MDedge Neurology

The second-floor operating rooms at Lehigh Valley Hospital in Allentown, Pennsylvania, are numbered sequentially — except when you get to what should be operation room (OR) 13. It’s OR M. The M doesn’t stand for Maternity or any other specialty. Rather in this high-tech, state-of-the art healthcare center, it’s there to ward off bad juju and evil spirits.

“Just as taller buildings usually don’t have a 13th floor or hotels don’t have a room 13, it revolves around the common superstition of the unlucky nature of number 13,” said a hospital spokesperson.

During the pandemic, the public was told repeatedly that modern medicine is science-based. But when I started talking to surgeons and other physicians for this article, I uncovered something decidedly unscientific.

In ORs and emergency rooms (ERs), small-town doctor’s offices, and mega hospitals, there’s a measure of dread before full moons and Friday the 13th, and no one dares utter the Q word (as in, “It sure is quiet today.”) That would risk bringing the wrath of the medical gods, and you’d earn the reputation of being a jinx or “black cloud.” Likewise, the songs “Stairway to Heaven” or “Another One Bites the Dust” will never be heard in any waiting room, elevator, or OR.

Indeed, when it comes to superstitions and rituals in medicine, it seems everyone has a story or a belief. …
 

A 2-Hour Ritual

Carmen Fong, MD, a colorectal surgeon in New York City, had a presurgical ritual that took her nearly 2 hours to complete. “I’d wake up at the same time every day, pack two hard-boiled eggs and a thermos of coffee in my small leather bag, walk to work via the same route, and swipe into the preop area while waving hi to the front desk,” she recounted. “I’d talk to the patient, sign the consent with the same ballpoint pen, go upstairs to my office, change into my scrubs [same cap and Danskos], then turn on my computer, and take a sip of coffee before heading back down to the OR. I’d always remove my badge and place it near the nurses’ workstation, then put on the patient’s SCDs [sequential compression devices] myself. I’d hold the oxygen mask while telling the patient, ‘See you later.’ Never ‘It will be okay’ or ‘Have a good sleep.’ Always ‘See you later.’ ”

Dr. Fong did this for 5 years prior to more than a thousand surgeries. She did it because it made her feel calm and in control, which translated to more successful operations. “It never failed me.”
 

Wonder Woman Clogs

Anureet Bajaj, MD, a plastic surgeon in Oklahoma City, wore Wonder Woman clogs in the OR for years because “they made me feel stronger, and my surgeries went better.” She’s also very specific about her OR playlist; “it must be ‘80s music.” And for a time, she wore a friendship bracelet that one of her employees made to commemorate getting through a particularly hard day. “If I forgot it, my heart sank, and my anxiety rose,” she said. “Wearing it gave me security and confidence that the day would go well.”

A Moment of Silence

Juliet Emamaullee, MD, PhD, is a liver and kidney transplant surgeon at Keck Hospital and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. Because of the complexity of her operations, she must know every aspect of her patients’ medical history. This leads to a level of intimacy that most people never have with their doctors. “Transplant surgeons are playing god in many ways,” she said. “During procurement, after we prep and drape the donor and right before I make the incision, everyone in the OR has a moment of silence to acknowledge the donation. If the organ has been transported, then I’ll say a prayer to myself that I do good work with this generous gift of life.”

Magical Thinking

Before we go any further, I should clarify that there’s a difference between rituals and superstitions like the ones just shared and routines and practices such as handwashing or doublechecking that it’s the right hip and not the left. All pilots have a preflight checklist that’s necessary for safety, but some might also make the sign of the cross.

Lester Gottesman, MD, has been a surgeon at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City for nearly 50 years. He believes rituals and superstitions are more prevalent in medicine than in any other profession, despite there being no definitive research confirming their effectiveness.

In fact, it’s the opposite.

One of the few studies to examine superstitions among physicians was published in the Annals of Surgery in 2021. Researchers analyzed the operational records of 27,914 consecutive patients who underwent general, visceral, or vascular surgery. They found no association of moon phases, zodiac signs, or Friday the 13th with poor outcomes. Having acute coronary syndrome on Friday the 13th also did not influence the 13-year mortality rate compared to other dates in the year. And although 70% of physicians believe that some colleagues are “black clouds,” an analysis of 96 physicians and 6149 admissions found no such pattern.

Granted, this is just one analysis, but the results aren’t surprising. No one really believes in this stuff. So, why does it persist?

Dr. Gottesman cited an episode from the popular medical TV show Grey’s Anatomy, in which chief surgeon Meredith Grey puts it this way: “Superstition lies in the space between what we can control and what we can’t. …We rely on superstitions because we are smart enough to know we don’t have all the answers and that life works in mysterious ways. Don’t diss the juju from wherever it comes.”

“Superstition and science both start at the same place — to explain an unexplainable event,” said Dr. Gottesman, who always checks his suture lines at the end of a surgery in the order in which he did them. “If science provides a coherent answer, so be it. If not, the human’s need for order will assign causality to otherwise inanimate objects, noncausal events, or divine influence.”

In other words, the more unknowns and trepidation, the greater the tendency toward what Dr. Gottesman called “magical thinking.” And when you consider healing’s long history, you realize that ritual and superstition defined medicine for centuries. Gottesman pointed out that it wasn’t until Hippocrates separated religion and superstition from disease around 430 BC that modern medicine was born. But because doctors still don’t know everything, an element of magic endures.

The question is, in this high-tech age, do these stubborn beliefs still have a place? Do they help or hinder doctors, and, most important, do they have any effect on patient outcomes?
 

Five Benefits

To reiterate, there are no studies showing that Wonder Woman clogs convey surgical superpowers or that eating two hard-boiled eggs boosts OR performance. But anecdotally, many doctors admit to experiencing noticeable perks from their quirks. Let’s start with the supposed benefits:

• Less stress: A quarter of US clinicians are considering switching careers, primarily due to burnout, according to a 2022 Bain survey. “The fact that [rituals and superstitions] are so prevalent in such a high-stress field can’t be coincidence,” said Dr. Fong. “Offloading some of the responsibility to whatever gods there may be is a way of taming our anxieties so we can function better.”
• Hyperfocus: Dr. Emamaullee played volleyball in high school and college. She suggested that her presurgical routine isn’t all that different from her warmup before a championship match. It’s habitual behavior that helps induce a state of heightened concentration, confidence, and immersion. Athletes call it being “in the zone” or in a “state of flow,” and Dr. Emamaullee said she experiences the same thing in the OR.
• More control: Remember those horrific images of patients with COVID-19 overwhelming ERs in Brooklyn and Queens during the pandemic? Dr. Fong was in the middle of that. “In crisis situations where there are more unknowns, rituals and superstitions become even more important,” she said. “I may not be able to control what’s happening, but I can control myself. Rituals help restore some normalcy and organization, and they give me a sense of calm.”
• Better performance: A series of general-population experiments published in the journal Psychological Science in 2010 concluded that “good-luck–related superstitions” boosted self-confidence in mastering upcoming tasks and improved motor dexterity, memory, and overall performance.
• Placebo effect: This phenomenon is well-established in medicine. Give someone a special pill or treatment, and a significant portion will claim benefit. “Placebo is magical thinking,” said Dr. Gottesman. “It has identifiable and quantifiable effects on human disease.” And perhaps on medical practitioners, too. If a doctor believes her friendship bracelet has special powers and helps her be a better physician, then it just might.

Four Drawbacks

• Compulsive behavior: When superstitious beliefs or repetitive behaviors begin causing personal distress, interfering with daily duties, or negatively affecting patient outcomes, then there’s a problem. There’s a story on Quora about a neurosurgeon who always ate two Hostess Ho Hos chocolate cakes before operations. When he forgot to do so one day, he supposedly left his patient on the table and ran off to eat them. Even if it’s urban legend, it’s a useful illustration of quirk disrupting work.
• Less flexibility: Every human body and every surgery is different. “When ritualistic behaviors or habits become so rigid that you lose the ability to adapt, then that becomes dangerous for the patient,” said Dr. Fong. “The art of medicine, not unlike jazz, often comes from the improvisation.”
• Self-fulfilling: Just as rituals and superstitions can empower and provide a sense of control, they can quickly turn on physicians who forget a part of their routine or leave their talisman on the bureau. Instead of confidence, they supply doubt. The karma becomes kryptonite.
• Avoiding responsibility: After years of friendship bracelets and Wonder Woman clogs, Dr. Bajaj is making a deliberate effort to excise magical thinking from her practice. “It can hold you back if you’re not careful,” she said. “If you start using it as a crutch when something goes wrong — like ‘Oh, I wasn’t wearing my clogs today and that’s why my flap failed’ — then you’re not doing your due diligence and figuring out what really happened.” Rather than placing the responsibility for her day going well on superstition, she’s trying to own it herself by living with more intent.

The Diagnosis

Most of the medical experts I spoke with didn’t think there was anything wrong with rituals or superstitions as long as they didn’t become compulsive or a convenient repository of blame.

“Rituals and superstitions are an acknowledgment that forces external to ourselves exist,” concluded Dr. Fong. “They’re like tiny offerings to whatever gods are out there to please be on our side. And we keep doing them because there’s a reward — better patient outcomes, which is all we want to achieve in the end. I say embrace them.”

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

The second-floor operating rooms at Lehigh Valley Hospital in Allentown, Pennsylvania, are numbered sequentially — except when you get to what should be operation room (OR) 13. It’s OR M. The M doesn’t stand for Maternity or any other specialty. Rather in this high-tech, state-of-the art healthcare center, it’s there to ward off bad juju and evil spirits.

“Just as taller buildings usually don’t have a 13th floor or hotels don’t have a room 13, it revolves around the common superstition of the unlucky nature of number 13,” said a hospital spokesperson.

During the pandemic, the public was told repeatedly that modern medicine is science-based. But when I started talking to surgeons and other physicians for this article, I uncovered something decidedly unscientific.

In ORs and emergency rooms (ERs), small-town doctor’s offices, and mega hospitals, there’s a measure of dread before full moons and Friday the 13th, and no one dares utter the Q word (as in, “It sure is quiet today.”) That would risk bringing the wrath of the medical gods, and you’d earn the reputation of being a jinx or “black cloud.” Likewise, the songs “Stairway to Heaven” or “Another One Bites the Dust” will never be heard in any waiting room, elevator, or OR.

Indeed, when it comes to superstitions and rituals in medicine, it seems everyone has a story or a belief. …
 

A 2-Hour Ritual

Carmen Fong, MD, a colorectal surgeon in New York City, had a presurgical ritual that took her nearly 2 hours to complete. “I’d wake up at the same time every day, pack two hard-boiled eggs and a thermos of coffee in my small leather bag, walk to work via the same route, and swipe into the preop area while waving hi to the front desk,” she recounted. “I’d talk to the patient, sign the consent with the same ballpoint pen, go upstairs to my office, change into my scrubs [same cap and Danskos], then turn on my computer, and take a sip of coffee before heading back down to the OR. I’d always remove my badge and place it near the nurses’ workstation, then put on the patient’s SCDs [sequential compression devices] myself. I’d hold the oxygen mask while telling the patient, ‘See you later.’ Never ‘It will be okay’ or ‘Have a good sleep.’ Always ‘See you later.’ ”

Dr. Fong did this for 5 years prior to more than a thousand surgeries. She did it because it made her feel calm and in control, which translated to more successful operations. “It never failed me.”
 

Wonder Woman Clogs

Anureet Bajaj, MD, a plastic surgeon in Oklahoma City, wore Wonder Woman clogs in the OR for years because “they made me feel stronger, and my surgeries went better.” She’s also very specific about her OR playlist; “it must be ‘80s music.” And for a time, she wore a friendship bracelet that one of her employees made to commemorate getting through a particularly hard day. “If I forgot it, my heart sank, and my anxiety rose,” she said. “Wearing it gave me security and confidence that the day would go well.”

A Moment of Silence

Juliet Emamaullee, MD, PhD, is a liver and kidney transplant surgeon at Keck Hospital and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. Because of the complexity of her operations, she must know every aspect of her patients’ medical history. This leads to a level of intimacy that most people never have with their doctors. “Transplant surgeons are playing god in many ways,” she said. “During procurement, after we prep and drape the donor and right before I make the incision, everyone in the OR has a moment of silence to acknowledge the donation. If the organ has been transported, then I’ll say a prayer to myself that I do good work with this generous gift of life.”

Magical Thinking

Before we go any further, I should clarify that there’s a difference between rituals and superstitions like the ones just shared and routines and practices such as handwashing or doublechecking that it’s the right hip and not the left. All pilots have a preflight checklist that’s necessary for safety, but some might also make the sign of the cross.

Lester Gottesman, MD, has been a surgeon at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City for nearly 50 years. He believes rituals and superstitions are more prevalent in medicine than in any other profession, despite there being no definitive research confirming their effectiveness.

In fact, it’s the opposite.

One of the few studies to examine superstitions among physicians was published in the Annals of Surgery in 2021. Researchers analyzed the operational records of 27,914 consecutive patients who underwent general, visceral, or vascular surgery. They found no association of moon phases, zodiac signs, or Friday the 13th with poor outcomes. Having acute coronary syndrome on Friday the 13th also did not influence the 13-year mortality rate compared to other dates in the year. And although 70% of physicians believe that some colleagues are “black clouds,” an analysis of 96 physicians and 6149 admissions found no such pattern.

Granted, this is just one analysis, but the results aren’t surprising. No one really believes in this stuff. So, why does it persist?

Dr. Gottesman cited an episode from the popular medical TV show Grey’s Anatomy, in which chief surgeon Meredith Grey puts it this way: “Superstition lies in the space between what we can control and what we can’t. …We rely on superstitions because we are smart enough to know we don’t have all the answers and that life works in mysterious ways. Don’t diss the juju from wherever it comes.”

“Superstition and science both start at the same place — to explain an unexplainable event,” said Dr. Gottesman, who always checks his suture lines at the end of a surgery in the order in which he did them. “If science provides a coherent answer, so be it. If not, the human’s need for order will assign causality to otherwise inanimate objects, noncausal events, or divine influence.”

In other words, the more unknowns and trepidation, the greater the tendency toward what Dr. Gottesman called “magical thinking.” And when you consider healing’s long history, you realize that ritual and superstition defined medicine for centuries. Gottesman pointed out that it wasn’t until Hippocrates separated religion and superstition from disease around 430 BC that modern medicine was born. But because doctors still don’t know everything, an element of magic endures.

The question is, in this high-tech age, do these stubborn beliefs still have a place? Do they help or hinder doctors, and, most important, do they have any effect on patient outcomes?
 

Five Benefits

To reiterate, there are no studies showing that Wonder Woman clogs convey surgical superpowers or that eating two hard-boiled eggs boosts OR performance. But anecdotally, many doctors admit to experiencing noticeable perks from their quirks. Let’s start with the supposed benefits:

• Less stress: A quarter of US clinicians are considering switching careers, primarily due to burnout, according to a 2022 Bain survey. “The fact that [rituals and superstitions] are so prevalent in such a high-stress field can’t be coincidence,” said Dr. Fong. “Offloading some of the responsibility to whatever gods there may be is a way of taming our anxieties so we can function better.”
• Hyperfocus: Dr. Emamaullee played volleyball in high school and college. She suggested that her presurgical routine isn’t all that different from her warmup before a championship match. It’s habitual behavior that helps induce a state of heightened concentration, confidence, and immersion. Athletes call it being “in the zone” or in a “state of flow,” and Dr. Emamaullee said she experiences the same thing in the OR.
• More control: Remember those horrific images of patients with COVID-19 overwhelming ERs in Brooklyn and Queens during the pandemic? Dr. Fong was in the middle of that. “In crisis situations where there are more unknowns, rituals and superstitions become even more important,” she said. “I may not be able to control what’s happening, but I can control myself. Rituals help restore some normalcy and organization, and they give me a sense of calm.”
• Better performance: A series of general-population experiments published in the journal Psychological Science in 2010 concluded that “good-luck–related superstitions” boosted self-confidence in mastering upcoming tasks and improved motor dexterity, memory, and overall performance.
• Placebo effect: This phenomenon is well-established in medicine. Give someone a special pill or treatment, and a significant portion will claim benefit. “Placebo is magical thinking,” said Dr. Gottesman. “It has identifiable and quantifiable effects on human disease.” And perhaps on medical practitioners, too. If a doctor believes her friendship bracelet has special powers and helps her be a better physician, then it just might.

Four Drawbacks

• Compulsive behavior: When superstitious beliefs or repetitive behaviors begin causing personal distress, interfering with daily duties, or negatively affecting patient outcomes, then there’s a problem. There’s a story on Quora about a neurosurgeon who always ate two Hostess Ho Hos chocolate cakes before operations. When he forgot to do so one day, he supposedly left his patient on the table and ran off to eat them. Even if it’s urban legend, it’s a useful illustration of quirk disrupting work.
• Less flexibility: Every human body and every surgery is different. “When ritualistic behaviors or habits become so rigid that you lose the ability to adapt, then that becomes dangerous for the patient,” said Dr. Fong. “The art of medicine, not unlike jazz, often comes from the improvisation.”
• Self-fulfilling: Just as rituals and superstitions can empower and provide a sense of control, they can quickly turn on physicians who forget a part of their routine or leave their talisman on the bureau. Instead of confidence, they supply doubt. The karma becomes kryptonite.
• Avoiding responsibility: After years of friendship bracelets and Wonder Woman clogs, Dr. Bajaj is making a deliberate effort to excise magical thinking from her practice. “It can hold you back if you’re not careful,” she said. “If you start using it as a crutch when something goes wrong — like ‘Oh, I wasn’t wearing my clogs today and that’s why my flap failed’ — then you’re not doing your due diligence and figuring out what really happened.” Rather than placing the responsibility for her day going well on superstition, she’s trying to own it herself by living with more intent.

The Diagnosis

Most of the medical experts I spoke with didn’t think there was anything wrong with rituals or superstitions as long as they didn’t become compulsive or a convenient repository of blame.

“Rituals and superstitions are an acknowledgment that forces external to ourselves exist,” concluded Dr. Fong. “They’re like tiny offerings to whatever gods are out there to please be on our side. And we keep doing them because there’s a reward — better patient outcomes, which is all we want to achieve in the end. I say embrace them.”

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

The second-floor operating rooms at Lehigh Valley Hospital in Allentown, Pennsylvania, are numbered sequentially — except when you get to what should be operation room (OR) 13. It’s OR M. The M doesn’t stand for Maternity or any other specialty. Rather in this high-tech, state-of-the art healthcare center, it’s there to ward off bad juju and evil spirits.

“Just as taller buildings usually don’t have a 13th floor or hotels don’t have a room 13, it revolves around the common superstition of the unlucky nature of number 13,” said a hospital spokesperson.

During the pandemic, the public was told repeatedly that modern medicine is science-based. But when I started talking to surgeons and other physicians for this article, I uncovered something decidedly unscientific.

In ORs and emergency rooms (ERs), small-town doctor’s offices, and mega hospitals, there’s a measure of dread before full moons and Friday the 13th, and no one dares utter the Q word (as in, “It sure is quiet today.”) That would risk bringing the wrath of the medical gods, and you’d earn the reputation of being a jinx or “black cloud.” Likewise, the songs “Stairway to Heaven” or “Another One Bites the Dust” will never be heard in any waiting room, elevator, or OR.

Indeed, when it comes to superstitions and rituals in medicine, it seems everyone has a story or a belief. …
 

A 2-Hour Ritual

Carmen Fong, MD, a colorectal surgeon in New York City, had a presurgical ritual that took her nearly 2 hours to complete. “I’d wake up at the same time every day, pack two hard-boiled eggs and a thermos of coffee in my small leather bag, walk to work via the same route, and swipe into the preop area while waving hi to the front desk,” she recounted. “I’d talk to the patient, sign the consent with the same ballpoint pen, go upstairs to my office, change into my scrubs [same cap and Danskos], then turn on my computer, and take a sip of coffee before heading back down to the OR. I’d always remove my badge and place it near the nurses’ workstation, then put on the patient’s SCDs [sequential compression devices] myself. I’d hold the oxygen mask while telling the patient, ‘See you later.’ Never ‘It will be okay’ or ‘Have a good sleep.’ Always ‘See you later.’ ”

Dr. Fong did this for 5 years prior to more than a thousand surgeries. She did it because it made her feel calm and in control, which translated to more successful operations. “It never failed me.”
 

Wonder Woman Clogs

Anureet Bajaj, MD, a plastic surgeon in Oklahoma City, wore Wonder Woman clogs in the OR for years because “they made me feel stronger, and my surgeries went better.” She’s also very specific about her OR playlist; “it must be ‘80s music.” And for a time, she wore a friendship bracelet that one of her employees made to commemorate getting through a particularly hard day. “If I forgot it, my heart sank, and my anxiety rose,” she said. “Wearing it gave me security and confidence that the day would go well.”

A Moment of Silence

Juliet Emamaullee, MD, PhD, is a liver and kidney transplant surgeon at Keck Hospital and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. Because of the complexity of her operations, she must know every aspect of her patients’ medical history. This leads to a level of intimacy that most people never have with their doctors. “Transplant surgeons are playing god in many ways,” she said. “During procurement, after we prep and drape the donor and right before I make the incision, everyone in the OR has a moment of silence to acknowledge the donation. If the organ has been transported, then I’ll say a prayer to myself that I do good work with this generous gift of life.”

Magical Thinking

Before we go any further, I should clarify that there’s a difference between rituals and superstitions like the ones just shared and routines and practices such as handwashing or doublechecking that it’s the right hip and not the left. All pilots have a preflight checklist that’s necessary for safety, but some might also make the sign of the cross.

Lester Gottesman, MD, has been a surgeon at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City for nearly 50 years. He believes rituals and superstitions are more prevalent in medicine than in any other profession, despite there being no definitive research confirming their effectiveness.

In fact, it’s the opposite.

One of the few studies to examine superstitions among physicians was published in the Annals of Surgery in 2021. Researchers analyzed the operational records of 27,914 consecutive patients who underwent general, visceral, or vascular surgery. They found no association of moon phases, zodiac signs, or Friday the 13th with poor outcomes. Having acute coronary syndrome on Friday the 13th also did not influence the 13-year mortality rate compared to other dates in the year. And although 70% of physicians believe that some colleagues are “black clouds,” an analysis of 96 physicians and 6149 admissions found no such pattern.

Granted, this is just one analysis, but the results aren’t surprising. No one really believes in this stuff. So, why does it persist?

Dr. Gottesman cited an episode from the popular medical TV show Grey’s Anatomy, in which chief surgeon Meredith Grey puts it this way: “Superstition lies in the space between what we can control and what we can’t. …We rely on superstitions because we are smart enough to know we don’t have all the answers and that life works in mysterious ways. Don’t diss the juju from wherever it comes.”

“Superstition and science both start at the same place — to explain an unexplainable event,” said Dr. Gottesman, who always checks his suture lines at the end of a surgery in the order in which he did them. “If science provides a coherent answer, so be it. If not, the human’s need for order will assign causality to otherwise inanimate objects, noncausal events, or divine influence.”

In other words, the more unknowns and trepidation, the greater the tendency toward what Dr. Gottesman called “magical thinking.” And when you consider healing’s long history, you realize that ritual and superstition defined medicine for centuries. Gottesman pointed out that it wasn’t until Hippocrates separated religion and superstition from disease around 430 BC that modern medicine was born. But because doctors still don’t know everything, an element of magic endures.

The question is, in this high-tech age, do these stubborn beliefs still have a place? Do they help or hinder doctors, and, most important, do they have any effect on patient outcomes?
 

Five Benefits

To reiterate, there are no studies showing that Wonder Woman clogs convey surgical superpowers or that eating two hard-boiled eggs boosts OR performance. But anecdotally, many doctors admit to experiencing noticeable perks from their quirks. Let’s start with the supposed benefits:

• Less stress: A quarter of US clinicians are considering switching careers, primarily due to burnout, according to a 2022 Bain survey. “The fact that [rituals and superstitions] are so prevalent in such a high-stress field can’t be coincidence,” said Dr. Fong. “Offloading some of the responsibility to whatever gods there may be is a way of taming our anxieties so we can function better.”
• Hyperfocus: Dr. Emamaullee played volleyball in high school and college. She suggested that her presurgical routine isn’t all that different from her warmup before a championship match. It’s habitual behavior that helps induce a state of heightened concentration, confidence, and immersion. Athletes call it being “in the zone” or in a “state of flow,” and Dr. Emamaullee said she experiences the same thing in the OR.
• More control: Remember those horrific images of patients with COVID-19 overwhelming ERs in Brooklyn and Queens during the pandemic? Dr. Fong was in the middle of that. “In crisis situations where there are more unknowns, rituals and superstitions become even more important,” she said. “I may not be able to control what’s happening, but I can control myself. Rituals help restore some normalcy and organization, and they give me a sense of calm.”
• Better performance: A series of general-population experiments published in the journal Psychological Science in 2010 concluded that “good-luck–related superstitions” boosted self-confidence in mastering upcoming tasks and improved motor dexterity, memory, and overall performance.
• Placebo effect: This phenomenon is well-established in medicine. Give someone a special pill or treatment, and a significant portion will claim benefit. “Placebo is magical thinking,” said Dr. Gottesman. “It has identifiable and quantifiable effects on human disease.” And perhaps on medical practitioners, too. If a doctor believes her friendship bracelet has special powers and helps her be a better physician, then it just might.

Four Drawbacks

• Compulsive behavior: When superstitious beliefs or repetitive behaviors begin causing personal distress, interfering with daily duties, or negatively affecting patient outcomes, then there’s a problem. There’s a story on Quora about a neurosurgeon who always ate two Hostess Ho Hos chocolate cakes before operations. When he forgot to do so one day, he supposedly left his patient on the table and ran off to eat them. Even if it’s urban legend, it’s a useful illustration of quirk disrupting work.
• Less flexibility: Every human body and every surgery is different. “When ritualistic behaviors or habits become so rigid that you lose the ability to adapt, then that becomes dangerous for the patient,” said Dr. Fong. “The art of medicine, not unlike jazz, often comes from the improvisation.”
• Self-fulfilling: Just as rituals and superstitions can empower and provide a sense of control, they can quickly turn on physicians who forget a part of their routine or leave their talisman on the bureau. Instead of confidence, they supply doubt. The karma becomes kryptonite.
• Avoiding responsibility: After years of friendship bracelets and Wonder Woman clogs, Dr. Bajaj is making a deliberate effort to excise magical thinking from her practice. “It can hold you back if you’re not careful,” she said. “If you start using it as a crutch when something goes wrong — like ‘Oh, I wasn’t wearing my clogs today and that’s why my flap failed’ — then you’re not doing your due diligence and figuring out what really happened.” Rather than placing the responsibility for her day going well on superstition, she’s trying to own it herself by living with more intent.

The Diagnosis

Most of the medical experts I spoke with didn’t think there was anything wrong with rituals or superstitions as long as they didn’t become compulsive or a convenient repository of blame.

“Rituals and superstitions are an acknowledgment that forces external to ourselves exist,” concluded Dr. Fong. “They’re like tiny offerings to whatever gods are out there to please be on our side. And we keep doing them because there’s a reward — better patient outcomes, which is all we want to achieve in the end. I say embrace them.”

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

The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is our constant companion, infecting an estimated 90%-95% of adults. Many of us are first infected as children, when the germ may trigger cold and flu symptoms. EBV also causes mononucleosis, or kissing disease, a glandular fever that has afflicted generations of amorous young people.

Post infection, EBV settles in for the long haul and remains in the body until death. It’s thought to be largely innocuous, but EBV is now implicated as a cause of several types of cancer — including lymphoma and nasopharyngeal tumors – and multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2022, a landmark study in Science suggested that previous EBV infection is the primary cause of MS.

While there aren’t many implications for current treatment, greater insight into the origin story of MS may eventually help neurologists better diagnose and treat patients, experts said. The goal is to uncover clues that “can help us understand MS a little bit better and reveal insights that could lead to new disease-modifying therapy,” Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research with the National MS Society, said in an interview.
 

EBV Boosts MS Risk 32-Fold

EBV was first linked to MS back in 1981. For the 2022 study, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed blood serum from 10 million active-duty members of the US military. They focused on 801 recruits with MS and matched them with more than 1500 controls. All but one of those with MS had been infected with EBV; infection appeared to boost the risk for MS 32-fold (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).

Neurologist and associate professor Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview that the findings are “groundbreaking” and confirm that EBV is “likely the primary cause of MS.”

According to Dr. Levy, there are two main theories about why EBV causes MS. The first hypothesis, known as the “molecular mimicry” theory, suggests that “EBV is a trigger of MS, possibly when the immune system mistakes a viral protein for a myelin protein and then attacks myelin,” Dr. Levy said. In MS, the immune system attacks the protective myelin sheath and the axons it insulates.

“After that point, the virus is not necessary to maintain the disease state and eradicating the virus likely won’t have much effect since the immune response is already triggered,” he said.

The second theory is that “EBV is a driver of MS where there is an ongoing, lifelong immunological response to EBV that continuously causes damage in the central nervous system [CNS]. In theory, if we could eradicate the virus, the destructive immune response could also resolve. Thus, an EBV antiviral treatment could potentially treat and maybe cure MS,” Dr. Levy explained, noting that “removing the pathogenic antigen may be a more effective strategy than removing the immune response.”

However, “we don’t yet know which hypothesis is correct,” he said. But “there is preliminary evidence in favor of each one.”
 

‘Additional Fuses Must Be Ignited’

It’s also unclear why most people infected with EBV do not develop MS. It appears that “additional fuses must be ignited,” for MS to take hold, according to a commentary accompanying the landmark 2022 study.

“As far as clinical implications, knowing whether a patient has a medical or family history of mononucleosis may be a small clue, a small piece of evidence, to help with diagnosis,” Dr. Bebo said.

He agreed with Dr. Levy that an antiviral could be a promising approach “If the problem in MS is a dysfunctional immune response to EBV.”

Natalia Drosu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-MIT Biomedical Engineering Center, said that a clinical trial of a non-immunosuppressive antiviral targeting EBV in patients with MS would be a crucial step toward better understanding the MS-EBV connection. “If we learn that antivirals are effective in MS, we should develop non-immunosuppressive therapies for patients with MS as soon as possible,” she said.

Stanford University’s Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics, who coauthored the commentary on the original Science paper, agreed that it’s worth investigating whether antiviral therapies targeting EBV will benefit patients who already have MS. But he cautioned against clinicians experimenting on their own outside of a research study. “You’d want to use the right antiviral and a properly designed trial,” he said.
 

Antivirals May Place a Crucial Role in MS Control

While there are no approved therapies for EBV, several MS disease-modifying therapies have anti-EBV effects, Dr. Levy said, citing anti-CD20 therapy as a clear example. It depletes B cells from the circulation, and it depletes EBV because the virus lives in the B-cell compartment. “Some MS treatments may be inadvertent EBV antivirals,” he said.

Researchers are also thinking about how they might exploit the MS-EBV link to prevent MS from developing in the first place, but there are uncertainties on that front too.

Conceivably, there may be some way to intervene in patients to treat EBV and prevent MS, such as a unique treatment for infectious mononucleosis (IM), Dr. Levy said.

Researchers are especially intrigued by signs that the timing of infection may play a role, with people infected with EBV via IM after early childhood at especially a high risk of developing MS. A 2022 German study calculated that people who developed IM were almost twice as likely as those who didn’t to develop MS within 10 years, although the risks in both groups were very small. Subgroup analysis revealed the strongest association between IM and MS was in the group infected between age 14 and 20 years (hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.00-12.37). They also saw a stronger association in men than in women.

The authors of a 2023 review in Clinical & Translational Immunology wrote that “further understanding of IM may be critical in solving the mystery” of EBV’s role in MS.

Dr. Levy said this line of questioning is important. “In theory, if we can tell who is prone to develop MS or whose immune system might be reacting to EBV to cause MS, we can intervene early to prevent neurological manifestations.”

However, “remember that while most of the world gets EBV infections, only 1 in 1000 will get MS. So, it might not be feasible to test everyone before neurological manifestations occur,” he said.
 

More Questions to Answer About EBV and MS

Researchers hope to answer several questions moving forward. For one, why is EBV uniquely connected to MS? “You would think that if there were cross-reactivity to myelin, there are many viruses that could cause MS. But the association seems to be very restricted to EBV,” Dr. Levy said. “It is probably due to the fact that EBV is one of the only human viruses that can infect B cells, which play important roles in controlling immune responses.”

The molecular mimicry theory also opens up a potential treatment pathway.

A 2022 study reported “high-affinity molecular mimicry between the EBV transcription factor EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and the central nervous system protein glial cell adhesion molecule (GlialCAM)”. Antibodies against EBNA1 and GlialCAM are prevalent in patients with MS. In a mouse model of MS, the researchers showed that EBNA1 immunization exacerbates disease. The authors wrote that “Our results provide a mechanistic link for the association between MS and EBV and could guide the development of new MS therapies.”
 

Could an EBV Vaccine Be the Answer?

On the prevention front, perhaps the most obvious question is whether an EBV vaccine could eliminate MS for good?

Dr. Bebo, from the National MS Society, said it will be important to determine which kind of vaccine is best. Is it one that neutralizes infection with EBV? Or is it enough to simply prevent clinical manifestations?

Both types of vaccines are in development, and at least two clinical trials are now in the works. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring a phase 1 study of an adjuvanted EBV gp350-Ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. Forty subjects aged 18-29 years will take part: 20 with EBV and 20 who are not infected. The study is expected to end in 2025.

There is also a phase 1 placebo-controlled study in progress testing an EBV vaccine based on mRNA-1189 in 422 subjects aged 12-30 years. This trial is also due to end in 2025.

“This is very exciting, but it may take a decade or two to determine whether a vaccine is effective at preventing MS,” Dr. Levy said.

Dr. Levy, Dr. Steinman, Dr. Drosu, and Dr. Bebo had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is our constant companion, infecting an estimated 90%-95% of adults. Many of us are first infected as children, when the germ may trigger cold and flu symptoms. EBV also causes mononucleosis, or kissing disease, a glandular fever that has afflicted generations of amorous young people.

Post infection, EBV settles in for the long haul and remains in the body until death. It’s thought to be largely innocuous, but EBV is now implicated as a cause of several types of cancer — including lymphoma and nasopharyngeal tumors – and multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2022, a landmark study in Science suggested that previous EBV infection is the primary cause of MS.

While there aren’t many implications for current treatment, greater insight into the origin story of MS may eventually help neurologists better diagnose and treat patients, experts said. The goal is to uncover clues that “can help us understand MS a little bit better and reveal insights that could lead to new disease-modifying therapy,” Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research with the National MS Society, said in an interview.
 

EBV Boosts MS Risk 32-Fold

EBV was first linked to MS back in 1981. For the 2022 study, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed blood serum from 10 million active-duty members of the US military. They focused on 801 recruits with MS and matched them with more than 1500 controls. All but one of those with MS had been infected with EBV; infection appeared to boost the risk for MS 32-fold (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).

Neurologist and associate professor Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview that the findings are “groundbreaking” and confirm that EBV is “likely the primary cause of MS.”

According to Dr. Levy, there are two main theories about why EBV causes MS. The first hypothesis, known as the “molecular mimicry” theory, suggests that “EBV is a trigger of MS, possibly when the immune system mistakes a viral protein for a myelin protein and then attacks myelin,” Dr. Levy said. In MS, the immune system attacks the protective myelin sheath and the axons it insulates.

“After that point, the virus is not necessary to maintain the disease state and eradicating the virus likely won’t have much effect since the immune response is already triggered,” he said.

The second theory is that “EBV is a driver of MS where there is an ongoing, lifelong immunological response to EBV that continuously causes damage in the central nervous system [CNS]. In theory, if we could eradicate the virus, the destructive immune response could also resolve. Thus, an EBV antiviral treatment could potentially treat and maybe cure MS,” Dr. Levy explained, noting that “removing the pathogenic antigen may be a more effective strategy than removing the immune response.”

However, “we don’t yet know which hypothesis is correct,” he said. But “there is preliminary evidence in favor of each one.”
 

‘Additional Fuses Must Be Ignited’

It’s also unclear why most people infected with EBV do not develop MS. It appears that “additional fuses must be ignited,” for MS to take hold, according to a commentary accompanying the landmark 2022 study.

“As far as clinical implications, knowing whether a patient has a medical or family history of mononucleosis may be a small clue, a small piece of evidence, to help with diagnosis,” Dr. Bebo said.

He agreed with Dr. Levy that an antiviral could be a promising approach “If the problem in MS is a dysfunctional immune response to EBV.”

Natalia Drosu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-MIT Biomedical Engineering Center, said that a clinical trial of a non-immunosuppressive antiviral targeting EBV in patients with MS would be a crucial step toward better understanding the MS-EBV connection. “If we learn that antivirals are effective in MS, we should develop non-immunosuppressive therapies for patients with MS as soon as possible,” she said.

Stanford University’s Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics, who coauthored the commentary on the original Science paper, agreed that it’s worth investigating whether antiviral therapies targeting EBV will benefit patients who already have MS. But he cautioned against clinicians experimenting on their own outside of a research study. “You’d want to use the right antiviral and a properly designed trial,” he said.
 

Antivirals May Place a Crucial Role in MS Control

While there are no approved therapies for EBV, several MS disease-modifying therapies have anti-EBV effects, Dr. Levy said, citing anti-CD20 therapy as a clear example. It depletes B cells from the circulation, and it depletes EBV because the virus lives in the B-cell compartment. “Some MS treatments may be inadvertent EBV antivirals,” he said.

Researchers are also thinking about how they might exploit the MS-EBV link to prevent MS from developing in the first place, but there are uncertainties on that front too.

Conceivably, there may be some way to intervene in patients to treat EBV and prevent MS, such as a unique treatment for infectious mononucleosis (IM), Dr. Levy said.

Researchers are especially intrigued by signs that the timing of infection may play a role, with people infected with EBV via IM after early childhood at especially a high risk of developing MS. A 2022 German study calculated that people who developed IM were almost twice as likely as those who didn’t to develop MS within 10 years, although the risks in both groups were very small. Subgroup analysis revealed the strongest association between IM and MS was in the group infected between age 14 and 20 years (hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.00-12.37). They also saw a stronger association in men than in women.

The authors of a 2023 review in Clinical & Translational Immunology wrote that “further understanding of IM may be critical in solving the mystery” of EBV’s role in MS.

Dr. Levy said this line of questioning is important. “In theory, if we can tell who is prone to develop MS or whose immune system might be reacting to EBV to cause MS, we can intervene early to prevent neurological manifestations.”

However, “remember that while most of the world gets EBV infections, only 1 in 1000 will get MS. So, it might not be feasible to test everyone before neurological manifestations occur,” he said.
 

More Questions to Answer About EBV and MS

Researchers hope to answer several questions moving forward. For one, why is EBV uniquely connected to MS? “You would think that if there were cross-reactivity to myelin, there are many viruses that could cause MS. But the association seems to be very restricted to EBV,” Dr. Levy said. “It is probably due to the fact that EBV is one of the only human viruses that can infect B cells, which play important roles in controlling immune responses.”

The molecular mimicry theory also opens up a potential treatment pathway.

A 2022 study reported “high-affinity molecular mimicry between the EBV transcription factor EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and the central nervous system protein glial cell adhesion molecule (GlialCAM)”. Antibodies against EBNA1 and GlialCAM are prevalent in patients with MS. In a mouse model of MS, the researchers showed that EBNA1 immunization exacerbates disease. The authors wrote that “Our results provide a mechanistic link for the association between MS and EBV and could guide the development of new MS therapies.”
 

Could an EBV Vaccine Be the Answer?

On the prevention front, perhaps the most obvious question is whether an EBV vaccine could eliminate MS for good?

Dr. Bebo, from the National MS Society, said it will be important to determine which kind of vaccine is best. Is it one that neutralizes infection with EBV? Or is it enough to simply prevent clinical manifestations?

Both types of vaccines are in development, and at least two clinical trials are now in the works. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring a phase 1 study of an adjuvanted EBV gp350-Ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. Forty subjects aged 18-29 years will take part: 20 with EBV and 20 who are not infected. The study is expected to end in 2025.

There is also a phase 1 placebo-controlled study in progress testing an EBV vaccine based on mRNA-1189 in 422 subjects aged 12-30 years. This trial is also due to end in 2025.

“This is very exciting, but it may take a decade or two to determine whether a vaccine is effective at preventing MS,” Dr. Levy said.

Dr. Levy, Dr. Steinman, Dr. Drosu, and Dr. Bebo had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is our constant companion, infecting an estimated 90%-95% of adults. Many of us are first infected as children, when the germ may trigger cold and flu symptoms. EBV also causes mononucleosis, or kissing disease, a glandular fever that has afflicted generations of amorous young people.

Post infection, EBV settles in for the long haul and remains in the body until death. It’s thought to be largely innocuous, but EBV is now implicated as a cause of several types of cancer — including lymphoma and nasopharyngeal tumors – and multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2022, a landmark study in Science suggested that previous EBV infection is the primary cause of MS.

While there aren’t many implications for current treatment, greater insight into the origin story of MS may eventually help neurologists better diagnose and treat patients, experts said. The goal is to uncover clues that “can help us understand MS a little bit better and reveal insights that could lead to new disease-modifying therapy,” Bruce Bebo, PhD, executive vice president of research with the National MS Society, said in an interview.
 

EBV Boosts MS Risk 32-Fold

EBV was first linked to MS back in 1981. For the 2022 study, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed blood serum from 10 million active-duty members of the US military. They focused on 801 recruits with MS and matched them with more than 1500 controls. All but one of those with MS had been infected with EBV; infection appeared to boost the risk for MS 32-fold (95% CI, 4.3-245.3; P < .001).

Neurologist and associate professor Michael Levy, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview that the findings are “groundbreaking” and confirm that EBV is “likely the primary cause of MS.”

According to Dr. Levy, there are two main theories about why EBV causes MS. The first hypothesis, known as the “molecular mimicry” theory, suggests that “EBV is a trigger of MS, possibly when the immune system mistakes a viral protein for a myelin protein and then attacks myelin,” Dr. Levy said. In MS, the immune system attacks the protective myelin sheath and the axons it insulates.

“After that point, the virus is not necessary to maintain the disease state and eradicating the virus likely won’t have much effect since the immune response is already triggered,” he said.

The second theory is that “EBV is a driver of MS where there is an ongoing, lifelong immunological response to EBV that continuously causes damage in the central nervous system [CNS]. In theory, if we could eradicate the virus, the destructive immune response could also resolve. Thus, an EBV antiviral treatment could potentially treat and maybe cure MS,” Dr. Levy explained, noting that “removing the pathogenic antigen may be a more effective strategy than removing the immune response.”

However, “we don’t yet know which hypothesis is correct,” he said. But “there is preliminary evidence in favor of each one.”
 

‘Additional Fuses Must Be Ignited’

It’s also unclear why most people infected with EBV do not develop MS. It appears that “additional fuses must be ignited,” for MS to take hold, according to a commentary accompanying the landmark 2022 study.

“As far as clinical implications, knowing whether a patient has a medical or family history of mononucleosis may be a small clue, a small piece of evidence, to help with diagnosis,” Dr. Bebo said.

He agreed with Dr. Levy that an antiviral could be a promising approach “If the problem in MS is a dysfunctional immune response to EBV.”

Natalia Drosu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard-MIT Biomedical Engineering Center, said that a clinical trial of a non-immunosuppressive antiviral targeting EBV in patients with MS would be a crucial step toward better understanding the MS-EBV connection. “If we learn that antivirals are effective in MS, we should develop non-immunosuppressive therapies for patients with MS as soon as possible,” she said.

Stanford University’s Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics, who coauthored the commentary on the original Science paper, agreed that it’s worth investigating whether antiviral therapies targeting EBV will benefit patients who already have MS. But he cautioned against clinicians experimenting on their own outside of a research study. “You’d want to use the right antiviral and a properly designed trial,” he said.
 

Antivirals May Place a Crucial Role in MS Control

While there are no approved therapies for EBV, several MS disease-modifying therapies have anti-EBV effects, Dr. Levy said, citing anti-CD20 therapy as a clear example. It depletes B cells from the circulation, and it depletes EBV because the virus lives in the B-cell compartment. “Some MS treatments may be inadvertent EBV antivirals,” he said.

Researchers are also thinking about how they might exploit the MS-EBV link to prevent MS from developing in the first place, but there are uncertainties on that front too.

Conceivably, there may be some way to intervene in patients to treat EBV and prevent MS, such as a unique treatment for infectious mononucleosis (IM), Dr. Levy said.

Researchers are especially intrigued by signs that the timing of infection may play a role, with people infected with EBV via IM after early childhood at especially a high risk of developing MS. A 2022 German study calculated that people who developed IM were almost twice as likely as those who didn’t to develop MS within 10 years, although the risks in both groups were very small. Subgroup analysis revealed the strongest association between IM and MS was in the group infected between age 14 and 20 years (hazard ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.00-12.37). They also saw a stronger association in men than in women.

The authors of a 2023 review in Clinical & Translational Immunology wrote that “further understanding of IM may be critical in solving the mystery” of EBV’s role in MS.

Dr. Levy said this line of questioning is important. “In theory, if we can tell who is prone to develop MS or whose immune system might be reacting to EBV to cause MS, we can intervene early to prevent neurological manifestations.”

However, “remember that while most of the world gets EBV infections, only 1 in 1000 will get MS. So, it might not be feasible to test everyone before neurological manifestations occur,” he said.
 

More Questions to Answer About EBV and MS

Researchers hope to answer several questions moving forward. For one, why is EBV uniquely connected to MS? “You would think that if there were cross-reactivity to myelin, there are many viruses that could cause MS. But the association seems to be very restricted to EBV,” Dr. Levy said. “It is probably due to the fact that EBV is one of the only human viruses that can infect B cells, which play important roles in controlling immune responses.”

The molecular mimicry theory also opens up a potential treatment pathway.

A 2022 study reported “high-affinity molecular mimicry between the EBV transcription factor EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and the central nervous system protein glial cell adhesion molecule (GlialCAM)”. Antibodies against EBNA1 and GlialCAM are prevalent in patients with MS. In a mouse model of MS, the researchers showed that EBNA1 immunization exacerbates disease. The authors wrote that “Our results provide a mechanistic link for the association between MS and EBV and could guide the development of new MS therapies.”
 

Could an EBV Vaccine Be the Answer?

On the prevention front, perhaps the most obvious question is whether an EBV vaccine could eliminate MS for good?

Dr. Bebo, from the National MS Society, said it will be important to determine which kind of vaccine is best. Is it one that neutralizes infection with EBV? Or is it enough to simply prevent clinical manifestations?

Both types of vaccines are in development, and at least two clinical trials are now in the works. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is sponsoring a phase 1 study of an adjuvanted EBV gp350-Ferritin nanoparticle vaccine. Forty subjects aged 18-29 years will take part: 20 with EBV and 20 who are not infected. The study is expected to end in 2025.

There is also a phase 1 placebo-controlled study in progress testing an EBV vaccine based on mRNA-1189 in 422 subjects aged 12-30 years. This trial is also due to end in 2025.

“This is very exciting, but it may take a decade or two to determine whether a vaccine is effective at preventing MS,” Dr. Levy said.

Dr. Levy, Dr. Steinman, Dr. Drosu, and Dr. Bebo had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once upon a time, treating multiple sclerosis (MS) was easy — steroids.

Then, in the 1990s, came Betaseron, then Avonex, then Copaxone. Suddenly we had three options to choose from, though overall roughly similar in efficacy (yeah, I’m leaving Novantrone out; it’s a niche drug). Treatment required some decision making, though not a huge amount. I usually laid out the different schedules and side effect to patients and let them decide.

MS treatment was uncomplicated enough that I knew family doctors who treated MS patients on their own, and I can’t say I could have done any better. If you’ve got a clear MRI, then prescribe Betaseron and hope.

Then came Rebif, then Tysabri, and then pretty much an explosion of new drugs which hasn’t slowed down. Next up are the BTK agents. An embarrassment of riches, though for patients, their families, and neurologists, a very welcome one.

But as more drugs come out, with different mechanisms of action and monitoring requirements, the treatment of MS becomes more complicated, slowly moving from the realm of a general neurologist to an MS subspecialist.

At some point it raises the question of when does a disease become its own specialty? Perhaps this is a bit of hyperbole — I’m pretty sure I’ll be seeing MS patients for a long time to come — but it’s a valid point. Especially as further research may subdivide MS treatment by genetics and other breakdowns.

Alzheimer’s disease may follow a similar (albeit very welcome) trajectory. While nothing really game-changing has come out in the 20 years, the number of new drugs and different mechanisms of action in development is large. Granted, not all of them will work, but hopefully some will. At some point it may come down to treating patients with a cocktail of drugs with separate ways of managing the disease, with guidance based on genetic or clinical profiles.

And that’s a good thing, but it may, again, move the disease from the province of general neurologists to subspecialists. Maybe that would be a good, maybe not. Probably will depend on the patient, their families, and other factors.

Of course, I may be overthinking this. The number of drugs we have for MS is nothing compared with the available treatments we have for hypertension, yet it’s certainly well within the capabilities of most internists to treat without referring to a cardiologist or nephrologist.

Perhaps the new drugs won’t make a difference except in a handful of cases. As new drugs come out we also move on from the old ones, dropping them from our mental armamentarium except in rare cases. When was the last time you prescribed Betaseron?

These drugs are very welcome, and very needed. I will be happy if we can beat back some of the diseases neurologist see, regardless of whom the patients and up seeing.
 

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

Once upon a time, treating multiple sclerosis (MS) was easy — steroids.

Then, in the 1990s, came Betaseron, then Avonex, then Copaxone. Suddenly we had three options to choose from, though overall roughly similar in efficacy (yeah, I’m leaving Novantrone out; it’s a niche drug). Treatment required some decision making, though not a huge amount. I usually laid out the different schedules and side effect to patients and let them decide.

MS treatment was uncomplicated enough that I knew family doctors who treated MS patients on their own, and I can’t say I could have done any better. If you’ve got a clear MRI, then prescribe Betaseron and hope.

Then came Rebif, then Tysabri, and then pretty much an explosion of new drugs which hasn’t slowed down. Next up are the BTK agents. An embarrassment of riches, though for patients, their families, and neurologists, a very welcome one.

But as more drugs come out, with different mechanisms of action and monitoring requirements, the treatment of MS becomes more complicated, slowly moving from the realm of a general neurologist to an MS subspecialist.

At some point it raises the question of when does a disease become its own specialty? Perhaps this is a bit of hyperbole — I’m pretty sure I’ll be seeing MS patients for a long time to come — but it’s a valid point. Especially as further research may subdivide MS treatment by genetics and other breakdowns.

Alzheimer’s disease may follow a similar (albeit very welcome) trajectory. While nothing really game-changing has come out in the 20 years, the number of new drugs and different mechanisms of action in development is large. Granted, not all of them will work, but hopefully some will. At some point it may come down to treating patients with a cocktail of drugs with separate ways of managing the disease, with guidance based on genetic or clinical profiles.

And that’s a good thing, but it may, again, move the disease from the province of general neurologists to subspecialists. Maybe that would be a good, maybe not. Probably will depend on the patient, their families, and other factors.

Of course, I may be overthinking this. The number of drugs we have for MS is nothing compared with the available treatments we have for hypertension, yet it’s certainly well within the capabilities of most internists to treat without referring to a cardiologist or nephrologist.

Perhaps the new drugs won’t make a difference except in a handful of cases. As new drugs come out we also move on from the old ones, dropping them from our mental armamentarium except in rare cases. When was the last time you prescribed Betaseron?

These drugs are very welcome, and very needed. I will be happy if we can beat back some of the diseases neurologist see, regardless of whom the patients and up seeing.
 

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

Once upon a time, treating multiple sclerosis (MS) was easy — steroids.

Then, in the 1990s, came Betaseron, then Avonex, then Copaxone. Suddenly we had three options to choose from, though overall roughly similar in efficacy (yeah, I’m leaving Novantrone out; it’s a niche drug). Treatment required some decision making, though not a huge amount. I usually laid out the different schedules and side effect to patients and let them decide.

MS treatment was uncomplicated enough that I knew family doctors who treated MS patients on their own, and I can’t say I could have done any better. If you’ve got a clear MRI, then prescribe Betaseron and hope.

Then came Rebif, then Tysabri, and then pretty much an explosion of new drugs which hasn’t slowed down. Next up are the BTK agents. An embarrassment of riches, though for patients, their families, and neurologists, a very welcome one.

But as more drugs come out, with different mechanisms of action and monitoring requirements, the treatment of MS becomes more complicated, slowly moving from the realm of a general neurologist to an MS subspecialist.

At some point it raises the question of when does a disease become its own specialty? Perhaps this is a bit of hyperbole — I’m pretty sure I’ll be seeing MS patients for a long time to come — but it’s a valid point. Especially as further research may subdivide MS treatment by genetics and other breakdowns.

Alzheimer’s disease may follow a similar (albeit very welcome) trajectory. While nothing really game-changing has come out in the 20 years, the number of new drugs and different mechanisms of action in development is large. Granted, not all of them will work, but hopefully some will. At some point it may come down to treating patients with a cocktail of drugs with separate ways of managing the disease, with guidance based on genetic or clinical profiles.

And that’s a good thing, but it may, again, move the disease from the province of general neurologists to subspecialists. Maybe that would be a good, maybe not. Probably will depend on the patient, their families, and other factors.

Of course, I may be overthinking this. The number of drugs we have for MS is nothing compared with the available treatments we have for hypertension, yet it’s certainly well within the capabilities of most internists to treat without referring to a cardiologist or nephrologist.

Perhaps the new drugs won’t make a difference except in a handful of cases. As new drugs come out we also move on from the old ones, dropping them from our mental armamentarium except in rare cases. When was the last time you prescribed Betaseron?

These drugs are very welcome, and very needed. I will be happy if we can beat back some of the diseases neurologist see, regardless of whom the patients and up seeing.
 

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

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

Alexander Girgis

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Wes Linda

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

Alexander Girgis

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Wes Linda

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

Alexander Girgis

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Wes Linda

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Joseph R. Berger, MD: Hi. I'm Dr Joseph Berger, and I'm joined for this Care Cues conversation with my patient, Michelle Biloon, who has had multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 6 years. Hello, Michelle. Welcome.

Michelle Biloon: Thank you, Dr Berger.

Berger: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, how you came to understand you had MS, and how you've done since the diagnosis was rendered?

Biloon: Yeah. It was a very short diagnosis period for me. In the winter of 2017, I started experiencing dizzy spells, and I didn't really know why. I eventually went to my primary care clinic where my doctor is, and they did blood work. Then, they did a CT and didn't see anything, and I just kind of kept feeling worse.

Then, finally, I went to an ENT just to see if it was maybe related to my ears. The ENT actually said, "You need to go to the ER and get an MRI." And while I was in the MRI, I could feel the dizzy spells. And I thought, Well, something is happening. I don't know what it is. And then a resident came in and said that they saw lesions on my brain, and they knew that it was going to be MS or something like it.

Berger: How did you feel about that?

Biloon: At the time, I was kind of glad to hear it was something. And I just asked her if, like, you die from it. That was the first thing I asked. It was like falling off a cliff.

It was making it hard for me to function in what I was doing, which was stand-up comedy, because of the cognitive issues I was having, the cognitive fog. That was how I ended up with you. Right away, you talked to me and were actually able to introduce to me some new medications that are out and are phenomenally better for MS plus were not pills or shots every day. It's made my MS over the years a lot more manageable.

Berger: I'd like to pick up on a couple of things you said.

Biloon: Sure.

Berger: One is, because most people envision MS as this terrible, crippling illness that's going to leave them wheelchair-bound, deprived of their profession, finding it difficult to stay in a marriage it's vested with what has been termed "lamentable results." And one of the first things that we as physicians have to do is to calm people down and say, "You know what. You have MS. You're going to be just fine. Trust me. We have wonderful medications for what you have, and we'll take care of it." In fact, I've made a habit of telling people quit worrying. You hired me to worry for you.

Biloon: Yep.

Berger: And I think that's helpful.

Biloon: I've been just so appreciative of that. There's a balance of being condescended to — do you know what I mean — and also being given information. I'm very sensitive to that balance because I consider myself an intelligent person. And you're being put in a position where someone knows more than you, and you have to listen.

Berger: One of the other challenges we face is getting somebody on a treatment. And we elected to put you on an intravenous therapy every 6 months.

Biloon: Especially because as a stand-up comedian, I was traveling a lot, doing these every-6-months infusion, especially with the high efficacy rate that it had been reported from what we had read and the low amount of side effects. I mean, just those things together was just something that seemed the easiest for me.

Berger: So did you encounter any challenges when we first got you started on the infusion therapy?

Biloon: The first infusion I got was at the hospital. But then after that, I had to go to the suburbs, to a center out there for the infusion. That was difficult because to get a ride out there and a ride back — it was a long trip for someone to wait with me. Taking an Uber is expensive, so was it for me to drive. You don't feel good for a couple of days after. So that was how it was, and I complained about it. Probably at every appointment we had, I complained about it.

Berger: Yeah. So some of the challenges you talked about are very, very common. As a physician on medications myself, I can tell you that I am not particularly compliant. And what I love about infusion therapies is that I know that the patient is getting their medicine. Because when they don't show up for a scheduled appointment, I'm called, and I know.

Biloon: I do have a bit of an allergic reaction to the drug. But that's been easily managed over time. Now, the drug infusions are actually being done at my home, which makes the whole process twice-a-year–world's better.

Berger: But there are other barriers that people confront other than the initiation of drugs. Had you encountered any?

Biloon: I think the problem that I had more so was finding the drugs that would manage some of my symptoms. It took a couple of years to sort of figure out what that would be, both with figuring them out and both dealing with insurance on certain medications.

Berger: That's one sort of problem that we confront. The other, of course, are those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with the diagnosis because of their backgrounds. And they may be sociocultural in nature. Every time you go to the physical therapist, it's some degree of money.

Now for some people, it's trivial. But for others, it's a considerable amount of money, relative to what it is that they earn. And you simply have to work within those confines as best you can.

We do have various programs that help people. So we try to employ them. There are, in addition to the sociocultural barriers, language barriers that we often confront. We, in our situation here in a large city, have a very large migrant population.

Fortunately, most of the people speak languages that either you speak as well, or there's somebody in the next room that speaks pretty well. But that's not always the case. So we do have an interpreter service that has to be employed.

Biloon: I cannot imagine the nuance in speaking to people from different ages and different backgrounds, who have different types of lifestyles, for them to understand.

Berger: I don't write at a computer. I think that really degrades the patient-physician relationship. What I do is I obtain a history. I do it on a piece of paper with a pen or a pencil.

I recapitulate them to the patient in paraphrasing it, to make sure that I have gotten it right and that they understand what I think I heard. That, I think, has been enormously helpful in helping people understand what may happen in the absence of treatment and why the treatment is important. That you can do, regardless of what the person's background is. So that's how I approach it.

Biloon: How do you deal with patients when they're not on the same page with you?

Berger: One important thing is that you have to be patient. That is something that it took me 50 years in medicine to learn. And then accepting the patient's opinion and saying, "All right, go home and think about it," because you often don't convince them when they're in the office with you.

Biloon: I did have a little bit of a cushion between my diagnosis and when we actually saw each other, where I was able to really sit in my thoughts on the different treatments and stuff. By the time that we were able to talk, it reassured me on that was the right plan.

Berger: I'm curious what your experience has been with our MS center.

Biloon: Through the portal, every time I need something, I'm usually reaching out, keeping you up-to-date on my primary care or whether it's trying to get a refill on one of my medications that I have to reach out. I really do feel that having that team there, being able to reach out, that's been extremely helpful to have and keeps me very secure because that's all I really need, especially during the pandemic, right? Because then I was very isolated and dealing with going through MS. So it was great to at least ­— and I did — shoot off emails or texts in the portal, and that's usually primarily how I communicated.

Berger: I will tell you, in my opinion, maybe nine out of 10 messages in the portal or calls that we get simply require reassurance.

Biloon: Yes.

Berger: You just either pick up the phone or shoot back a note, say, "This is not your MS. Don't worry about it." I mean, the most important thing for me is to keep people from worrying because that doesn't solve any problem.

Biloon: No, and it causes stress, which causes fatigue. I mean, it's a bad cycle.

Berger: In the past year, you've actually felt better, and you've gone back to performing. It sounds like the volume of performances has gotten back to what it was pre-illness. What do you see for the future?

Biloon: What I see is traveling more for stand-up and doing the sort of clubs and cities that I had kind of stopped doing from before I was diagnosed, so 2017 and prior to that. And then also even working on other things, writing and maybe even doing sort of books or one-person shows that even talk about sort of my struggles with MS and kind of coming back to where I am. I'm looking forward to the future, and I hope that that's the track I can keep going on.

Berger: I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Biloon: Thank you.

Berger: Michelle, thank you very much for joining me today in this conversation.

Biloon: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really wonderful to be able to sit down here with you.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cellevolve; EMD Serono/Merck/Genentech; Genzyme; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Morphic; Novartis; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; TG Therapeutics; MAPI; Excision Bio
Received research grant from: Genentech/Roche

Michelle Biloon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Joseph R. Berger, MD: Hi. I'm Dr Joseph Berger, and I'm joined for this Care Cues conversation with my patient, Michelle Biloon, who has had multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 6 years. Hello, Michelle. Welcome.

Michelle Biloon: Thank you, Dr Berger.

Berger: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, how you came to understand you had MS, and how you've done since the diagnosis was rendered?

Biloon: Yeah. It was a very short diagnosis period for me. In the winter of 2017, I started experiencing dizzy spells, and I didn't really know why. I eventually went to my primary care clinic where my doctor is, and they did blood work. Then, they did a CT and didn't see anything, and I just kind of kept feeling worse.

Then, finally, I went to an ENT just to see if it was maybe related to my ears. The ENT actually said, "You need to go to the ER and get an MRI." And while I was in the MRI, I could feel the dizzy spells. And I thought, Well, something is happening. I don't know what it is. And then a resident came in and said that they saw lesions on my brain, and they knew that it was going to be MS or something like it.

Berger: How did you feel about that?

Biloon: At the time, I was kind of glad to hear it was something. And I just asked her if, like, you die from it. That was the first thing I asked. It was like falling off a cliff.

It was making it hard for me to function in what I was doing, which was stand-up comedy, because of the cognitive issues I was having, the cognitive fog. That was how I ended up with you. Right away, you talked to me and were actually able to introduce to me some new medications that are out and are phenomenally better for MS plus were not pills or shots every day. It's made my MS over the years a lot more manageable.

Berger: I'd like to pick up on a couple of things you said.

Biloon: Sure.

Berger: One is, because most people envision MS as this terrible, crippling illness that's going to leave them wheelchair-bound, deprived of their profession, finding it difficult to stay in a marriage it's vested with what has been termed "lamentable results." And one of the first things that we as physicians have to do is to calm people down and say, "You know what. You have MS. You're going to be just fine. Trust me. We have wonderful medications for what you have, and we'll take care of it." In fact, I've made a habit of telling people quit worrying. You hired me to worry for you.

Biloon: Yep.

Berger: And I think that's helpful.

Biloon: I've been just so appreciative of that. There's a balance of being condescended to — do you know what I mean — and also being given information. I'm very sensitive to that balance because I consider myself an intelligent person. And you're being put in a position where someone knows more than you, and you have to listen.

Berger: One of the other challenges we face is getting somebody on a treatment. And we elected to put you on an intravenous therapy every 6 months.

Biloon: Especially because as a stand-up comedian, I was traveling a lot, doing these every-6-months infusion, especially with the high efficacy rate that it had been reported from what we had read and the low amount of side effects. I mean, just those things together was just something that seemed the easiest for me.

Berger: So did you encounter any challenges when we first got you started on the infusion therapy?

Biloon: The first infusion I got was at the hospital. But then after that, I had to go to the suburbs, to a center out there for the infusion. That was difficult because to get a ride out there and a ride back — it was a long trip for someone to wait with me. Taking an Uber is expensive, so was it for me to drive. You don't feel good for a couple of days after. So that was how it was, and I complained about it. Probably at every appointment we had, I complained about it.

Berger: Yeah. So some of the challenges you talked about are very, very common. As a physician on medications myself, I can tell you that I am not particularly compliant. And what I love about infusion therapies is that I know that the patient is getting their medicine. Because when they don't show up for a scheduled appointment, I'm called, and I know.

Biloon: I do have a bit of an allergic reaction to the drug. But that's been easily managed over time. Now, the drug infusions are actually being done at my home, which makes the whole process twice-a-year–world's better.

Berger: But there are other barriers that people confront other than the initiation of drugs. Had you encountered any?

Biloon: I think the problem that I had more so was finding the drugs that would manage some of my symptoms. It took a couple of years to sort of figure out what that would be, both with figuring them out and both dealing with insurance on certain medications.

Berger: That's one sort of problem that we confront. The other, of course, are those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with the diagnosis because of their backgrounds. And they may be sociocultural in nature. Every time you go to the physical therapist, it's some degree of money.

Now for some people, it's trivial. But for others, it's a considerable amount of money, relative to what it is that they earn. And you simply have to work within those confines as best you can.

We do have various programs that help people. So we try to employ them. There are, in addition to the sociocultural barriers, language barriers that we often confront. We, in our situation here in a large city, have a very large migrant population.

Fortunately, most of the people speak languages that either you speak as well, or there's somebody in the next room that speaks pretty well. But that's not always the case. So we do have an interpreter service that has to be employed.

Biloon: I cannot imagine the nuance in speaking to people from different ages and different backgrounds, who have different types of lifestyles, for them to understand.

Berger: I don't write at a computer. I think that really degrades the patient-physician relationship. What I do is I obtain a history. I do it on a piece of paper with a pen or a pencil.

I recapitulate them to the patient in paraphrasing it, to make sure that I have gotten it right and that they understand what I think I heard. That, I think, has been enormously helpful in helping people understand what may happen in the absence of treatment and why the treatment is important. That you can do, regardless of what the person's background is. So that's how I approach it.

Biloon: How do you deal with patients when they're not on the same page with you?

Berger: One important thing is that you have to be patient. That is something that it took me 50 years in medicine to learn. And then accepting the patient's opinion and saying, "All right, go home and think about it," because you often don't convince them when they're in the office with you.

Biloon: I did have a little bit of a cushion between my diagnosis and when we actually saw each other, where I was able to really sit in my thoughts on the different treatments and stuff. By the time that we were able to talk, it reassured me on that was the right plan.

Berger: I'm curious what your experience has been with our MS center.

Biloon: Through the portal, every time I need something, I'm usually reaching out, keeping you up-to-date on my primary care or whether it's trying to get a refill on one of my medications that I have to reach out. I really do feel that having that team there, being able to reach out, that's been extremely helpful to have and keeps me very secure because that's all I really need, especially during the pandemic, right? Because then I was very isolated and dealing with going through MS. So it was great to at least ­— and I did — shoot off emails or texts in the portal, and that's usually primarily how I communicated.

Berger: I will tell you, in my opinion, maybe nine out of 10 messages in the portal or calls that we get simply require reassurance.

Biloon: Yes.

Berger: You just either pick up the phone or shoot back a note, say, "This is not your MS. Don't worry about it." I mean, the most important thing for me is to keep people from worrying because that doesn't solve any problem.

Biloon: No, and it causes stress, which causes fatigue. I mean, it's a bad cycle.

Berger: In the past year, you've actually felt better, and you've gone back to performing. It sounds like the volume of performances has gotten back to what it was pre-illness. What do you see for the future?

Biloon: What I see is traveling more for stand-up and doing the sort of clubs and cities that I had kind of stopped doing from before I was diagnosed, so 2017 and prior to that. And then also even working on other things, writing and maybe even doing sort of books or one-person shows that even talk about sort of my struggles with MS and kind of coming back to where I am. I'm looking forward to the future, and I hope that that's the track I can keep going on.

Berger: I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Biloon: Thank you.

Berger: Michelle, thank you very much for joining me today in this conversation.

Biloon: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really wonderful to be able to sit down here with you.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cellevolve; EMD Serono/Merck/Genentech; Genzyme; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Morphic; Novartis; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; TG Therapeutics; MAPI; Excision Bio
Received research grant from: Genentech/Roche

Michelle Biloon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Joseph R. Berger, MD: Hi. I'm Dr Joseph Berger, and I'm joined for this Care Cues conversation with my patient, Michelle Biloon, who has had multiple sclerosis (MS) for the past 6 years. Hello, Michelle. Welcome.

Michelle Biloon: Thank you, Dr Berger.

Berger: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, how you came to understand you had MS, and how you've done since the diagnosis was rendered?

Biloon: Yeah. It was a very short diagnosis period for me. In the winter of 2017, I started experiencing dizzy spells, and I didn't really know why. I eventually went to my primary care clinic where my doctor is, and they did blood work. Then, they did a CT and didn't see anything, and I just kind of kept feeling worse.

Then, finally, I went to an ENT just to see if it was maybe related to my ears. The ENT actually said, "You need to go to the ER and get an MRI." And while I was in the MRI, I could feel the dizzy spells. And I thought, Well, something is happening. I don't know what it is. And then a resident came in and said that they saw lesions on my brain, and they knew that it was going to be MS or something like it.

Berger: How did you feel about that?

Biloon: At the time, I was kind of glad to hear it was something. And I just asked her if, like, you die from it. That was the first thing I asked. It was like falling off a cliff.

It was making it hard for me to function in what I was doing, which was stand-up comedy, because of the cognitive issues I was having, the cognitive fog. That was how I ended up with you. Right away, you talked to me and were actually able to introduce to me some new medications that are out and are phenomenally better for MS plus were not pills or shots every day. It's made my MS over the years a lot more manageable.

Berger: I'd like to pick up on a couple of things you said.

Biloon: Sure.

Berger: One is, because most people envision MS as this terrible, crippling illness that's going to leave them wheelchair-bound, deprived of their profession, finding it difficult to stay in a marriage it's vested with what has been termed "lamentable results." And one of the first things that we as physicians have to do is to calm people down and say, "You know what. You have MS. You're going to be just fine. Trust me. We have wonderful medications for what you have, and we'll take care of it." In fact, I've made a habit of telling people quit worrying. You hired me to worry for you.

Biloon: Yep.

Berger: And I think that's helpful.

Biloon: I've been just so appreciative of that. There's a balance of being condescended to — do you know what I mean — and also being given information. I'm very sensitive to that balance because I consider myself an intelligent person. And you're being put in a position where someone knows more than you, and you have to listen.

Berger: One of the other challenges we face is getting somebody on a treatment. And we elected to put you on an intravenous therapy every 6 months.

Biloon: Especially because as a stand-up comedian, I was traveling a lot, doing these every-6-months infusion, especially with the high efficacy rate that it had been reported from what we had read and the low amount of side effects. I mean, just those things together was just something that seemed the easiest for me.

Berger: So did you encounter any challenges when we first got you started on the infusion therapy?

Biloon: The first infusion I got was at the hospital. But then after that, I had to go to the suburbs, to a center out there for the infusion. That was difficult because to get a ride out there and a ride back — it was a long trip for someone to wait with me. Taking an Uber is expensive, so was it for me to drive. You don't feel good for a couple of days after. So that was how it was, and I complained about it. Probably at every appointment we had, I complained about it.

Berger: Yeah. So some of the challenges you talked about are very, very common. As a physician on medications myself, I can tell you that I am not particularly compliant. And what I love about infusion therapies is that I know that the patient is getting their medicine. Because when they don't show up for a scheduled appointment, I'm called, and I know.

Biloon: I do have a bit of an allergic reaction to the drug. But that's been easily managed over time. Now, the drug infusions are actually being done at my home, which makes the whole process twice-a-year–world's better.

Berger: But there are other barriers that people confront other than the initiation of drugs. Had you encountered any?

Biloon: I think the problem that I had more so was finding the drugs that would manage some of my symptoms. It took a couple of years to sort of figure out what that would be, both with figuring them out and both dealing with insurance on certain medications.

Berger: That's one sort of problem that we confront. The other, of course, are those individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty with the diagnosis because of their backgrounds. And they may be sociocultural in nature. Every time you go to the physical therapist, it's some degree of money.

Now for some people, it's trivial. But for others, it's a considerable amount of money, relative to what it is that they earn. And you simply have to work within those confines as best you can.

We do have various programs that help people. So we try to employ them. There are, in addition to the sociocultural barriers, language barriers that we often confront. We, in our situation here in a large city, have a very large migrant population.

Fortunately, most of the people speak languages that either you speak as well, or there's somebody in the next room that speaks pretty well. But that's not always the case. So we do have an interpreter service that has to be employed.

Biloon: I cannot imagine the nuance in speaking to people from different ages and different backgrounds, who have different types of lifestyles, for them to understand.

Berger: I don't write at a computer. I think that really degrades the patient-physician relationship. What I do is I obtain a history. I do it on a piece of paper with a pen or a pencil.

I recapitulate them to the patient in paraphrasing it, to make sure that I have gotten it right and that they understand what I think I heard. That, I think, has been enormously helpful in helping people understand what may happen in the absence of treatment and why the treatment is important. That you can do, regardless of what the person's background is. So that's how I approach it.

Biloon: How do you deal with patients when they're not on the same page with you?

Berger: One important thing is that you have to be patient. That is something that it took me 50 years in medicine to learn. And then accepting the patient's opinion and saying, "All right, go home and think about it," because you often don't convince them when they're in the office with you.

Biloon: I did have a little bit of a cushion between my diagnosis and when we actually saw each other, where I was able to really sit in my thoughts on the different treatments and stuff. By the time that we were able to talk, it reassured me on that was the right plan.

Berger: I'm curious what your experience has been with our MS center.

Biloon: Through the portal, every time I need something, I'm usually reaching out, keeping you up-to-date on my primary care or whether it's trying to get a refill on one of my medications that I have to reach out. I really do feel that having that team there, being able to reach out, that's been extremely helpful to have and keeps me very secure because that's all I really need, especially during the pandemic, right? Because then I was very isolated and dealing with going through MS. So it was great to at least ­— and I did — shoot off emails or texts in the portal, and that's usually primarily how I communicated.

Berger: I will tell you, in my opinion, maybe nine out of 10 messages in the portal or calls that we get simply require reassurance.

Biloon: Yes.

Berger: You just either pick up the phone or shoot back a note, say, "This is not your MS. Don't worry about it." I mean, the most important thing for me is to keep people from worrying because that doesn't solve any problem.

Biloon: No, and it causes stress, which causes fatigue. I mean, it's a bad cycle.

Berger: In the past year, you've actually felt better, and you've gone back to performing. It sounds like the volume of performances has gotten back to what it was pre-illness. What do you see for the future?

Biloon: What I see is traveling more for stand-up and doing the sort of clubs and cities that I had kind of stopped doing from before I was diagnosed, so 2017 and prior to that. And then also even working on other things, writing and maybe even doing sort of books or one-person shows that even talk about sort of my struggles with MS and kind of coming back to where I am. I'm looking forward to the future, and I hope that that's the track I can keep going on.

Berger: I see no reason why you shouldn't.

Biloon: Thank you.

Berger: Michelle, thank you very much for joining me today in this conversation.

Biloon: Thank you so much for having me. It's been really wonderful to be able to sit down here with you.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cellevolve; EMD Serono/Merck/Genentech; Genzyme; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Morphic; Novartis; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; TG Therapeutics; MAPI; Excision Bio
Received research grant from: Genentech/Roche

Michelle Biloon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

TOPLINE:

Earlier treatment with erenumab was associated with significantly better migraine prevention than that with nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with resistant episodic migraine. Based on this research, the investigators suggest clinicians should start erenumab early and not prolong use of OMPMs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 12-month prospective, international, multicenter, phase 4 randomized clinical APPRAISE trial included 621 adult patients (mean age, 41 years; 88% female) with a ≥ 12-month history of migraine and between 4 and 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs).
• Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 12 months of the initially assigned treatment and experiencing a reduction of ≥ 50% from baseline in MMDs at the end of the year.
• Secondary endpoints included cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders (based on the Patients’ Global Impression of Change scale) at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• At month 12, patients receiving erenumab were six times more likely to report a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs than those receiving OMPMs (odds ratio [OR], 6.48; P < .001).
• Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab yielded a higher responder rate at 1 year (76% vs 19%; OR, 13.75; P < .001) and a significantly greater reduction in cumulative average MMDs (−4.32 days vs −2.65 days; P < .001).
• Substantially, fewer patients in the erenumab vs the OMPM group switched medication (2% vs 35%) or discontinued treatment due to adverse events (3% vs 23%).
• Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the treatment arms (75% vs 76%) until the researchers adjusted for exposure to treatment, which revealed a roughly 30% lower exposure-adjusted rate (per 100 patient-years) in the erenumab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Earlier initiation of erenumab may ultimately lead to fewer patients discontinuing or switching medication in a real-world clinical practice,” the authors wrote. In addition, the findings “lend further support to the recent guideline update issued by the European Headache Federation, in which CGRP-targeted mAbs are considered a first-line treatment option for patients with migraine who require preventive treatment.”

SOURCE:

Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, of the Headache and Neurological Pain Research Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Research, Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, and the Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

Only locally approved and marketed OMPMs at study onset were used as comparators. The open-label study design might have led to a placebo response, which could have played a role in the findings because erenumab can only be administered in a clinic and was administered subcutaneously.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Pozo-Rosich reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and Teva and personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva outside the submitted work. The other authors’ disclosures were listed on the original paper.

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

TOPLINE:

Earlier treatment with erenumab was associated with significantly better migraine prevention than that with nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with resistant episodic migraine. Based on this research, the investigators suggest clinicians should start erenumab early and not prolong use of OMPMs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 12-month prospective, international, multicenter, phase 4 randomized clinical APPRAISE trial included 621 adult patients (mean age, 41 years; 88% female) with a ≥ 12-month history of migraine and between 4 and 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs).
• Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 12 months of the initially assigned treatment and experiencing a reduction of ≥ 50% from baseline in MMDs at the end of the year.
• Secondary endpoints included cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders (based on the Patients’ Global Impression of Change scale) at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• At month 12, patients receiving erenumab were six times more likely to report a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs than those receiving OMPMs (odds ratio [OR], 6.48; P < .001).
• Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab yielded a higher responder rate at 1 year (76% vs 19%; OR, 13.75; P < .001) and a significantly greater reduction in cumulative average MMDs (−4.32 days vs −2.65 days; P < .001).
• Substantially, fewer patients in the erenumab vs the OMPM group switched medication (2% vs 35%) or discontinued treatment due to adverse events (3% vs 23%).
• Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the treatment arms (75% vs 76%) until the researchers adjusted for exposure to treatment, which revealed a roughly 30% lower exposure-adjusted rate (per 100 patient-years) in the erenumab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Earlier initiation of erenumab may ultimately lead to fewer patients discontinuing or switching medication in a real-world clinical practice,” the authors wrote. In addition, the findings “lend further support to the recent guideline update issued by the European Headache Federation, in which CGRP-targeted mAbs are considered a first-line treatment option for patients with migraine who require preventive treatment.”

SOURCE:

Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, of the Headache and Neurological Pain Research Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Research, Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, and the Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

Only locally approved and marketed OMPMs at study onset were used as comparators. The open-label study design might have led to a placebo response, which could have played a role in the findings because erenumab can only be administered in a clinic and was administered subcutaneously.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Pozo-Rosich reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and Teva and personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva outside the submitted work. The other authors’ disclosures were listed on the original paper.

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

TOPLINE:

Earlier treatment with erenumab was associated with significantly better migraine prevention than that with nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with resistant episodic migraine. Based on this research, the investigators suggest clinicians should start erenumab early and not prolong use of OMPMs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 12-month prospective, international, multicenter, phase 4 randomized clinical APPRAISE trial included 621 adult patients (mean age, 41 years; 88% female) with a ≥ 12-month history of migraine and between 4 and 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs).
• Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 12 months of the initially assigned treatment and experiencing a reduction of ≥ 50% from baseline in MMDs at the end of the year.
• Secondary endpoints included cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders (based on the Patients’ Global Impression of Change scale) at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• At month 12, patients receiving erenumab were six times more likely to report a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs than those receiving OMPMs (odds ratio [OR], 6.48; P < .001).
• Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab yielded a higher responder rate at 1 year (76% vs 19%; OR, 13.75; P < .001) and a significantly greater reduction in cumulative average MMDs (−4.32 days vs −2.65 days; P < .001).
• Substantially, fewer patients in the erenumab vs the OMPM group switched medication (2% vs 35%) or discontinued treatment due to adverse events (3% vs 23%).
• Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the treatment arms (75% vs 76%) until the researchers adjusted for exposure to treatment, which revealed a roughly 30% lower exposure-adjusted rate (per 100 patient-years) in the erenumab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Earlier initiation of erenumab may ultimately lead to fewer patients discontinuing or switching medication in a real-world clinical practice,” the authors wrote. In addition, the findings “lend further support to the recent guideline update issued by the European Headache Federation, in which CGRP-targeted mAbs are considered a first-line treatment option for patients with migraine who require preventive treatment.”

SOURCE:

Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, of the Headache and Neurological Pain Research Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Research, Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, and the Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

Only locally approved and marketed OMPMs at study onset were used as comparators. The open-label study design might have led to a placebo response, which could have played a role in the findings because erenumab can only be administered in a clinic and was administered subcutaneously.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Pozo-Rosich reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and Teva and personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva outside the submitted work. The other authors’ disclosures were listed on the original paper.

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

Treatment decisions about the care of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has metastasized to the brain should always be made by a multidisciplinary team, according to a lung cancer research specialist.

The care of these patients can be quite complex, and the brain is still largely terra incognita, said Lizza Hendriks, MD, PhD, during a case-based session at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.

The approach to patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain and central nervous system was the subject of the session presented by Dr. Hendriks of Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. During this session, she outlined what is known, what is believed to be true, and what is still unknown about the treatment of patients with NSCLC that has spread to the CNS.

“Immunotherapy has moderate efficacy in the brain, but it can result in long-term disease control,” she said. She added that the best treatment strategy using these agents, whether immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy, is still unknown, even when patients have high levels of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) in their tumors.

“Also, we don’t know the best sequence of treatments, and we really need more preclinical research regarding the tumor microenvironment in the CNS,” she said.

Next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) generally have good intracranial efficacy, except for KRAS G12C inhibitors, which need to be tweaked for better effectiveness in the brain. The optimal sequence for TKIs also still needs to be determined, she continued.
 

Decision Points

Dr. Hendriks summarized decision points for the case of a 60-year-old female patient, a smoker, who in February of 2021 was evaluated for multiple asymptomatic brain metastases. The patient, who had good performance status, had a diagnosis of stage IVB NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology, with a tumor positive for a KRAS G12C mutation and with 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-1.

The patient was treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and single-agent immunotherapy, and, 8 months later, in October 2021, was diagnosed with extracranial progressive disease and was then started on the KRAS G12c inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras).

In May 2023 the patient was diagnosed with CNS oligoprogressive disease (that is, isolated progressing lesions) and underwent stereotactic radiotherapy. In June 2023 the patient was found to have progressive disease and was then started on platinum-based chemotherapy, with disease progression again noted in December of that year. The patient was still alive at the time of the presentation.

The first decision point in this case, Dr. Hendriks said, was whether to treat the patient at the time of diagnosis of brain metastases with upfront systemic or local therapy for the metastases.

At the time of extracranial progressive disease, should the treatment be another immumotherapy, chemotherapy, or a targeted agent?

“And the last decision is what should we do [in the event of] CNS oligoprogression?,” she said.
 

First Decision

For cases such as that described by Dr. Hendriks the question is whether upfront local therapy is needed if the patient is initially asymptomatic. Other considerations concerning early local therapy include the risks for late toxicities and whether there is also extracranial disease that needs to be controlled.

If systemic therapy is considered at this point, clinicians need to consider intracranial response rates to specific agents, time to onset of response, risk of pseudoprogression, and the risk of toxicity if radiotherapy is delayed until later in the disease course.

“I think all of these patients with brain metastases really deserve multidisciplinary team decisions in order to maintain or to [move] to new treatments, improve the quality of life, and improve survival,” she said.

In the case described here, the patient had small but numerous metastases that indicated the need for extracranial control, she said.

European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend that asymptomatic patients or those with oligosymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases with an oncogenic driver receive a brain-penetrating TKI. Those with no oncogenic drive but high PD-1 expression should receive upfront immunotherapy alone, while those with PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression below 50% receive chemoimmunotherapy.

The joint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline for treatment of brain metastases recommends a CNS-penetrating TKI for patients with asymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases bearing EGFR or ALK alterations. If there is no oncogenic driver, the guideline recommends the option of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with or without chemotherapy.

Both the US and European guidelines recommend initiating local treatment for patients with symptomatic metastases. The level of evidence for these recommendations is low, however.

Clinicians still need better evidence about the potential for upfront immunotherapy for these patients, more information about the NSCLC brain metastases immune environment and tumor microenvironment, data on the best treatment sequence, and new strategies for improving CNS penetration of systemic therapy, Dr. Hendriks said.
 

Second Decision

At the time of CNS progression, the question becomes whether patients would benefit from targeted therapy or chemotherapy.

“We quite often say that chemotherapy doesn’t work in the brain, but that’s not entirely true,” Dr. Hendriks said, noting that, depending on the regimen range, brain response rates range from 23% to as high as 50% in patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, although the median survival times are fairly low, on the order of 4 to almost 13 months.

There is also preclinical evidence that chemotherapy uptake is higher for larger brain metastases, compared with normal tissue and cerebrospinal fluid, “so the blood-brain barrier opens if you have the larger brain metastases,” she said.

KRAS-positive NSCLC is associated with a high risk for brain metastases, and these metastases share the same mutation as the primary cancer, suggesting potential efficacy of KRAS G12c inhibitors. There is preclinical evidence that adagrasib (Krazati) has CNS penetration, and there was evidence for intracranial efficacy of the drug in the KRYSTAL-1b trial, Dr. Hendriks noted.

There are fewer data for the other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved inhibitor, sotorasib, but there is evidence to suggest that its brain activity is restricted by ABCB1, a gene encoding for a transporter protein that shuttles substances out of cells.
 

Third Decision

For patients with CNS oligoprogression, the question is whether to adapt systemic therapy or use local therapy.

There is some evidence to support dose escalation for patients with oligoprogression of tumors with EGFR or ALK alterations, but no data to support such a strategy for those with KRAS alterations, she said.

In these situations, data support dose escalation of osimertinib (Tagrisso), especially for patients with leptomeningeal disease, and brigatinib (Alunbrig), but there is very little evidence to support dose escalation for any other drugs that might be tried, she said.

In the question-and-answer part of the session, Antonin Levy, MD, from Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, who also presented during the session, asked Dr. Hendriks what she would recommend for a patient with a long-term response to chemoimmunotherapy for whom treatment cessation may be recommended, but who still has oligopersistent brain metastases.

“The difficulty is that with immunotherapy patients can have persistent lesions without any tumor activity, and in the brain I think there is no reliable technique to evaluate this type of thing,” she said.

Dr. Hendriks added that she would continue to follow the patient, but also closely evaluate disease progression by reviewing all scans over the course of therapy to determine whether the tumor is truly stable, follow the patient with brain imaging, and then “don’t do anything.”

Dr. Hendriks disclosed grants/research support and financial relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Levy disclosed research grants from Beigene, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche.

Treatment decisions about the care of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has metastasized to the brain should always be made by a multidisciplinary team, according to a lung cancer research specialist.

The care of these patients can be quite complex, and the brain is still largely terra incognita, said Lizza Hendriks, MD, PhD, during a case-based session at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.

The approach to patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain and central nervous system was the subject of the session presented by Dr. Hendriks of Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. During this session, she outlined what is known, what is believed to be true, and what is still unknown about the treatment of patients with NSCLC that has spread to the CNS.

“Immunotherapy has moderate efficacy in the brain, but it can result in long-term disease control,” she said. She added that the best treatment strategy using these agents, whether immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy, is still unknown, even when patients have high levels of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) in their tumors.

“Also, we don’t know the best sequence of treatments, and we really need more preclinical research regarding the tumor microenvironment in the CNS,” she said.

Next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) generally have good intracranial efficacy, except for KRAS G12C inhibitors, which need to be tweaked for better effectiveness in the brain. The optimal sequence for TKIs also still needs to be determined, she continued.
 

Decision Points

Dr. Hendriks summarized decision points for the case of a 60-year-old female patient, a smoker, who in February of 2021 was evaluated for multiple asymptomatic brain metastases. The patient, who had good performance status, had a diagnosis of stage IVB NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology, with a tumor positive for a KRAS G12C mutation and with 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-1.

The patient was treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and single-agent immunotherapy, and, 8 months later, in October 2021, was diagnosed with extracranial progressive disease and was then started on the KRAS G12c inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras).

In May 2023 the patient was diagnosed with CNS oligoprogressive disease (that is, isolated progressing lesions) and underwent stereotactic radiotherapy. In June 2023 the patient was found to have progressive disease and was then started on platinum-based chemotherapy, with disease progression again noted in December of that year. The patient was still alive at the time of the presentation.

The first decision point in this case, Dr. Hendriks said, was whether to treat the patient at the time of diagnosis of brain metastases with upfront systemic or local therapy for the metastases.

At the time of extracranial progressive disease, should the treatment be another immumotherapy, chemotherapy, or a targeted agent?

“And the last decision is what should we do [in the event of] CNS oligoprogression?,” she said.
 

First Decision

For cases such as that described by Dr. Hendriks the question is whether upfront local therapy is needed if the patient is initially asymptomatic. Other considerations concerning early local therapy include the risks for late toxicities and whether there is also extracranial disease that needs to be controlled.

If systemic therapy is considered at this point, clinicians need to consider intracranial response rates to specific agents, time to onset of response, risk of pseudoprogression, and the risk of toxicity if radiotherapy is delayed until later in the disease course.

“I think all of these patients with brain metastases really deserve multidisciplinary team decisions in order to maintain or to [move] to new treatments, improve the quality of life, and improve survival,” she said.

In the case described here, the patient had small but numerous metastases that indicated the need for extracranial control, she said.

European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend that asymptomatic patients or those with oligosymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases with an oncogenic driver receive a brain-penetrating TKI. Those with no oncogenic drive but high PD-1 expression should receive upfront immunotherapy alone, while those with PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression below 50% receive chemoimmunotherapy.

The joint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline for treatment of brain metastases recommends a CNS-penetrating TKI for patients with asymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases bearing EGFR or ALK alterations. If there is no oncogenic driver, the guideline recommends the option of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with or without chemotherapy.

Both the US and European guidelines recommend initiating local treatment for patients with symptomatic metastases. The level of evidence for these recommendations is low, however.

Clinicians still need better evidence about the potential for upfront immunotherapy for these patients, more information about the NSCLC brain metastases immune environment and tumor microenvironment, data on the best treatment sequence, and new strategies for improving CNS penetration of systemic therapy, Dr. Hendriks said.
 

Second Decision

At the time of CNS progression, the question becomes whether patients would benefit from targeted therapy or chemotherapy.

“We quite often say that chemotherapy doesn’t work in the brain, but that’s not entirely true,” Dr. Hendriks said, noting that, depending on the regimen range, brain response rates range from 23% to as high as 50% in patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, although the median survival times are fairly low, on the order of 4 to almost 13 months.

There is also preclinical evidence that chemotherapy uptake is higher for larger brain metastases, compared with normal tissue and cerebrospinal fluid, “so the blood-brain barrier opens if you have the larger brain metastases,” she said.

KRAS-positive NSCLC is associated with a high risk for brain metastases, and these metastases share the same mutation as the primary cancer, suggesting potential efficacy of KRAS G12c inhibitors. There is preclinical evidence that adagrasib (Krazati) has CNS penetration, and there was evidence for intracranial efficacy of the drug in the KRYSTAL-1b trial, Dr. Hendriks noted.

There are fewer data for the other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved inhibitor, sotorasib, but there is evidence to suggest that its brain activity is restricted by ABCB1, a gene encoding for a transporter protein that shuttles substances out of cells.
 

Third Decision

For patients with CNS oligoprogression, the question is whether to adapt systemic therapy or use local therapy.

There is some evidence to support dose escalation for patients with oligoprogression of tumors with EGFR or ALK alterations, but no data to support such a strategy for those with KRAS alterations, she said.

In these situations, data support dose escalation of osimertinib (Tagrisso), especially for patients with leptomeningeal disease, and brigatinib (Alunbrig), but there is very little evidence to support dose escalation for any other drugs that might be tried, she said.

In the question-and-answer part of the session, Antonin Levy, MD, from Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, who also presented during the session, asked Dr. Hendriks what she would recommend for a patient with a long-term response to chemoimmunotherapy for whom treatment cessation may be recommended, but who still has oligopersistent brain metastases.

“The difficulty is that with immunotherapy patients can have persistent lesions without any tumor activity, and in the brain I think there is no reliable technique to evaluate this type of thing,” she said.

Dr. Hendriks added that she would continue to follow the patient, but also closely evaluate disease progression by reviewing all scans over the course of therapy to determine whether the tumor is truly stable, follow the patient with brain imaging, and then “don’t do anything.”

Dr. Hendriks disclosed grants/research support and financial relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Levy disclosed research grants from Beigene, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche.

Treatment decisions about the care of patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has metastasized to the brain should always be made by a multidisciplinary team, according to a lung cancer research specialist.

The care of these patients can be quite complex, and the brain is still largely terra incognita, said Lizza Hendriks, MD, PhD, during a case-based session at the European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC) 2024 in Prague, Czech Republic.

The approach to patients with NSCLC metastatic to the brain and central nervous system was the subject of the session presented by Dr. Hendriks of Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands. During this session, she outlined what is known, what is believed to be true, and what is still unknown about the treatment of patients with NSCLC that has spread to the CNS.

“Immunotherapy has moderate efficacy in the brain, but it can result in long-term disease control,” she said. She added that the best treatment strategy using these agents, whether immunotherapy alone or combined with chemotherapy, is still unknown, even when patients have high levels of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) in their tumors.

“Also, we don’t know the best sequence of treatments, and we really need more preclinical research regarding the tumor microenvironment in the CNS,” she said.

Next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) generally have good intracranial efficacy, except for KRAS G12C inhibitors, which need to be tweaked for better effectiveness in the brain. The optimal sequence for TKIs also still needs to be determined, she continued.
 

Decision Points

Dr. Hendriks summarized decision points for the case of a 60-year-old female patient, a smoker, who in February of 2021 was evaluated for multiple asymptomatic brain metastases. The patient, who had good performance status, had a diagnosis of stage IVB NSCLC of adenocarcinoma histology, with a tumor positive for a KRAS G12C mutation and with 50% of tumor cells expressing PD-1.

The patient was treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and single-agent immunotherapy, and, 8 months later, in October 2021, was diagnosed with extracranial progressive disease and was then started on the KRAS G12c inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras).

In May 2023 the patient was diagnosed with CNS oligoprogressive disease (that is, isolated progressing lesions) and underwent stereotactic radiotherapy. In June 2023 the patient was found to have progressive disease and was then started on platinum-based chemotherapy, with disease progression again noted in December of that year. The patient was still alive at the time of the presentation.

The first decision point in this case, Dr. Hendriks said, was whether to treat the patient at the time of diagnosis of brain metastases with upfront systemic or local therapy for the metastases.

At the time of extracranial progressive disease, should the treatment be another immumotherapy, chemotherapy, or a targeted agent?

“And the last decision is what should we do [in the event of] CNS oligoprogression?,” she said.
 

First Decision

For cases such as that described by Dr. Hendriks the question is whether upfront local therapy is needed if the patient is initially asymptomatic. Other considerations concerning early local therapy include the risks for late toxicities and whether there is also extracranial disease that needs to be controlled.

If systemic therapy is considered at this point, clinicians need to consider intracranial response rates to specific agents, time to onset of response, risk of pseudoprogression, and the risk of toxicity if radiotherapy is delayed until later in the disease course.

“I think all of these patients with brain metastases really deserve multidisciplinary team decisions in order to maintain or to [move] to new treatments, improve the quality of life, and improve survival,” she said.

In the case described here, the patient had small but numerous metastases that indicated the need for extracranial control, she said.

European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend that asymptomatic patients or those with oligosymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases with an oncogenic driver receive a brain-penetrating TKI. Those with no oncogenic drive but high PD-1 expression should receive upfront immunotherapy alone, while those with PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression below 50% receive chemoimmunotherapy.

The joint American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline for treatment of brain metastases recommends a CNS-penetrating TKI for patients with asymptomatic NSCLC brain metastases bearing EGFR or ALK alterations. If there is no oncogenic driver, the guideline recommends the option of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with or without chemotherapy.

Both the US and European guidelines recommend initiating local treatment for patients with symptomatic metastases. The level of evidence for these recommendations is low, however.

Clinicians still need better evidence about the potential for upfront immunotherapy for these patients, more information about the NSCLC brain metastases immune environment and tumor microenvironment, data on the best treatment sequence, and new strategies for improving CNS penetration of systemic therapy, Dr. Hendriks said.
 

Second Decision

At the time of CNS progression, the question becomes whether patients would benefit from targeted therapy or chemotherapy.

“We quite often say that chemotherapy doesn’t work in the brain, but that’s not entirely true,” Dr. Hendriks said, noting that, depending on the regimen range, brain response rates range from 23% to as high as 50% in patients with previously untreated asymptomatic brain metastases, although the median survival times are fairly low, on the order of 4 to almost 13 months.

There is also preclinical evidence that chemotherapy uptake is higher for larger brain metastases, compared with normal tissue and cerebrospinal fluid, “so the blood-brain barrier opens if you have the larger brain metastases,” she said.

KRAS-positive NSCLC is associated with a high risk for brain metastases, and these metastases share the same mutation as the primary cancer, suggesting potential efficacy of KRAS G12c inhibitors. There is preclinical evidence that adagrasib (Krazati) has CNS penetration, and there was evidence for intracranial efficacy of the drug in the KRYSTAL-1b trial, Dr. Hendriks noted.

There are fewer data for the other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved inhibitor, sotorasib, but there is evidence to suggest that its brain activity is restricted by ABCB1, a gene encoding for a transporter protein that shuttles substances out of cells.
 

Third Decision

For patients with CNS oligoprogression, the question is whether to adapt systemic therapy or use local therapy.

There is some evidence to support dose escalation for patients with oligoprogression of tumors with EGFR or ALK alterations, but no data to support such a strategy for those with KRAS alterations, she said.

In these situations, data support dose escalation of osimertinib (Tagrisso), especially for patients with leptomeningeal disease, and brigatinib (Alunbrig), but there is very little evidence to support dose escalation for any other drugs that might be tried, she said.

In the question-and-answer part of the session, Antonin Levy, MD, from Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, who also presented during the session, asked Dr. Hendriks what she would recommend for a patient with a long-term response to chemoimmunotherapy for whom treatment cessation may be recommended, but who still has oligopersistent brain metastases.

“The difficulty is that with immunotherapy patients can have persistent lesions without any tumor activity, and in the brain I think there is no reliable technique to evaluate this type of thing,” she said.

Dr. Hendriks added that she would continue to follow the patient, but also closely evaluate disease progression by reviewing all scans over the course of therapy to determine whether the tumor is truly stable, follow the patient with brain imaging, and then “don’t do anything.”

Dr. Hendriks disclosed grants/research support and financial relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Levy disclosed research grants from Beigene, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche.

Studies in preclinical models hint that familial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may be transmissible via bone marrow transplant, but the researchers and outside experts caution against making the immediate leap to humans. 

The researchers observed that adoptive transplantation of donor bone marrow stem cells harboring a mutant human amyloid precursor protein (APP) transgene into both APP-deficient and healthy wild-type mice resulted in the rapid development of AD pathologic hallmarks. 

These pathologic features included compromised blood-brain barrier integrity, heightened cerebral vascular neoangiogenesis, elevated brain-associated beta-amyloid levels, and cognitive impairment.

In addition, symptoms of cognitive decline presented rapidly — 6 months after transplant in the APP-knockout mice and 9 months in the wild-type mice vs 12 months shown previously in AD transgenic mice.

“Contrary to prevailing beliefs regarding AD occurring solely in familial or sporadic forms, our study reveals an unexpected transplantable form of AD in a preclinical model, suggesting potential iatrogenic transmission in AD patients,” the investigators, led by Wilfred Jefferies, DPhil, write. 

Although this is probably an “infrequent” occurrence, it’s still “concerning,” Dr. Jefferies told this news organization, and it suggests that “human donors of blood, tissue, organ, and stem cells should be screened to prevent its inadvertent transfer of disease during blood product transfusions and cellular therapies.”

The study was published March 28 in Stem Cell Reports. 

Intriguing, but Limited Human Relevance

The researchers note the study also demonstrates that beta-amyloid accumulation originating outside of the central nervous system contributes to AD pathology, providing an opportunity for the development of new biomarkers for AD. 

Several experts weighed in on this research in a statement from the UK-based nonprofit and independent Science Media Centre (SMC).

David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with University College London’s Genetics Institute, United Kingdom, noted that the study suggests that “theoretically there could be a risk of acquiring Alzheimer’s disease if one received a stem cell transplant from somebody carrying the severe, familial form of the disease. However, this form is extremely rare so in practice the risk seems low and there are many safeguards around stem cell transplantation. I do not see that the risks extend to other areas such as organ transplantation or blood transfusion because these procedures do not involve large numbers of stem cells which can go on to form glial cells.”

Paul Morgan, PhD, with UK Dementia Research Institute Cardiff, Cardiff University, said the study is “scientifically intriguing” in demonstrating in this “very specific experimental situation, that bone marrow cells are sufficient to transfer the gene and the disease. Relevance to human organ and cell transplant is limited.”

Morgan cautioned against making the “gargantuan leap to propose that tissue, organ and cell transplantation, and even blood transfusion, carry a risk of transferring Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathologies in man.”

Bart De Strooper, MD, PhD, with University College London, agreed. “There is not sufficient evidence here to suggest that anyone receiving a bone marrow transplant is at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease as a result of the procedure, and nobody should forgo a transplant for this reason,” he said in the SMC release. 

The study had no specific funding. The authors hold equity in the start-up company, Cava Healthcare, which possesses intellectual property related to these findings. This had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in the writing of the paper. Morgan, De Strooper, and Curtis have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies in preclinical models hint that familial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may be transmissible via bone marrow transplant, but the researchers and outside experts caution against making the immediate leap to humans. 

The researchers observed that adoptive transplantation of donor bone marrow stem cells harboring a mutant human amyloid precursor protein (APP) transgene into both APP-deficient and healthy wild-type mice resulted in the rapid development of AD pathologic hallmarks. 

These pathologic features included compromised blood-brain barrier integrity, heightened cerebral vascular neoangiogenesis, elevated brain-associated beta-amyloid levels, and cognitive impairment.

In addition, symptoms of cognitive decline presented rapidly — 6 months after transplant in the APP-knockout mice and 9 months in the wild-type mice vs 12 months shown previously in AD transgenic mice.

“Contrary to prevailing beliefs regarding AD occurring solely in familial or sporadic forms, our study reveals an unexpected transplantable form of AD in a preclinical model, suggesting potential iatrogenic transmission in AD patients,” the investigators, led by Wilfred Jefferies, DPhil, write. 

Although this is probably an “infrequent” occurrence, it’s still “concerning,” Dr. Jefferies told this news organization, and it suggests that “human donors of blood, tissue, organ, and stem cells should be screened to prevent its inadvertent transfer of disease during blood product transfusions and cellular therapies.”

The study was published March 28 in Stem Cell Reports. 

Intriguing, but Limited Human Relevance

The researchers note the study also demonstrates that beta-amyloid accumulation originating outside of the central nervous system contributes to AD pathology, providing an opportunity for the development of new biomarkers for AD. 

Several experts weighed in on this research in a statement from the UK-based nonprofit and independent Science Media Centre (SMC).

David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with University College London’s Genetics Institute, United Kingdom, noted that the study suggests that “theoretically there could be a risk of acquiring Alzheimer’s disease if one received a stem cell transplant from somebody carrying the severe, familial form of the disease. However, this form is extremely rare so in practice the risk seems low and there are many safeguards around stem cell transplantation. I do not see that the risks extend to other areas such as organ transplantation or blood transfusion because these procedures do not involve large numbers of stem cells which can go on to form glial cells.”

Paul Morgan, PhD, with UK Dementia Research Institute Cardiff, Cardiff University, said the study is “scientifically intriguing” in demonstrating in this “very specific experimental situation, that bone marrow cells are sufficient to transfer the gene and the disease. Relevance to human organ and cell transplant is limited.”

Morgan cautioned against making the “gargantuan leap to propose that tissue, organ and cell transplantation, and even blood transfusion, carry a risk of transferring Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathologies in man.”

Bart De Strooper, MD, PhD, with University College London, agreed. “There is not sufficient evidence here to suggest that anyone receiving a bone marrow transplant is at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease as a result of the procedure, and nobody should forgo a transplant for this reason,” he said in the SMC release. 

The study had no specific funding. The authors hold equity in the start-up company, Cava Healthcare, which possesses intellectual property related to these findings. This had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in the writing of the paper. Morgan, De Strooper, and Curtis have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies in preclinical models hint that familial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may be transmissible via bone marrow transplant, but the researchers and outside experts caution against making the immediate leap to humans. 

The researchers observed that adoptive transplantation of donor bone marrow stem cells harboring a mutant human amyloid precursor protein (APP) transgene into both APP-deficient and healthy wild-type mice resulted in the rapid development of AD pathologic hallmarks. 

These pathologic features included compromised blood-brain barrier integrity, heightened cerebral vascular neoangiogenesis, elevated brain-associated beta-amyloid levels, and cognitive impairment.

In addition, symptoms of cognitive decline presented rapidly — 6 months after transplant in the APP-knockout mice and 9 months in the wild-type mice vs 12 months shown previously in AD transgenic mice.

“Contrary to prevailing beliefs regarding AD occurring solely in familial or sporadic forms, our study reveals an unexpected transplantable form of AD in a preclinical model, suggesting potential iatrogenic transmission in AD patients,” the investigators, led by Wilfred Jefferies, DPhil, write. 

Although this is probably an “infrequent” occurrence, it’s still “concerning,” Dr. Jefferies told this news organization, and it suggests that “human donors of blood, tissue, organ, and stem cells should be screened to prevent its inadvertent transfer of disease during blood product transfusions and cellular therapies.”

The study was published March 28 in Stem Cell Reports. 

Intriguing, but Limited Human Relevance

The researchers note the study also demonstrates that beta-amyloid accumulation originating outside of the central nervous system contributes to AD pathology, providing an opportunity for the development of new biomarkers for AD. 

Several experts weighed in on this research in a statement from the UK-based nonprofit and independent Science Media Centre (SMC).

David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with University College London’s Genetics Institute, United Kingdom, noted that the study suggests that “theoretically there could be a risk of acquiring Alzheimer’s disease if one received a stem cell transplant from somebody carrying the severe, familial form of the disease. However, this form is extremely rare so in practice the risk seems low and there are many safeguards around stem cell transplantation. I do not see that the risks extend to other areas such as organ transplantation or blood transfusion because these procedures do not involve large numbers of stem cells which can go on to form glial cells.”

Paul Morgan, PhD, with UK Dementia Research Institute Cardiff, Cardiff University, said the study is “scientifically intriguing” in demonstrating in this “very specific experimental situation, that bone marrow cells are sufficient to transfer the gene and the disease. Relevance to human organ and cell transplant is limited.”

Morgan cautioned against making the “gargantuan leap to propose that tissue, organ and cell transplantation, and even blood transfusion, carry a risk of transferring Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathologies in man.”

Bart De Strooper, MD, PhD, with University College London, agreed. “There is not sufficient evidence here to suggest that anyone receiving a bone marrow transplant is at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease as a result of the procedure, and nobody should forgo a transplant for this reason,” he said in the SMC release. 

The study had no specific funding. The authors hold equity in the start-up company, Cava Healthcare, which possesses intellectual property related to these findings. This had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in the writing of the paper. Morgan, De Strooper, and Curtis have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.