow diagrams help PCPs treat anaphylaxis, asthma, drug allergy, food allergy, and urticaria.
“The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology established the Logogram Task Force to create a set of simple flow diagrams to assist allergy nonspecialist, generalist, and primary care teams in the diagnosis of five common allergic diseases encountered in primary care,” lead author Dermot Ryan, MB BCh, BAO, FRGCP, of the University of Edinburgh told this news organization.
“The source documents were mainstream guidelines coupled with ancillary literature,” he added in an email. “A multi-disciplinary taskforce ... distilled these guidelines into accessible, comprehensible, usable, and context-specific flow diagrams.”
The flow diagrams developed in Europe can be used by providers in the United States and elsewhere
“These diagrams are consistent with practices in the U.S.,” Christina E. Ciaccio, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics and the section chief of pediatric allergy and immunology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said in an email. “They will prove helpful to PCPs in the U.S. and elsewhere, particularly to young physicians new to practice.
“Treating allergies is part of the ‘bread-and-butter’ practice of primary care physicians in the U.S.,” Dr. Ciaccio, who was not involved in developing the flow diagrams, explained. “Up to 30% of Americans are atopic, and the vast majority seek treatment advice from their PCP first.”
The flow diagrams can help providers in developing countries, where allergic diseases are common, provide the best patient care possible, she said.
At some point, a PCP may need to think beyond flow diagrams and refer the patient to an allergist
“If the treatment plan for a patient falls outside first- or second-line medications, or if a diagnosis is unclear with preliminary testing, a PCP may reach out to an allergy/immunology specialist to assist in providing care,” Dr. Ciaccio advised. “Allergists may provide treatment options, such as immunotherapy, that the PCP does not offer. PCPs also often reach out to allergy team members for help with patients whose allergies are not ‘run-of-the-mill.’
“The flow diagrams are complex and may not be practical in the middle of a busy clinic,” she cautioned. “However, when a patient comes into a primary care clinic with an atypical presentation of an allergic disease, the diagrams are likely to help a physician feel confident that an allergist is the right physician for consultation.”
Patricia Lynne Lugar, MD, an associate professor of medicine in pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C., noted that providers in the U.S. can use the flow diagrams because the definitions, differential diagnosis, and treatments for the conditions they cover are similar.
“The flow diagrams are comprehensive, and they attempt to condense a great deal of information into summary points. They are very useful in the U.S., and not just for generalists,” Dr. Lugar, who also was not involved in the project, said. “Even emergency rooms would benefit from these flow diagrams, especially regarding the recognition of symptoms and differential diagnosis.”
Asthma and seasonal and environmental allergies are often managed by PCPs, and the flow diagrams would help them decide when to refer their patients to an allergist, she added in an email.
Dr. Lugar advises PCPs to “recognize the symptoms of an allergic condition, offer treatment based on confidence the diagnosis is correct, and offer a referral for testing to confirm the allergy.
“Because 50% or more of asthmatics are allergic, all asthmatics should be offered an allergy evaluation to determine their allergies and avoid exacerbating the asthma,” she added. “I do not see the flow diagrams as comprehensive enough to manage chronic urticaria, asthma, venom allergy, and drug allergy.”
With food allergy, environmental allergy, venom allergy, or anaphylaxis, “allergists are experts at considering the differential diagnosis and providing the next steps in the diagnostic workup,” Dr. Lugar said. “Allergists can also provide special treatments, such as allergen-specific immunotherapy or desensitization.”
The flow diagrams guide nonspecialists in diagnosis and treatment of their patients with allergy, with supplementary information as needed. The diagrams recommend referral to a specialist when appropriate, as in cases of anaphylaxis, or chronic urticaria.
The task force was funded by EAACI. Dr. Ryan and several other authors report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ciaccio and Dr. Lugar report no such relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most patients with allergy problems first see PCPs, not allergists, the authors write in Allergy. The new flow diagrams help PCPs treat anaphylaxis, asthma, drug allergy, food allergy, and urticaria.
“The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology established the Logogram Task Force to create a set of simple flow diagrams to assist allergy nonspecialist, generalist, and primary care teams in the diagnosis of five common allergic diseases encountered in primary care,” lead author Dermot Ryan, MB BCh, BAO, FRGCP, of the University of Edinburgh told this news organization.
“The source documents were mainstream guidelines coupled with ancillary literature,” he added in an email. “A multi-disciplinary taskforce ... distilled these guidelines into accessible, comprehensible, usable, and context-specific flow diagrams.”
The flow diagrams developed in Europe can be used by providers in the United States and elsewhere
“These diagrams are consistent with practices in the U.S.,” Christina E. Ciaccio, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics and the section chief of pediatric allergy and immunology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said in an email. “They will prove helpful to PCPs in the U.S. and elsewhere, particularly to young physicians new to practice.
“Treating allergies is part of the ‘bread-and-butter’ practice of primary care physicians in the U.S.,” Dr. Ciaccio, who was not involved in developing the flow diagrams, explained. “Up to 30% of Americans are atopic, and the vast majority seek treatment advice from their PCP first.”
The flow diagrams can help providers in developing countries, where allergic diseases are common, provide the best patient care possible, she said.
At some point, a PCP may need to think beyond flow diagrams and refer the patient to an allergist
“If the treatment plan for a patient falls outside first- or second-line medications, or if a diagnosis is unclear with preliminary testing, a PCP may reach out to an allergy/immunology specialist to assist in providing care,” Dr. Ciaccio advised. “Allergists may provide treatment options, such as immunotherapy, that the PCP does not offer. PCPs also often reach out to allergy team members for help with patients whose allergies are not ‘run-of-the-mill.’
“The flow diagrams are complex and may not be practical in the middle of a busy clinic,” she cautioned. “However, when a patient comes into a primary care clinic with an atypical presentation of an allergic disease, the diagrams are likely to help a physician feel confident that an allergist is the right physician for consultation.”
Patricia Lynne Lugar, MD, an associate professor of medicine in pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C., noted that providers in the U.S. can use the flow diagrams because the definitions, differential diagnosis, and treatments for the conditions they cover are similar.
“The flow diagrams are comprehensive, and they attempt to condense a great deal of information into summary points. They are very useful in the U.S., and not just for generalists,” Dr. Lugar, who also was not involved in the project, said. “Even emergency rooms would benefit from these flow diagrams, especially regarding the recognition of symptoms and differential diagnosis.”
Asthma and seasonal and environmental allergies are often managed by PCPs, and the flow diagrams would help them decide when to refer their patients to an allergist, she added in an email.
Dr. Lugar advises PCPs to “recognize the symptoms of an allergic condition, offer treatment based on confidence the diagnosis is correct, and offer a referral for testing to confirm the allergy.
“Because 50% or more of asthmatics are allergic, all asthmatics should be offered an allergy evaluation to determine their allergies and avoid exacerbating the asthma,” she added. “I do not see the flow diagrams as comprehensive enough to manage chronic urticaria, asthma, venom allergy, and drug allergy.”
With food allergy, environmental allergy, venom allergy, or anaphylaxis, “allergists are experts at considering the differential diagnosis and providing the next steps in the diagnostic workup,” Dr. Lugar said. “Allergists can also provide special treatments, such as allergen-specific immunotherapy or desensitization.”
The flow diagrams guide nonspecialists in diagnosis and treatment of their patients with allergy, with supplementary information as needed. The diagrams recommend referral to a specialist when appropriate, as in cases of anaphylaxis, or chronic urticaria.
The task force was funded by EAACI. Dr. Ryan and several other authors report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ciaccio and Dr. Lugar report no such relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ALLERGY
A case of cold, purple toes
A punch-biopsy was performed on the left second toe where the erythema was the most intense. It demonstrated classic findings for pernio: superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic inflammation and papillary dermal edema on the acral surface.
Pernio, alternatively known as chilblains, is characterized by erythema, violaceous changes, and swelling at acral sites (especially the toes or fingers). There can also be blistering, pain/tenderness, and itch. Pernio results in an abnormal localized inflammatory response to nonfreezing cold and is more common in damp climates. Pernio may also occur in occupational settings where patients handle frozen food. When a patient presents with the classic findings and consistent history, biopsy is not strictly necessary, but can aid in a definitive diagnosis.
The pathogenesis of pernio is not clearly understood. Inflammation secondary to vasospasm and type I interferon immune response to repeated or chronic cold exposure likely play a significant role. Symptoms can arise within 24 hours of exposure and resolve just as quickly. However, persistent and repeated exposure can also trigger ongoing symptoms that last for weeks.
As with most autoinflammatory conditions, pernio has a proclivity to affect younger women. It also affects children and the elderly. Because it is an inflammatory response to nonfreezing cold temperatures, the disease tends to occur during autumn in patients who live in homes without central heating.
A diagnosis of idiopathic pernio necessitates excluding several other similar, cold-induced entities. These include acrocyanosis (due to erythromelalgia, anorexia, medications), Raynaud phenomenon, cryoglobulinemia, cold urticaria, and chilblain lupus (among others). Pernio tends to lack other clinical findings such as true retiform purpura.
Of note, during the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians identified a spike in the incidence of pernio-like acral eruptions. This phenomenon has been coined “COVID toes.” While the direct temporal and causal relationships between COVID-19 and the observed eruption has not been clearly established, any patient who presents with a new onset pernio-like eruption should receive a COVID-19 test to ensure proper precautions are followed.1
In our patient, the work-up did not show any evidence of other underlying conditions. As her symptoms were minimal, we provided reassurance and counseling on preventive measures such as keeping her hands and feet warm and dry. In cases where treatment is needed, high-potency topical corticosteroids can be utilized judiciously during flares to decrease local inflammation. (There is minimal concern for adverse effects due to the thicker skin on acral surfaces.) Another treatment option is oral nifedipine (20-60 mg/d). One double-blinded trial showed it can improve symptoms in up to 70% of patients.2
Clinical image courtesy of Jiasen Wang, MD; microscopy image courtesy of Shelly Stepenaskie, MD. Text courtesy of Jiasen Wang, MD, Aimee Smidt, MD, Shelly Stepenaskie, MD, Department of Dermatology, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
1. Cappel MA, Cappel JA, Wetter DA. Pernio (Chilblains), SARS-CoV-2, and covid toes unified through cutaneous and systemic mechanisms. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96:989-1005. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.01.009
2. Simon TD, Soep JB, Hollister JR. Pernio in pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2005;116:e472-e475. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2681
A punch-biopsy was performed on the left second toe where the erythema was the most intense. It demonstrated classic findings for pernio: superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic inflammation and papillary dermal edema on the acral surface.
Pernio, alternatively known as chilblains, is characterized by erythema, violaceous changes, and swelling at acral sites (especially the toes or fingers). There can also be blistering, pain/tenderness, and itch. Pernio results in an abnormal localized inflammatory response to nonfreezing cold and is more common in damp climates. Pernio may also occur in occupational settings where patients handle frozen food. When a patient presents with the classic findings and consistent history, biopsy is not strictly necessary, but can aid in a definitive diagnosis.
The pathogenesis of pernio is not clearly understood. Inflammation secondary to vasospasm and type I interferon immune response to repeated or chronic cold exposure likely play a significant role. Symptoms can arise within 24 hours of exposure and resolve just as quickly. However, persistent and repeated exposure can also trigger ongoing symptoms that last for weeks.
As with most autoinflammatory conditions, pernio has a proclivity to affect younger women. It also affects children and the elderly. Because it is an inflammatory response to nonfreezing cold temperatures, the disease tends to occur during autumn in patients who live in homes without central heating.
A diagnosis of idiopathic pernio necessitates excluding several other similar, cold-induced entities. These include acrocyanosis (due to erythromelalgia, anorexia, medications), Raynaud phenomenon, cryoglobulinemia, cold urticaria, and chilblain lupus (among others). Pernio tends to lack other clinical findings such as true retiform purpura.
Of note, during the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians identified a spike in the incidence of pernio-like acral eruptions. This phenomenon has been coined “COVID toes.” While the direct temporal and causal relationships between COVID-19 and the observed eruption has not been clearly established, any patient who presents with a new onset pernio-like eruption should receive a COVID-19 test to ensure proper precautions are followed.1
In our patient, the work-up did not show any evidence of other underlying conditions. As her symptoms were minimal, we provided reassurance and counseling on preventive measures such as keeping her hands and feet warm and dry. In cases where treatment is needed, high-potency topical corticosteroids can be utilized judiciously during flares to decrease local inflammation. (There is minimal concern for adverse effects due to the thicker skin on acral surfaces.) Another treatment option is oral nifedipine (20-60 mg/d). One double-blinded trial showed it can improve symptoms in up to 70% of patients.2
Clinical image courtesy of Jiasen Wang, MD; microscopy image courtesy of Shelly Stepenaskie, MD. Text courtesy of Jiasen Wang, MD, Aimee Smidt, MD, Shelly Stepenaskie, MD, Department of Dermatology, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
A punch-biopsy was performed on the left second toe where the erythema was the most intense. It demonstrated classic findings for pernio: superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic inflammation and papillary dermal edema on the acral surface.
Pernio, alternatively known as chilblains, is characterized by erythema, violaceous changes, and swelling at acral sites (especially the toes or fingers). There can also be blistering, pain/tenderness, and itch. Pernio results in an abnormal localized inflammatory response to nonfreezing cold and is more common in damp climates. Pernio may also occur in occupational settings where patients handle frozen food. When a patient presents with the classic findings and consistent history, biopsy is not strictly necessary, but can aid in a definitive diagnosis.
The pathogenesis of pernio is not clearly understood. Inflammation secondary to vasospasm and type I interferon immune response to repeated or chronic cold exposure likely play a significant role. Symptoms can arise within 24 hours of exposure and resolve just as quickly. However, persistent and repeated exposure can also trigger ongoing symptoms that last for weeks.
As with most autoinflammatory conditions, pernio has a proclivity to affect younger women. It also affects children and the elderly. Because it is an inflammatory response to nonfreezing cold temperatures, the disease tends to occur during autumn in patients who live in homes without central heating.
A diagnosis of idiopathic pernio necessitates excluding several other similar, cold-induced entities. These include acrocyanosis (due to erythromelalgia, anorexia, medications), Raynaud phenomenon, cryoglobulinemia, cold urticaria, and chilblain lupus (among others). Pernio tends to lack other clinical findings such as true retiform purpura.
Of note, during the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians identified a spike in the incidence of pernio-like acral eruptions. This phenomenon has been coined “COVID toes.” While the direct temporal and causal relationships between COVID-19 and the observed eruption has not been clearly established, any patient who presents with a new onset pernio-like eruption should receive a COVID-19 test to ensure proper precautions are followed.1
In our patient, the work-up did not show any evidence of other underlying conditions. As her symptoms were minimal, we provided reassurance and counseling on preventive measures such as keeping her hands and feet warm and dry. In cases where treatment is needed, high-potency topical corticosteroids can be utilized judiciously during flares to decrease local inflammation. (There is minimal concern for adverse effects due to the thicker skin on acral surfaces.) Another treatment option is oral nifedipine (20-60 mg/d). One double-blinded trial showed it can improve symptoms in up to 70% of patients.2
Clinical image courtesy of Jiasen Wang, MD; microscopy image courtesy of Shelly Stepenaskie, MD. Text courtesy of Jiasen Wang, MD, Aimee Smidt, MD, Shelly Stepenaskie, MD, Department of Dermatology, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
1. Cappel MA, Cappel JA, Wetter DA. Pernio (Chilblains), SARS-CoV-2, and covid toes unified through cutaneous and systemic mechanisms. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96:989-1005. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.01.009
2. Simon TD, Soep JB, Hollister JR. Pernio in pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2005;116:e472-e475. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2681
1. Cappel MA, Cappel JA, Wetter DA. Pernio (Chilblains), SARS-CoV-2, and covid toes unified through cutaneous and systemic mechanisms. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96:989-1005. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.01.009
2. Simon TD, Soep JB, Hollister JR. Pernio in pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2005;116:e472-e475. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-2681
Harmonizing Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Veterans With Multiple Sclerosis
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a lifelong disease that affects about a million people in the United States.1,2 Since 1998 more than 45,000 veterans have been diagnosed with MS and about 20,000 are evaluated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) annually.3
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a cornerstone for the assessment of persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).4-6 MRI assists with disease diagnosis, allowing for timely therapeutic interventions and withthe evaluation of its progression, treatment effect, and safety. 4,5 MRI-based outcomes also are used as primary endpoints in clinical trials.4,5
MS has its clinical onset in early adulthood in most individuals and is diagnosed at a mean age of 30 years.7 As a result, pwMS may receive care and MRIs in different facilities during their lifetime. Mitigating interscan variabilities that can challenge intra- and interperson comparisons is crucial for accurate care. Radiologists may find it difficult to compare scans acquired in different facilities, as dissimilarities in acquisition protocols may mask or uncover focal disease, creating false negative or false positive findings. Moreover, lack of a standardized method to report MRI changes may compromise neurologists’ ability to correctly interpret scans and disease progression.
Accordingly, in October 2019, an international task force of neurologists, radiologists, MRI technologists, and imaging scientists with expertise in MS, including representatives from the VHA, worked together to update guidelines for imaging the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve in pwMS.8,9 Recognizing the importance of this effort, the VHA Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence (MSCoE), in collaboration with a team of subject matter expert neuroradiologists promptly committed to this effort, advocating the updated consensus recommendations, and favoring their dissemination within the VHA.10
As part of this commitment and dissemination effort, in this report we summarize the core points of the newly proposed MRI guidelines and ways to adapt them for use within the VHA. We then discuss key elements for their successful implementation and dissemination, specifically regarding the clinical operations of VHA.
Updated Guidelines
MRI Scan at Different Timepoints of MS
There are 3 crucial milestones within a the lifespan of a pwMS that require an MRI to reach appropriate conclusions and avoid clinical errors. These include the initial diagnosis, the follow-up to monitor disease and/or treatment effect, and the assessment of medication safety.
In the interest of efficiency, MRI protocols may vary slightly depending on these clinical indications. The Table lists core sequences of the updated 2021 consensus recommendations at each timepoint along with the proposed alternatives or preferences from the VHA workgroup.
At the time of diagnosis, both brain and spine (cervical and thoracic) MRIs are recommended. Routine MRI of the optic nerve is considered optional at diagnosis. However, imaging the optic nerve may be useful in specific clinical scenarios when the optic nerve is selectively involved, and the diagnosis or etiology of an optic neuritis is not clear. A repeat brain MRI is advised every 6 to 12 months in patients with clinically or radiologically isolated syndrome who do not fulfill the diagnostic criteria of MS but present risk factors for conversion to MS or paraclinical features of it.
Once the diagnosis is established, brain MRI is recommended for follow-up and for surveillance of drug safety. Spinal cord and optic nerve MRIs are desirable but optional in the follow-up of pwMS and are not required for drug surveillance. Spinal cord MRIs are required at follow-up for patients whose progression cannot be explained by brain MRI features, or who manifest with recurrent spinal cord symptoms, or have spinal cord comorbidities. In these cases, spinal cord MRI also may assist with treatment decisions. Similarly, optic nerve MRI is necessary during follow-up only when optic nerve comorbidities are suspected or when there is progression or reoccurrence of optic nerve–related symptoms.
Brain MRIs are recommended for monitoring drug effect yearly (or at longer intervals, after a few years of disease stability). Conversely, a repeat brain MRI is advised after 6 months if nonsymptomatic radiological disease activity is discovered on surveillance scans.
Abbreviated but more frequent serial brain MRI protocols (eg, every 3 to 4 months) are recommended for pwMS treated with natalizumab and at high risk of developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (eg, pwMS who are John Cunningham virus [JCV]–positive, and have been treated with natalizumabfor ≥ 18 months, have a JCV antibody index > 0.9, or have a history of immunosuppression). A similar approach is recommended for carryover cases, such as those with high JCV antibody index who are switched to other immunosuppressive treatments.
MRI Field, Scan Resolution, and Coverage
Both 1.5-Tesla (1.5-T) and 3-T scans are believed to be equally effective in imaging pwMS, providing that the 1.5-T scans are good quality. Although imaging at < 1.5 T is not recommended due to suboptimal disease detection, the use of scanners > 3 T is equally discouraged outside the supervision of trained investigators. Signal-to-noise ratio and resolution are key factors impacting scan quality, and their optimization is prioritized over the number of sequences in the updated 2021 consensus recommendations. For brain imaging, a resolution of 1 mm3 isotropic is preferred for 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and slice thickness ≤ 3 mm without gap (≤ 5 mm with 10-30% gaps for diffusion-weighted imaging only) is recommended for 2D sequences. Images should cover the entire brain and as much of the cervical spine as possible; images should be prescribed axial for 2D or reformatted axial oblique for 3D using the subcallosal plane as reference. For spine imaging, sites should aim at an in-plane resolution of 1 mm2; using sagittal slices ≤ 3 mm thick and axial slices ≤ 5 mm thick, both with no gap. Scans should cover the entire cervical and thoracolumbar region inclusive of the conus. For the optic nerve images, slices should be ≤ 2 or 3 mm thick with an in-plane resolution of 1 mm2. Images should be aligned to the orientation of the optic nerve and chiasms, both of which should be entirely covered.
Postgadolinium Images Use
The discovery of the higher sensitivity of post-gadolinium (Gd) T1-weighted (T1-w) MRI relative to high iodine (88.1 g I) computed tomography scans in demonstrating contrast-enhancing MS lesions has revolutionized the way clinicians diagnose and monitor this disease.11 However, in recent years the role of postcontrast MRI has been debated, considering the potential safety concerns secondary to Gd tissue deposition. For this reason, an intentionally more judicious use of postcontrast MRI is proposed by the consensus recommendations. At disease diagnosis, the use of Gd is advisable to (1) show disease dissemination in time; (2) differentiate the diagnosis based on the Gd pattern; (3) predict short-term disease activity; and (4) characterize activity in the setting of progression. When monitoring pwMS, the use of Gd may be useful in the first year of follow-up, particularly if in the setting of low potency medications or for patients for whom the detection of one or more active lesions would lead to a change in disease-modifying agents. Gd also should be used to first, confirm a clinical exacerbation (if needed); second, further characterize a lesion suggestive of progressive multifocal encephalopathy or monitor this disease over time; and third, monitor lesion burden change in patients with large confluent lesions, the count of which otherwise may be difficult.
MRI During Pregnancy and Lactation
The consensus recommendations state that Gd contrast–enhanced MRI is not absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy, although its use should be limited to strictly necessary situations, particularly those involving differential diagnosis, such as cerebral venous thrombosis or monitoring of possibly enlarging lesion burden. The use of Gd is not contraindicated during lactation, as only a small proportion (< 0.4%) passes into the breast milk, leading to an exposure to < 1% of the permitted Gd dose for neonates.12,13
Harmonizing MRI Reports
The consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-weighted (T2-w) images when lesions are < 20, or specifying if the number of T2 lesions is between 20 and 50, between 50 and 100, or uncountable, eg, confluent large lesions. Similarly, for the spinal cord, the consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-w images when lesions are < 10, or otherwise report that > 10 lesions are seen.
The VHA workgroup proposed reporting a mild, moderate, or severe T2-lesion burden for a T2-lesion count < 20, between 20 and 50, and > 50, respectively. For follow-up MRIs, notation should be made if there is any change in lesion number, indicating the number of new lesions whenever possible. At each timepoint, the presence of active lesions on postcontrast images should be accurately defined.
Dissemination and Implementation
To implement and disseminate these proposed recommendations within the VHA, a workgroup of neurologists and radiologists was formed in late 2020. A review and discussion of the importance of each of the proposed MRI protocols for veterans with MS was held along with possible modifications to balance the intent of meeting standards of care with resources of individual US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and veterans’ needs. The final protocol recommendations were agreed on by group consensus.
In general, this VHA workgroup felt that the current adopted MRI protocols in several VA medical centers (based on previously proposed recommendations) were similar to the ones newly proposed and that implementing changes to meet the 2021 criteria would not be a major challenge.14,15 Possible regional and nonregional barriers were discussed. The result of these discussions led to a modified version of what could be considered more stringent guidelines to accommodate medical centers that had fewer imaging resources. This modified protocol offers a viable alternative that allows for minimizing heterogeneities while recognizing the capabilities of the available scanner fleet and meeting the needs of specific centers or veterans. Finally, the workgroup recognized a fundamental obstacle toward this harmonization process in the heterogeneity in vendors and scanner field strength, factors that have previously limited implementation.
The guidelines and proposed changes were then presented to the VA National Radiology Program Office, examined, and discussed for consensus. No changes were felt to be needed, and the recommendation to implement these guidelines in MS regional programs, whenever possible, was deemed appropriate.
At this time, a focused communication plan has been implemented to diffuse the use of this protocol at MS regional programs in the MSCoE network. We will work iteratively with individual sites to practically apply the guidelines, learn about challenges, and work through them to optimize local implementation.
Conclusions
Standardized MRI protocols are fundamental for the care of veterans with MS. Mitigating interscan variabilities should be recognized as a priority by scientific and clinical expert committees. Several guidelines have been developed over the years to standardize MRI acquisition protocols and interpretations, while updating the same to the latest discoveries.4,5,8,14,15 The VHA has been historically committed to these international efforts, with the goal to excel in the care of veterans with MS by providing access to state-of-the-art technologies. To this end, the initial Consortium of MS Centers MRI protocol was implemented in several MSCoE VA Regional Program sites a decade ago.14 Efforts continue to update protocol recommendations as needed and to promote their dissemination across the VHA enterprise.
This commentary is part of the continuous effort of the MSCoE to align with contemporary guidelines, apply the highest scientific standards, and achieve consistent outcomes for veterans with MS. For more important details of the clinical scenarios when additional/optional sequences or scans can be acquired, we advise the reader to refer to the 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS Consensus Recommendations on the Use of MRI in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis.8
1. Wallin MT, Culpepper WJ, Campbell JD, et al. The prevalence of MS in the United States: A population-based estimate using health claims data. Neurology. 2019;92(10):e1029-e1040. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007035
2. Nelson LM, Wallin MT, Marrie RA, et al. A new way to estimate neurologic disease prevalence in the United States: Illustrated with MS. Neurology. 2019;92(10):469-480. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007044
3. Culpepper WJ, Wallin MT, Magder LS, et al. VHA Multiple Sclerosis Surveillance Registry and its similarities to other contemporary multiple sclerosis cohorts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(3):263-272. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2014.07.0172
4. Wattjes MP, Rovira À, Miller D, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis--establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11(10):597-606. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.157
5. Rovira À, Wattjes MP, Tintoré M, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11(8):471-482. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106
6. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(2):162-173. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2
7. Reich DS, Lucchinetti CF, Calabresi PA. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):169-180. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1401483
8. Wattjes MP, Ciccarelli O, Reich DS, et al. 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS consensus recommendations on the use of MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(8):653-670. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00095-8
9. Saslow L, Li DKB, Halper J, et al. An International Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocol for Diagnosis and Follow-up of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: Advocacy, Dissemination, and Implementation Strategies. Int J MS Care. 2020;22(5):226-232. doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2020-094
10. Cameron MH, Haselkorn JK, Wallin MT. The Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence: a model of excellence in the VA. Fed Pract. 2020;37(suppl 1):S6-S10.
11. Grossman RI, Gonzalez-Scarano F, Atlas SW, Galetta S, Silberberg DH. Multiple sclerosis: gadolinium enhancement in MR imaging. Radiology. 1986;161(3):721-725. doi:10.1148/radiology.161.3.3786722
12. European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR guidelines on contrast agent, 10.0. March 2018. Accessed March 11, 2022. https://www.esur.org/fileadmin/content/2019/ESUR_Guidelines_10.0_Final_Version.pdf
13. Sundgren PC, Leander P. Is administration of gadolinium-based contrast media to pregnant women and small children justified?. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34(4):750-757. doi:10.1002/jmri.22413
14. Simon JH, Li D, Traboulsee A, et al. Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(2):455-461.
15. Traboulsee A, Simon JH, Stone L, et al. Revised Recommendations of the Consortium of MS Centers Task Force for a Standardized MRI Protocol and Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(3):394-401. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4539
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a lifelong disease that affects about a million people in the United States.1,2 Since 1998 more than 45,000 veterans have been diagnosed with MS and about 20,000 are evaluated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) annually.3
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a cornerstone for the assessment of persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).4-6 MRI assists with disease diagnosis, allowing for timely therapeutic interventions and withthe evaluation of its progression, treatment effect, and safety. 4,5 MRI-based outcomes also are used as primary endpoints in clinical trials.4,5
MS has its clinical onset in early adulthood in most individuals and is diagnosed at a mean age of 30 years.7 As a result, pwMS may receive care and MRIs in different facilities during their lifetime. Mitigating interscan variabilities that can challenge intra- and interperson comparisons is crucial for accurate care. Radiologists may find it difficult to compare scans acquired in different facilities, as dissimilarities in acquisition protocols may mask or uncover focal disease, creating false negative or false positive findings. Moreover, lack of a standardized method to report MRI changes may compromise neurologists’ ability to correctly interpret scans and disease progression.
Accordingly, in October 2019, an international task force of neurologists, radiologists, MRI technologists, and imaging scientists with expertise in MS, including representatives from the VHA, worked together to update guidelines for imaging the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve in pwMS.8,9 Recognizing the importance of this effort, the VHA Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence (MSCoE), in collaboration with a team of subject matter expert neuroradiologists promptly committed to this effort, advocating the updated consensus recommendations, and favoring their dissemination within the VHA.10
As part of this commitment and dissemination effort, in this report we summarize the core points of the newly proposed MRI guidelines and ways to adapt them for use within the VHA. We then discuss key elements for their successful implementation and dissemination, specifically regarding the clinical operations of VHA.
Updated Guidelines
MRI Scan at Different Timepoints of MS
There are 3 crucial milestones within a the lifespan of a pwMS that require an MRI to reach appropriate conclusions and avoid clinical errors. These include the initial diagnosis, the follow-up to monitor disease and/or treatment effect, and the assessment of medication safety.
In the interest of efficiency, MRI protocols may vary slightly depending on these clinical indications. The Table lists core sequences of the updated 2021 consensus recommendations at each timepoint along with the proposed alternatives or preferences from the VHA workgroup.
At the time of diagnosis, both brain and spine (cervical and thoracic) MRIs are recommended. Routine MRI of the optic nerve is considered optional at diagnosis. However, imaging the optic nerve may be useful in specific clinical scenarios when the optic nerve is selectively involved, and the diagnosis or etiology of an optic neuritis is not clear. A repeat brain MRI is advised every 6 to 12 months in patients with clinically or radiologically isolated syndrome who do not fulfill the diagnostic criteria of MS but present risk factors for conversion to MS or paraclinical features of it.
Once the diagnosis is established, brain MRI is recommended for follow-up and for surveillance of drug safety. Spinal cord and optic nerve MRIs are desirable but optional in the follow-up of pwMS and are not required for drug surveillance. Spinal cord MRIs are required at follow-up for patients whose progression cannot be explained by brain MRI features, or who manifest with recurrent spinal cord symptoms, or have spinal cord comorbidities. In these cases, spinal cord MRI also may assist with treatment decisions. Similarly, optic nerve MRI is necessary during follow-up only when optic nerve comorbidities are suspected or when there is progression or reoccurrence of optic nerve–related symptoms.
Brain MRIs are recommended for monitoring drug effect yearly (or at longer intervals, after a few years of disease stability). Conversely, a repeat brain MRI is advised after 6 months if nonsymptomatic radiological disease activity is discovered on surveillance scans.
Abbreviated but more frequent serial brain MRI protocols (eg, every 3 to 4 months) are recommended for pwMS treated with natalizumab and at high risk of developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (eg, pwMS who are John Cunningham virus [JCV]–positive, and have been treated with natalizumabfor ≥ 18 months, have a JCV antibody index > 0.9, or have a history of immunosuppression). A similar approach is recommended for carryover cases, such as those with high JCV antibody index who are switched to other immunosuppressive treatments.
MRI Field, Scan Resolution, and Coverage
Both 1.5-Tesla (1.5-T) and 3-T scans are believed to be equally effective in imaging pwMS, providing that the 1.5-T scans are good quality. Although imaging at < 1.5 T is not recommended due to suboptimal disease detection, the use of scanners > 3 T is equally discouraged outside the supervision of trained investigators. Signal-to-noise ratio and resolution are key factors impacting scan quality, and their optimization is prioritized over the number of sequences in the updated 2021 consensus recommendations. For brain imaging, a resolution of 1 mm3 isotropic is preferred for 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and slice thickness ≤ 3 mm without gap (≤ 5 mm with 10-30% gaps for diffusion-weighted imaging only) is recommended for 2D sequences. Images should cover the entire brain and as much of the cervical spine as possible; images should be prescribed axial for 2D or reformatted axial oblique for 3D using the subcallosal plane as reference. For spine imaging, sites should aim at an in-plane resolution of 1 mm2; using sagittal slices ≤ 3 mm thick and axial slices ≤ 5 mm thick, both with no gap. Scans should cover the entire cervical and thoracolumbar region inclusive of the conus. For the optic nerve images, slices should be ≤ 2 or 3 mm thick with an in-plane resolution of 1 mm2. Images should be aligned to the orientation of the optic nerve and chiasms, both of which should be entirely covered.
Postgadolinium Images Use
The discovery of the higher sensitivity of post-gadolinium (Gd) T1-weighted (T1-w) MRI relative to high iodine (88.1 g I) computed tomography scans in demonstrating contrast-enhancing MS lesions has revolutionized the way clinicians diagnose and monitor this disease.11 However, in recent years the role of postcontrast MRI has been debated, considering the potential safety concerns secondary to Gd tissue deposition. For this reason, an intentionally more judicious use of postcontrast MRI is proposed by the consensus recommendations. At disease diagnosis, the use of Gd is advisable to (1) show disease dissemination in time; (2) differentiate the diagnosis based on the Gd pattern; (3) predict short-term disease activity; and (4) characterize activity in the setting of progression. When monitoring pwMS, the use of Gd may be useful in the first year of follow-up, particularly if in the setting of low potency medications or for patients for whom the detection of one or more active lesions would lead to a change in disease-modifying agents. Gd also should be used to first, confirm a clinical exacerbation (if needed); second, further characterize a lesion suggestive of progressive multifocal encephalopathy or monitor this disease over time; and third, monitor lesion burden change in patients with large confluent lesions, the count of which otherwise may be difficult.
MRI During Pregnancy and Lactation
The consensus recommendations state that Gd contrast–enhanced MRI is not absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy, although its use should be limited to strictly necessary situations, particularly those involving differential diagnosis, such as cerebral venous thrombosis or monitoring of possibly enlarging lesion burden. The use of Gd is not contraindicated during lactation, as only a small proportion (< 0.4%) passes into the breast milk, leading to an exposure to < 1% of the permitted Gd dose for neonates.12,13
Harmonizing MRI Reports
The consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-weighted (T2-w) images when lesions are < 20, or specifying if the number of T2 lesions is between 20 and 50, between 50 and 100, or uncountable, eg, confluent large lesions. Similarly, for the spinal cord, the consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-w images when lesions are < 10, or otherwise report that > 10 lesions are seen.
The VHA workgroup proposed reporting a mild, moderate, or severe T2-lesion burden for a T2-lesion count < 20, between 20 and 50, and > 50, respectively. For follow-up MRIs, notation should be made if there is any change in lesion number, indicating the number of new lesions whenever possible. At each timepoint, the presence of active lesions on postcontrast images should be accurately defined.
Dissemination and Implementation
To implement and disseminate these proposed recommendations within the VHA, a workgroup of neurologists and radiologists was formed in late 2020. A review and discussion of the importance of each of the proposed MRI protocols for veterans with MS was held along with possible modifications to balance the intent of meeting standards of care with resources of individual US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and veterans’ needs. The final protocol recommendations were agreed on by group consensus.
In general, this VHA workgroup felt that the current adopted MRI protocols in several VA medical centers (based on previously proposed recommendations) were similar to the ones newly proposed and that implementing changes to meet the 2021 criteria would not be a major challenge.14,15 Possible regional and nonregional barriers were discussed. The result of these discussions led to a modified version of what could be considered more stringent guidelines to accommodate medical centers that had fewer imaging resources. This modified protocol offers a viable alternative that allows for minimizing heterogeneities while recognizing the capabilities of the available scanner fleet and meeting the needs of specific centers or veterans. Finally, the workgroup recognized a fundamental obstacle toward this harmonization process in the heterogeneity in vendors and scanner field strength, factors that have previously limited implementation.
The guidelines and proposed changes were then presented to the VA National Radiology Program Office, examined, and discussed for consensus. No changes were felt to be needed, and the recommendation to implement these guidelines in MS regional programs, whenever possible, was deemed appropriate.
At this time, a focused communication plan has been implemented to diffuse the use of this protocol at MS regional programs in the MSCoE network. We will work iteratively with individual sites to practically apply the guidelines, learn about challenges, and work through them to optimize local implementation.
Conclusions
Standardized MRI protocols are fundamental for the care of veterans with MS. Mitigating interscan variabilities should be recognized as a priority by scientific and clinical expert committees. Several guidelines have been developed over the years to standardize MRI acquisition protocols and interpretations, while updating the same to the latest discoveries.4,5,8,14,15 The VHA has been historically committed to these international efforts, with the goal to excel in the care of veterans with MS by providing access to state-of-the-art technologies. To this end, the initial Consortium of MS Centers MRI protocol was implemented in several MSCoE VA Regional Program sites a decade ago.14 Efforts continue to update protocol recommendations as needed and to promote their dissemination across the VHA enterprise.
This commentary is part of the continuous effort of the MSCoE to align with contemporary guidelines, apply the highest scientific standards, and achieve consistent outcomes for veterans with MS. For more important details of the clinical scenarios when additional/optional sequences or scans can be acquired, we advise the reader to refer to the 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS Consensus Recommendations on the Use of MRI in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis.8
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a lifelong disease that affects about a million people in the United States.1,2 Since 1998 more than 45,000 veterans have been diagnosed with MS and about 20,000 are evaluated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) annually.3
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a cornerstone for the assessment of persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).4-6 MRI assists with disease diagnosis, allowing for timely therapeutic interventions and withthe evaluation of its progression, treatment effect, and safety. 4,5 MRI-based outcomes also are used as primary endpoints in clinical trials.4,5
MS has its clinical onset in early adulthood in most individuals and is diagnosed at a mean age of 30 years.7 As a result, pwMS may receive care and MRIs in different facilities during their lifetime. Mitigating interscan variabilities that can challenge intra- and interperson comparisons is crucial for accurate care. Radiologists may find it difficult to compare scans acquired in different facilities, as dissimilarities in acquisition protocols may mask or uncover focal disease, creating false negative or false positive findings. Moreover, lack of a standardized method to report MRI changes may compromise neurologists’ ability to correctly interpret scans and disease progression.
Accordingly, in October 2019, an international task force of neurologists, radiologists, MRI technologists, and imaging scientists with expertise in MS, including representatives from the VHA, worked together to update guidelines for imaging the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerve in pwMS.8,9 Recognizing the importance of this effort, the VHA Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence (MSCoE), in collaboration with a team of subject matter expert neuroradiologists promptly committed to this effort, advocating the updated consensus recommendations, and favoring their dissemination within the VHA.10
As part of this commitment and dissemination effort, in this report we summarize the core points of the newly proposed MRI guidelines and ways to adapt them for use within the VHA. We then discuss key elements for their successful implementation and dissemination, specifically regarding the clinical operations of VHA.
Updated Guidelines
MRI Scan at Different Timepoints of MS
There are 3 crucial milestones within a the lifespan of a pwMS that require an MRI to reach appropriate conclusions and avoid clinical errors. These include the initial diagnosis, the follow-up to monitor disease and/or treatment effect, and the assessment of medication safety.
In the interest of efficiency, MRI protocols may vary slightly depending on these clinical indications. The Table lists core sequences of the updated 2021 consensus recommendations at each timepoint along with the proposed alternatives or preferences from the VHA workgroup.
At the time of diagnosis, both brain and spine (cervical and thoracic) MRIs are recommended. Routine MRI of the optic nerve is considered optional at diagnosis. However, imaging the optic nerve may be useful in specific clinical scenarios when the optic nerve is selectively involved, and the diagnosis or etiology of an optic neuritis is not clear. A repeat brain MRI is advised every 6 to 12 months in patients with clinically or radiologically isolated syndrome who do not fulfill the diagnostic criteria of MS but present risk factors for conversion to MS or paraclinical features of it.
Once the diagnosis is established, brain MRI is recommended for follow-up and for surveillance of drug safety. Spinal cord and optic nerve MRIs are desirable but optional in the follow-up of pwMS and are not required for drug surveillance. Spinal cord MRIs are required at follow-up for patients whose progression cannot be explained by brain MRI features, or who manifest with recurrent spinal cord symptoms, or have spinal cord comorbidities. In these cases, spinal cord MRI also may assist with treatment decisions. Similarly, optic nerve MRI is necessary during follow-up only when optic nerve comorbidities are suspected or when there is progression or reoccurrence of optic nerve–related symptoms.
Brain MRIs are recommended for monitoring drug effect yearly (or at longer intervals, after a few years of disease stability). Conversely, a repeat brain MRI is advised after 6 months if nonsymptomatic radiological disease activity is discovered on surveillance scans.
Abbreviated but more frequent serial brain MRI protocols (eg, every 3 to 4 months) are recommended for pwMS treated with natalizumab and at high risk of developing progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (eg, pwMS who are John Cunningham virus [JCV]–positive, and have been treated with natalizumabfor ≥ 18 months, have a JCV antibody index > 0.9, or have a history of immunosuppression). A similar approach is recommended for carryover cases, such as those with high JCV antibody index who are switched to other immunosuppressive treatments.
MRI Field, Scan Resolution, and Coverage
Both 1.5-Tesla (1.5-T) and 3-T scans are believed to be equally effective in imaging pwMS, providing that the 1.5-T scans are good quality. Although imaging at < 1.5 T is not recommended due to suboptimal disease detection, the use of scanners > 3 T is equally discouraged outside the supervision of trained investigators. Signal-to-noise ratio and resolution are key factors impacting scan quality, and their optimization is prioritized over the number of sequences in the updated 2021 consensus recommendations. For brain imaging, a resolution of 1 mm3 isotropic is preferred for 3-dimensional (3D) imaging and slice thickness ≤ 3 mm without gap (≤ 5 mm with 10-30% gaps for diffusion-weighted imaging only) is recommended for 2D sequences. Images should cover the entire brain and as much of the cervical spine as possible; images should be prescribed axial for 2D or reformatted axial oblique for 3D using the subcallosal plane as reference. For spine imaging, sites should aim at an in-plane resolution of 1 mm2; using sagittal slices ≤ 3 mm thick and axial slices ≤ 5 mm thick, both with no gap. Scans should cover the entire cervical and thoracolumbar region inclusive of the conus. For the optic nerve images, slices should be ≤ 2 or 3 mm thick with an in-plane resolution of 1 mm2. Images should be aligned to the orientation of the optic nerve and chiasms, both of which should be entirely covered.
Postgadolinium Images Use
The discovery of the higher sensitivity of post-gadolinium (Gd) T1-weighted (T1-w) MRI relative to high iodine (88.1 g I) computed tomography scans in demonstrating contrast-enhancing MS lesions has revolutionized the way clinicians diagnose and monitor this disease.11 However, in recent years the role of postcontrast MRI has been debated, considering the potential safety concerns secondary to Gd tissue deposition. For this reason, an intentionally more judicious use of postcontrast MRI is proposed by the consensus recommendations. At disease diagnosis, the use of Gd is advisable to (1) show disease dissemination in time; (2) differentiate the diagnosis based on the Gd pattern; (3) predict short-term disease activity; and (4) characterize activity in the setting of progression. When monitoring pwMS, the use of Gd may be useful in the first year of follow-up, particularly if in the setting of low potency medications or for patients for whom the detection of one or more active lesions would lead to a change in disease-modifying agents. Gd also should be used to first, confirm a clinical exacerbation (if needed); second, further characterize a lesion suggestive of progressive multifocal encephalopathy or monitor this disease over time; and third, monitor lesion burden change in patients with large confluent lesions, the count of which otherwise may be difficult.
MRI During Pregnancy and Lactation
The consensus recommendations state that Gd contrast–enhanced MRI is not absolutely contraindicated during pregnancy, although its use should be limited to strictly necessary situations, particularly those involving differential diagnosis, such as cerebral venous thrombosis or monitoring of possibly enlarging lesion burden. The use of Gd is not contraindicated during lactation, as only a small proportion (< 0.4%) passes into the breast milk, leading to an exposure to < 1% of the permitted Gd dose for neonates.12,13
Harmonizing MRI Reports
The consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-weighted (T2-w) images when lesions are < 20, or specifying if the number of T2 lesions is between 20 and 50, between 50 and 100, or uncountable, eg, confluent large lesions. Similarly, for the spinal cord, the consensus recommendations propose reporting the exact lesion count on T2-w images when lesions are < 10, or otherwise report that > 10 lesions are seen.
The VHA workgroup proposed reporting a mild, moderate, or severe T2-lesion burden for a T2-lesion count < 20, between 20 and 50, and > 50, respectively. For follow-up MRIs, notation should be made if there is any change in lesion number, indicating the number of new lesions whenever possible. At each timepoint, the presence of active lesions on postcontrast images should be accurately defined.
Dissemination and Implementation
To implement and disseminate these proposed recommendations within the VHA, a workgroup of neurologists and radiologists was formed in late 2020. A review and discussion of the importance of each of the proposed MRI protocols for veterans with MS was held along with possible modifications to balance the intent of meeting standards of care with resources of individual US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers and veterans’ needs. The final protocol recommendations were agreed on by group consensus.
In general, this VHA workgroup felt that the current adopted MRI protocols in several VA medical centers (based on previously proposed recommendations) were similar to the ones newly proposed and that implementing changes to meet the 2021 criteria would not be a major challenge.14,15 Possible regional and nonregional barriers were discussed. The result of these discussions led to a modified version of what could be considered more stringent guidelines to accommodate medical centers that had fewer imaging resources. This modified protocol offers a viable alternative that allows for minimizing heterogeneities while recognizing the capabilities of the available scanner fleet and meeting the needs of specific centers or veterans. Finally, the workgroup recognized a fundamental obstacle toward this harmonization process in the heterogeneity in vendors and scanner field strength, factors that have previously limited implementation.
The guidelines and proposed changes were then presented to the VA National Radiology Program Office, examined, and discussed for consensus. No changes were felt to be needed, and the recommendation to implement these guidelines in MS regional programs, whenever possible, was deemed appropriate.
At this time, a focused communication plan has been implemented to diffuse the use of this protocol at MS regional programs in the MSCoE network. We will work iteratively with individual sites to practically apply the guidelines, learn about challenges, and work through them to optimize local implementation.
Conclusions
Standardized MRI protocols are fundamental for the care of veterans with MS. Mitigating interscan variabilities should be recognized as a priority by scientific and clinical expert committees. Several guidelines have been developed over the years to standardize MRI acquisition protocols and interpretations, while updating the same to the latest discoveries.4,5,8,14,15 The VHA has been historically committed to these international efforts, with the goal to excel in the care of veterans with MS by providing access to state-of-the-art technologies. To this end, the initial Consortium of MS Centers MRI protocol was implemented in several MSCoE VA Regional Program sites a decade ago.14 Efforts continue to update protocol recommendations as needed and to promote their dissemination across the VHA enterprise.
This commentary is part of the continuous effort of the MSCoE to align with contemporary guidelines, apply the highest scientific standards, and achieve consistent outcomes for veterans with MS. For more important details of the clinical scenarios when additional/optional sequences or scans can be acquired, we advise the reader to refer to the 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS Consensus Recommendations on the Use of MRI in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis.8
1. Wallin MT, Culpepper WJ, Campbell JD, et al. The prevalence of MS in the United States: A population-based estimate using health claims data. Neurology. 2019;92(10):e1029-e1040. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007035
2. Nelson LM, Wallin MT, Marrie RA, et al. A new way to estimate neurologic disease prevalence in the United States: Illustrated with MS. Neurology. 2019;92(10):469-480. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007044
3. Culpepper WJ, Wallin MT, Magder LS, et al. VHA Multiple Sclerosis Surveillance Registry and its similarities to other contemporary multiple sclerosis cohorts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(3):263-272. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2014.07.0172
4. Wattjes MP, Rovira À, Miller D, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis--establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11(10):597-606. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.157
5. Rovira À, Wattjes MP, Tintoré M, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11(8):471-482. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106
6. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(2):162-173. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2
7. Reich DS, Lucchinetti CF, Calabresi PA. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):169-180. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1401483
8. Wattjes MP, Ciccarelli O, Reich DS, et al. 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS consensus recommendations on the use of MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(8):653-670. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00095-8
9. Saslow L, Li DKB, Halper J, et al. An International Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocol for Diagnosis and Follow-up of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: Advocacy, Dissemination, and Implementation Strategies. Int J MS Care. 2020;22(5):226-232. doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2020-094
10. Cameron MH, Haselkorn JK, Wallin MT. The Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence: a model of excellence in the VA. Fed Pract. 2020;37(suppl 1):S6-S10.
11. Grossman RI, Gonzalez-Scarano F, Atlas SW, Galetta S, Silberberg DH. Multiple sclerosis: gadolinium enhancement in MR imaging. Radiology. 1986;161(3):721-725. doi:10.1148/radiology.161.3.3786722
12. European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR guidelines on contrast agent, 10.0. March 2018. Accessed March 11, 2022. https://www.esur.org/fileadmin/content/2019/ESUR_Guidelines_10.0_Final_Version.pdf
13. Sundgren PC, Leander P. Is administration of gadolinium-based contrast media to pregnant women and small children justified?. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34(4):750-757. doi:10.1002/jmri.22413
14. Simon JH, Li D, Traboulsee A, et al. Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(2):455-461.
15. Traboulsee A, Simon JH, Stone L, et al. Revised Recommendations of the Consortium of MS Centers Task Force for a Standardized MRI Protocol and Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(3):394-401. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4539
1. Wallin MT, Culpepper WJ, Campbell JD, et al. The prevalence of MS in the United States: A population-based estimate using health claims data. Neurology. 2019;92(10):e1029-e1040. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007035
2. Nelson LM, Wallin MT, Marrie RA, et al. A new way to estimate neurologic disease prevalence in the United States: Illustrated with MS. Neurology. 2019;92(10):469-480. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007044
3. Culpepper WJ, Wallin MT, Magder LS, et al. VHA Multiple Sclerosis Surveillance Registry and its similarities to other contemporary multiple sclerosis cohorts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(3):263-272. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2014.07.0172
4. Wattjes MP, Rovira À, Miller D, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis--establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11(10):597-606. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.157
5. Rovira À, Wattjes MP, Tintoré M, et al. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol. 2015;11(8):471-482. doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106
6. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(2):162-173. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2
7. Reich DS, Lucchinetti CF, Calabresi PA. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(2):169-180. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1401483
8. Wattjes MP, Ciccarelli O, Reich DS, et al. 2021 MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS consensus recommendations on the use of MRI in patients with multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(8):653-670. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00095-8
9. Saslow L, Li DKB, Halper J, et al. An International Standardized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocol for Diagnosis and Follow-up of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: Advocacy, Dissemination, and Implementation Strategies. Int J MS Care. 2020;22(5):226-232. doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2020-094
10. Cameron MH, Haselkorn JK, Wallin MT. The Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence: a model of excellence in the VA. Fed Pract. 2020;37(suppl 1):S6-S10.
11. Grossman RI, Gonzalez-Scarano F, Atlas SW, Galetta S, Silberberg DH. Multiple sclerosis: gadolinium enhancement in MR imaging. Radiology. 1986;161(3):721-725. doi:10.1148/radiology.161.3.3786722
12. European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR guidelines on contrast agent, 10.0. March 2018. Accessed March 11, 2022. https://www.esur.org/fileadmin/content/2019/ESUR_Guidelines_10.0_Final_Version.pdf
13. Sundgren PC, Leander P. Is administration of gadolinium-based contrast media to pregnant women and small children justified?. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34(4):750-757. doi:10.1002/jmri.22413
14. Simon JH, Li D, Traboulsee A, et al. Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(2):455-461.
15. Traboulsee A, Simon JH, Stone L, et al. Revised Recommendations of the Consortium of MS Centers Task Force for a Standardized MRI Protocol and Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(3):394-401. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4539