MDedge Neurology

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

Certain products marketed for arthritis and pain management could contain hidden ingredients that could be harmful to consumers, according to a warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Some of these products contain active ingredients found in anti-inflammatory prescription medication.

“These products may cause potentially serious side effects and may interact with medications or dietary supplements a consumer is taking,” the FDA said in a statement. “It is clear from the results of our decade of testing that retailers and distributors, including online marketplaces, do not effectively prevent these types of potentially harmful products from being sold to consumers.”

Unlike prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs such as loratadine (Claritin) or acetaminophen (Tylenol), supplements do not need FDA approval before they can be sold. Only after a complaint is made or FDA testing reveals illegal or unsafe ingredients can the FDA get involved.

From August 2013 to September 2023, the FDA identified 22 arthritis and pain products with active ingredients not disclosed on the product label. The most common hidden ingredients detected in these supplements were prescription-only corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxants, said Candy Tsourounis, PharmD, a professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Kuka Flex Forte and Reumo Flex, both promoted for joint pain and arthritis, both contain the NSAID diclofenac. Tapee Tea, a product promoted for pain relief, contains dexamethasone and piroxicam. AK Forte, also sold for joint pain and arthritis, contains diclofenac, dexamethasone, and methocarbamol not disclosed on the label.

“It is interesting that these products have hidden ingredients that are used to reduce swelling and inflammation,” Dr. Tsourounis said. “I don’t know if this was intentional, but it seems suspicious that a product marketed to reduce joint pain and inflammation contains prescription-only ingredients that are used for this purpose.”

Certain products also contained antihistamines including cyproheptadine and chlorpheniramine.

These types of products are likely targeted toward underserved and immigrant communities, added Pieter Cohen, MD, a primary care physician and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies dietary supplements. They might be sold in mom-and-pop shops or gas stations to individuals with limited access to health care or insurance, he noted.

The FDA warned that this list included “only a small fraction of the potentially dangerous products marketed to consumers online and in stores. Even if a product is not included in this list, consumers should exercise caution before using these types of arthritis and pain management products.”
 

Advising patients

Research suggests that most patients do not tell doctors about the supplements they are taking, and often, clinicians do not ask, said Dr. Cohen. “Most of the time it’s a total black box – we don’t know what’s going on,” he added.

He advised raising the subject of supplements in a very nonjudgmental way, particularly when treating patients in marginalized and immigrant communities. One approach he suggested was first mentioning that other patients in your care dealing with joint pain have bought remedies locally or have tried treatments that friends recommend. You can then ask a patient about their own use, framing it as a way to better help with treatment decisions.

Once a clinician understands what their patient is taking, they can then give advice and discuss if a product is safe to combine with prescription drugs, Dr. Cohen said. “If they come down too hard, I think the patients will just clam up and not talk about it anymore,” he said.

If a patient begins to experience side effects or gets sick, a clinician will already be informed of what their patient is taking and can ask that patient to bring the product or supplement in, so they can look over the product together, Dr. Cohen noted. Any side effects or other adverse events potentially related to the use of these products should then be reported to FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

Tips for safe shopping

To make sure supplements and other over-the-counter products are safe to use, Dr. Tsourounis recommends that consumers:

• Buy products from well-known retailers like Target or large pharmacies like CVS or Walgreens.
• Avoid buying products with labels in another language that you cannot read or products with no drug label.
• Be cautious of buying products online or from other countries.
• Look up suspicious products on the FDA’s health fraud database.
• Be wary of any product that offers miracle cures or relies on personal testimonies without evidence.

In general, do not base purchasing decisions on any health claims on a product label because companies selling supplements making these claims “don’t have to have any clinical data to back them up,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Cohen also recommends sticking with individual ingredients. “If you want echinacea, buy echinacea. Don’t buy a complicated mix that is supposed to be good for arthritis with 10 different botanical [ingredients]. That’s more likely to run [you] into trouble,” he said.

Last, Dr. Cohen recommended buying supplements that are certified by NSF International or United States Pharmacopeia, both respected third-party testing organizations. “If it has an NSF International or USP stamp, that gives us more certainty that what’s in the bottle is going to be what’s listed on label,” he said.

Dr. Tsourounis noted that if you are skeptical of a product, you can also try calling the manufacturer number on the product label.

“I always encourage people to call that number to see if somebody answers,” she said. “Sometimes, you can tell a lot about that company just by calling that number.”

Dr. Cohen has received research support from the Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UpToDate. He has collaborated in research with NSF International. Dr. Tsourounis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Certain products marketed for arthritis and pain management could contain hidden ingredients that could be harmful to consumers, according to a warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Some of these products contain active ingredients found in anti-inflammatory prescription medication.

“These products may cause potentially serious side effects and may interact with medications or dietary supplements a consumer is taking,” the FDA said in a statement. “It is clear from the results of our decade of testing that retailers and distributors, including online marketplaces, do not effectively prevent these types of potentially harmful products from being sold to consumers.”

Unlike prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs such as loratadine (Claritin) or acetaminophen (Tylenol), supplements do not need FDA approval before they can be sold. Only after a complaint is made or FDA testing reveals illegal or unsafe ingredients can the FDA get involved.

From August 2013 to September 2023, the FDA identified 22 arthritis and pain products with active ingredients not disclosed on the product label. The most common hidden ingredients detected in these supplements were prescription-only corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxants, said Candy Tsourounis, PharmD, a professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Kuka Flex Forte and Reumo Flex, both promoted for joint pain and arthritis, both contain the NSAID diclofenac. Tapee Tea, a product promoted for pain relief, contains dexamethasone and piroxicam. AK Forte, also sold for joint pain and arthritis, contains diclofenac, dexamethasone, and methocarbamol not disclosed on the label.

“It is interesting that these products have hidden ingredients that are used to reduce swelling and inflammation,” Dr. Tsourounis said. “I don’t know if this was intentional, but it seems suspicious that a product marketed to reduce joint pain and inflammation contains prescription-only ingredients that are used for this purpose.”

Certain products also contained antihistamines including cyproheptadine and chlorpheniramine.

These types of products are likely targeted toward underserved and immigrant communities, added Pieter Cohen, MD, a primary care physician and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies dietary supplements. They might be sold in mom-and-pop shops or gas stations to individuals with limited access to health care or insurance, he noted.

The FDA warned that this list included “only a small fraction of the potentially dangerous products marketed to consumers online and in stores. Even if a product is not included in this list, consumers should exercise caution before using these types of arthritis and pain management products.”
 

Advising patients

Research suggests that most patients do not tell doctors about the supplements they are taking, and often, clinicians do not ask, said Dr. Cohen. “Most of the time it’s a total black box – we don’t know what’s going on,” he added.

He advised raising the subject of supplements in a very nonjudgmental way, particularly when treating patients in marginalized and immigrant communities. One approach he suggested was first mentioning that other patients in your care dealing with joint pain have bought remedies locally or have tried treatments that friends recommend. You can then ask a patient about their own use, framing it as a way to better help with treatment decisions.

Once a clinician understands what their patient is taking, they can then give advice and discuss if a product is safe to combine with prescription drugs, Dr. Cohen said. “If they come down too hard, I think the patients will just clam up and not talk about it anymore,” he said.

If a patient begins to experience side effects or gets sick, a clinician will already be informed of what their patient is taking and can ask that patient to bring the product or supplement in, so they can look over the product together, Dr. Cohen noted. Any side effects or other adverse events potentially related to the use of these products should then be reported to FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

Tips for safe shopping

To make sure supplements and other over-the-counter products are safe to use, Dr. Tsourounis recommends that consumers:

• Buy products from well-known retailers like Target or large pharmacies like CVS or Walgreens.
• Avoid buying products with labels in another language that you cannot read or products with no drug label.
• Be cautious of buying products online or from other countries.
• Look up suspicious products on the FDA’s health fraud database.
• Be wary of any product that offers miracle cures or relies on personal testimonies without evidence.

In general, do not base purchasing decisions on any health claims on a product label because companies selling supplements making these claims “don’t have to have any clinical data to back them up,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Cohen also recommends sticking with individual ingredients. “If you want echinacea, buy echinacea. Don’t buy a complicated mix that is supposed to be good for arthritis with 10 different botanical [ingredients]. That’s more likely to run [you] into trouble,” he said.

Last, Dr. Cohen recommended buying supplements that are certified by NSF International or United States Pharmacopeia, both respected third-party testing organizations. “If it has an NSF International or USP stamp, that gives us more certainty that what’s in the bottle is going to be what’s listed on label,” he said.

Dr. Tsourounis noted that if you are skeptical of a product, you can also try calling the manufacturer number on the product label.

“I always encourage people to call that number to see if somebody answers,” she said. “Sometimes, you can tell a lot about that company just by calling that number.”

Dr. Cohen has received research support from the Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UpToDate. He has collaborated in research with NSF International. Dr. Tsourounis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Certain products marketed for arthritis and pain management could contain hidden ingredients that could be harmful to consumers, according to a warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Some of these products contain active ingredients found in anti-inflammatory prescription medication.

“These products may cause potentially serious side effects and may interact with medications or dietary supplements a consumer is taking,” the FDA said in a statement. “It is clear from the results of our decade of testing that retailers and distributors, including online marketplaces, do not effectively prevent these types of potentially harmful products from being sold to consumers.”

Unlike prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs such as loratadine (Claritin) or acetaminophen (Tylenol), supplements do not need FDA approval before they can be sold. Only after a complaint is made or FDA testing reveals illegal or unsafe ingredients can the FDA get involved.

From August 2013 to September 2023, the FDA identified 22 arthritis and pain products with active ingredients not disclosed on the product label. The most common hidden ingredients detected in these supplements were prescription-only corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxants, said Candy Tsourounis, PharmD, a professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Kuka Flex Forte and Reumo Flex, both promoted for joint pain and arthritis, both contain the NSAID diclofenac. Tapee Tea, a product promoted for pain relief, contains dexamethasone and piroxicam. AK Forte, also sold for joint pain and arthritis, contains diclofenac, dexamethasone, and methocarbamol not disclosed on the label.

“It is interesting that these products have hidden ingredients that are used to reduce swelling and inflammation,” Dr. Tsourounis said. “I don’t know if this was intentional, but it seems suspicious that a product marketed to reduce joint pain and inflammation contains prescription-only ingredients that are used for this purpose.”

Certain products also contained antihistamines including cyproheptadine and chlorpheniramine.

These types of products are likely targeted toward underserved and immigrant communities, added Pieter Cohen, MD, a primary care physician and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies dietary supplements. They might be sold in mom-and-pop shops or gas stations to individuals with limited access to health care or insurance, he noted.

The FDA warned that this list included “only a small fraction of the potentially dangerous products marketed to consumers online and in stores. Even if a product is not included in this list, consumers should exercise caution before using these types of arthritis and pain management products.”
 

Advising patients

Research suggests that most patients do not tell doctors about the supplements they are taking, and often, clinicians do not ask, said Dr. Cohen. “Most of the time it’s a total black box – we don’t know what’s going on,” he added.

He advised raising the subject of supplements in a very nonjudgmental way, particularly when treating patients in marginalized and immigrant communities. One approach he suggested was first mentioning that other patients in your care dealing with joint pain have bought remedies locally or have tried treatments that friends recommend. You can then ask a patient about their own use, framing it as a way to better help with treatment decisions.

Once a clinician understands what their patient is taking, they can then give advice and discuss if a product is safe to combine with prescription drugs, Dr. Cohen said. “If they come down too hard, I think the patients will just clam up and not talk about it anymore,” he said.

If a patient begins to experience side effects or gets sick, a clinician will already be informed of what their patient is taking and can ask that patient to bring the product or supplement in, so they can look over the product together, Dr. Cohen noted. Any side effects or other adverse events potentially related to the use of these products should then be reported to FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

Tips for safe shopping

To make sure supplements and other over-the-counter products are safe to use, Dr. Tsourounis recommends that consumers:

• Buy products from well-known retailers like Target or large pharmacies like CVS or Walgreens.
• Avoid buying products with labels in another language that you cannot read or products with no drug label.
• Be cautious of buying products online or from other countries.
• Look up suspicious products on the FDA’s health fraud database.
• Be wary of any product that offers miracle cures or relies on personal testimonies without evidence.

In general, do not base purchasing decisions on any health claims on a product label because companies selling supplements making these claims “don’t have to have any clinical data to back them up,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Cohen also recommends sticking with individual ingredients. “If you want echinacea, buy echinacea. Don’t buy a complicated mix that is supposed to be good for arthritis with 10 different botanical [ingredients]. That’s more likely to run [you] into trouble,” he said.

Last, Dr. Cohen recommended buying supplements that are certified by NSF International or United States Pharmacopeia, both respected third-party testing organizations. “If it has an NSF International or USP stamp, that gives us more certainty that what’s in the bottle is going to be what’s listed on label,” he said.

Dr. Tsourounis noted that if you are skeptical of a product, you can also try calling the manufacturer number on the product label.

“I always encourage people to call that number to see if somebody answers,” she said. “Sometimes, you can tell a lot about that company just by calling that number.”

Dr. Cohen has received research support from the Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UpToDate. He has collaborated in research with NSF International. Dr. Tsourounis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Subcutaneous administration of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy offers ongoing clinical efficacy in the management of patients with relapsing and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), suggest results from two clinical trials.

For OCARINA II, more than 325 patients with MS were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous or intravenous treatment with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab (Ocrevus).

After 24 weeks, the presence of lesions on imaging and the occurrence of clinical remissions were almost completely suppressed by both treatments albeit with a higher rate of mild to moderate injection reactions with subcutaneous administration.

The study “makes me feel pretty comfortable that regardless of where you’re delivering the therapy, IV or subcutaneously, it’s getting in there and doing the job that we want it to do,” said lead author Scott D. Newsome, DO, director, Stiff Person Syndrome Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The second study, OLIKOS, involved just over 100 patients with relapsing MS who had previously been treated with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and were switched to subcutaneous therapy with another: ofatumumab (Arzerra).

Le H. Hua, MD, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, and colleagues report that the novel treatment maintained clinical efficacy in all patients, with no safety concerns and no changes in serum immunoglobulin levels.

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Anti-CD20–naive

OCARINA II involved patients aged 18-65 years with relapsing or primary progressive MS who had never received ocrelizumab or any other anti-CD20 therapy and had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 0.0-6.5.

They were randomly assigned to subcutaneous or IV ocrelizumab as a first dose. At week 24, all patients were scheduled to receive subcutaneous ocrelizumab every 24 weeks up to week 96.

In all, 326 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms. They had a mean age of approximately 40 years, and 59.3%-65.3% were women. The mean time since symptom onset was 6.8-7.7 years, and the mean EDSS score at baseline was 2.5-3.0. The majority (89.8%-89.0%) had relapsing MS.

The results showed that subcutaneous and IV administration led to similar exposure to ocrelizumab, and both resulted in rapid reduction in CD19+ B-cell counts.

By week 24, the mean number of lesions on MRI reduced to zero, resulting in “near-complete suppression” of disease activity, the team says, which was reflected in 99% of patients have no clinical evidence of relapse.

The overall adverse event rate was higher with subcutaneous vs. IV administration of ocrelizumab, at 73.7% vs. 45.8%, driven by both local and systemic injection reactions, which were mild to moderate in nature.

However, a similar proportion of patients in the subcutaneous and IV arms experienced serious adverse events, at 2.5% and 3.4%, respectively.

Crucially, the patients were “overwhelmingly positive” about the subcutaneous administration, Dr. Newsome said, and at his institution, “all the patients want to continue, if and when this gets approved.”

He said that, overall, he would like to have both routes available “because, coming down to patient preference, some prefer to have IV over subcutaneous in general, and that could be for a variety of reasons, so I would love to have as many different routes of administration as possible to offer.”
 

Efficacy maintained

The OLIKOS trial included patients aged 18-60 years with relapsing MS who had received at least two consecutive courses of anti-CD20 therapy with either ocrelizumab or rituximab and who had an EDSS score ≤ 5.5 and were neurologically stable.

After an initial loading regimen of subcutaneous ofatumumab on days 1, 7, and 14, the patients continued open-label subcutaneous ofatumumab once a month for 12 months, with assessments carried out at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months.

Of 142 patients assessed, 102 received treatment and were evaluated. Their mean age was 43.5 years, and 67.6% were women. The mean baseline EDSS score was 2.9, and the mean disease duration since diagnosis was 9.4 years.

The vast majority of patients (99.0%) had previously received ocrelizumab for an average duration of 26.7 months.

At this interim analysis, 100% of the 77 patients with follow-up MRI met the primary endpoint at month 6 of no change or a reduction in the number of lesions.

The team says there were “no new safety signals,” with 75.5% of patients experiencing a treatment-emergent adverse event, but only 1.0% having a serious adverse event. Injection site reactions occurred in 7.8%; 15.7% had a systemic injection reaction.

They also report that there were no changes in IgG and IgM concentrations between baseline and follow-up, which remained within normal reference ranges.
 

Reassuring results

“It’s exciting to see reassuring results from clinical studies of two high-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis, especially given their route of administration,” commented Julie Fiol, LMSW, BSN, RN, MSCN, associate vice president of Clinical Innovation and Strategy for the U.S. National MS Society.

“Subcutaneous injections allow people with multiple sclerosis more flexibility when selecting a therapy that matches their lifestyle and preferences,” she said in an interview.

“Adherence to therapy is critical in multiple sclerosis, and additional options for route of administration and site of care enhance the likelihood that someone with multiple sclerosis will find a medication that effectively manages their disease and fits into their lifestyle,” Dr. Fiol explained.

“Subcutaneous injections also have the potential to be more affordable as they could be administered at home or over a shorter duration than an infused medication,” she noted.

In terms of these two particular studies, she added, “it’s reassuring to see that the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ocrelizumab was similar to intravenous. It was also reassuring to see those who switched from ocrelizumab and rituximab to ofatumumab remained clinically stable.”

OCARINA II was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. OLIKOS was supported by Novartis. Dr. Newsome declares relationships with Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Novartis, Roche, and TG Therapeutics and institutional relationships with Biogen, Lundbeck, Roche, Genentech, National MS Society, The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, Department of Defense, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Hua declares relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, and Novartis. Other authors also declare relationships.

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

MILAN – Subcutaneous administration of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy offers ongoing clinical efficacy in the management of patients with relapsing and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), suggest results from two clinical trials.

For OCARINA II, more than 325 patients with MS were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous or intravenous treatment with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab (Ocrevus).

After 24 weeks, the presence of lesions on imaging and the occurrence of clinical remissions were almost completely suppressed by both treatments albeit with a higher rate of mild to moderate injection reactions with subcutaneous administration.

The study “makes me feel pretty comfortable that regardless of where you’re delivering the therapy, IV or subcutaneously, it’s getting in there and doing the job that we want it to do,” said lead author Scott D. Newsome, DO, director, Stiff Person Syndrome Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The second study, OLIKOS, involved just over 100 patients with relapsing MS who had previously been treated with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and were switched to subcutaneous therapy with another: ofatumumab (Arzerra).

Le H. Hua, MD, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, and colleagues report that the novel treatment maintained clinical efficacy in all patients, with no safety concerns and no changes in serum immunoglobulin levels.

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Anti-CD20–naive

OCARINA II involved patients aged 18-65 years with relapsing or primary progressive MS who had never received ocrelizumab or any other anti-CD20 therapy and had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 0.0-6.5.

They were randomly assigned to subcutaneous or IV ocrelizumab as a first dose. At week 24, all patients were scheduled to receive subcutaneous ocrelizumab every 24 weeks up to week 96.

In all, 326 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms. They had a mean age of approximately 40 years, and 59.3%-65.3% were women. The mean time since symptom onset was 6.8-7.7 years, and the mean EDSS score at baseline was 2.5-3.0. The majority (89.8%-89.0%) had relapsing MS.

The results showed that subcutaneous and IV administration led to similar exposure to ocrelizumab, and both resulted in rapid reduction in CD19+ B-cell counts.

By week 24, the mean number of lesions on MRI reduced to zero, resulting in “near-complete suppression” of disease activity, the team says, which was reflected in 99% of patients have no clinical evidence of relapse.

The overall adverse event rate was higher with subcutaneous vs. IV administration of ocrelizumab, at 73.7% vs. 45.8%, driven by both local and systemic injection reactions, which were mild to moderate in nature.

However, a similar proportion of patients in the subcutaneous and IV arms experienced serious adverse events, at 2.5% and 3.4%, respectively.

Crucially, the patients were “overwhelmingly positive” about the subcutaneous administration, Dr. Newsome said, and at his institution, “all the patients want to continue, if and when this gets approved.”

He said that, overall, he would like to have both routes available “because, coming down to patient preference, some prefer to have IV over subcutaneous in general, and that could be for a variety of reasons, so I would love to have as many different routes of administration as possible to offer.”
 

Efficacy maintained

The OLIKOS trial included patients aged 18-60 years with relapsing MS who had received at least two consecutive courses of anti-CD20 therapy with either ocrelizumab or rituximab and who had an EDSS score ≤ 5.5 and were neurologically stable.

After an initial loading regimen of subcutaneous ofatumumab on days 1, 7, and 14, the patients continued open-label subcutaneous ofatumumab once a month for 12 months, with assessments carried out at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months.

Of 142 patients assessed, 102 received treatment and were evaluated. Their mean age was 43.5 years, and 67.6% were women. The mean baseline EDSS score was 2.9, and the mean disease duration since diagnosis was 9.4 years.

The vast majority of patients (99.0%) had previously received ocrelizumab for an average duration of 26.7 months.

At this interim analysis, 100% of the 77 patients with follow-up MRI met the primary endpoint at month 6 of no change or a reduction in the number of lesions.

The team says there were “no new safety signals,” with 75.5% of patients experiencing a treatment-emergent adverse event, but only 1.0% having a serious adverse event. Injection site reactions occurred in 7.8%; 15.7% had a systemic injection reaction.

They also report that there were no changes in IgG and IgM concentrations between baseline and follow-up, which remained within normal reference ranges.
 

Reassuring results

“It’s exciting to see reassuring results from clinical studies of two high-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis, especially given their route of administration,” commented Julie Fiol, LMSW, BSN, RN, MSCN, associate vice president of Clinical Innovation and Strategy for the U.S. National MS Society.

“Subcutaneous injections allow people with multiple sclerosis more flexibility when selecting a therapy that matches their lifestyle and preferences,” she said in an interview.

“Adherence to therapy is critical in multiple sclerosis, and additional options for route of administration and site of care enhance the likelihood that someone with multiple sclerosis will find a medication that effectively manages their disease and fits into their lifestyle,” Dr. Fiol explained.

“Subcutaneous injections also have the potential to be more affordable as they could be administered at home or over a shorter duration than an infused medication,” she noted.

In terms of these two particular studies, she added, “it’s reassuring to see that the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ocrelizumab was similar to intravenous. It was also reassuring to see those who switched from ocrelizumab and rituximab to ofatumumab remained clinically stable.”

OCARINA II was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. OLIKOS was supported by Novartis. Dr. Newsome declares relationships with Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Novartis, Roche, and TG Therapeutics and institutional relationships with Biogen, Lundbeck, Roche, Genentech, National MS Society, The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, Department of Defense, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Hua declares relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, and Novartis. Other authors also declare relationships.

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

MILAN – Subcutaneous administration of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy offers ongoing clinical efficacy in the management of patients with relapsing and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), suggest results from two clinical trials.

For OCARINA II, more than 325 patients with MS were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous or intravenous treatment with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab (Ocrevus).

After 24 weeks, the presence of lesions on imaging and the occurrence of clinical remissions were almost completely suppressed by both treatments albeit with a higher rate of mild to moderate injection reactions with subcutaneous administration.

The study “makes me feel pretty comfortable that regardless of where you’re delivering the therapy, IV or subcutaneously, it’s getting in there and doing the job that we want it to do,” said lead author Scott D. Newsome, DO, director, Stiff Person Syndrome Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The second study, OLIKOS, involved just over 100 patients with relapsing MS who had previously been treated with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and were switched to subcutaneous therapy with another: ofatumumab (Arzerra).

Le H. Hua, MD, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, and colleagues report that the novel treatment maintained clinical efficacy in all patients, with no safety concerns and no changes in serum immunoglobulin levels.

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Anti-CD20–naive

OCARINA II involved patients aged 18-65 years with relapsing or primary progressive MS who had never received ocrelizumab or any other anti-CD20 therapy and had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 0.0-6.5.

They were randomly assigned to subcutaneous or IV ocrelizumab as a first dose. At week 24, all patients were scheduled to receive subcutaneous ocrelizumab every 24 weeks up to week 96.

In all, 326 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms. They had a mean age of approximately 40 years, and 59.3%-65.3% were women. The mean time since symptom onset was 6.8-7.7 years, and the mean EDSS score at baseline was 2.5-3.0. The majority (89.8%-89.0%) had relapsing MS.

The results showed that subcutaneous and IV administration led to similar exposure to ocrelizumab, and both resulted in rapid reduction in CD19+ B-cell counts.

By week 24, the mean number of lesions on MRI reduced to zero, resulting in “near-complete suppression” of disease activity, the team says, which was reflected in 99% of patients have no clinical evidence of relapse.

The overall adverse event rate was higher with subcutaneous vs. IV administration of ocrelizumab, at 73.7% vs. 45.8%, driven by both local and systemic injection reactions, which were mild to moderate in nature.

However, a similar proportion of patients in the subcutaneous and IV arms experienced serious adverse events, at 2.5% and 3.4%, respectively.

Crucially, the patients were “overwhelmingly positive” about the subcutaneous administration, Dr. Newsome said, and at his institution, “all the patients want to continue, if and when this gets approved.”

He said that, overall, he would like to have both routes available “because, coming down to patient preference, some prefer to have IV over subcutaneous in general, and that could be for a variety of reasons, so I would love to have as many different routes of administration as possible to offer.”
 

Efficacy maintained

The OLIKOS trial included patients aged 18-60 years with relapsing MS who had received at least two consecutive courses of anti-CD20 therapy with either ocrelizumab or rituximab and who had an EDSS score ≤ 5.5 and were neurologically stable.

After an initial loading regimen of subcutaneous ofatumumab on days 1, 7, and 14, the patients continued open-label subcutaneous ofatumumab once a month for 12 months, with assessments carried out at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months.

Of 142 patients assessed, 102 received treatment and were evaluated. Their mean age was 43.5 years, and 67.6% were women. The mean baseline EDSS score was 2.9, and the mean disease duration since diagnosis was 9.4 years.

The vast majority of patients (99.0%) had previously received ocrelizumab for an average duration of 26.7 months.

At this interim analysis, 100% of the 77 patients with follow-up MRI met the primary endpoint at month 6 of no change or a reduction in the number of lesions.

The team says there were “no new safety signals,” with 75.5% of patients experiencing a treatment-emergent adverse event, but only 1.0% having a serious adverse event. Injection site reactions occurred in 7.8%; 15.7% had a systemic injection reaction.

They also report that there were no changes in IgG and IgM concentrations between baseline and follow-up, which remained within normal reference ranges.
 

Reassuring results

“It’s exciting to see reassuring results from clinical studies of two high-efficacy therapies for multiple sclerosis, especially given their route of administration,” commented Julie Fiol, LMSW, BSN, RN, MSCN, associate vice president of Clinical Innovation and Strategy for the U.S. National MS Society.

“Subcutaneous injections allow people with multiple sclerosis more flexibility when selecting a therapy that matches their lifestyle and preferences,” she said in an interview.

“Adherence to therapy is critical in multiple sclerosis, and additional options for route of administration and site of care enhance the likelihood that someone with multiple sclerosis will find a medication that effectively manages their disease and fits into their lifestyle,” Dr. Fiol explained.

“Subcutaneous injections also have the potential to be more affordable as they could be administered at home or over a shorter duration than an infused medication,” she noted.

In terms of these two particular studies, she added, “it’s reassuring to see that the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ocrelizumab was similar to intravenous. It was also reassuring to see those who switched from ocrelizumab and rituximab to ofatumumab remained clinically stable.”

OCARINA II was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. OLIKOS was supported by Novartis. Dr. Newsome declares relationships with Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, Novartis, Roche, and TG Therapeutics and institutional relationships with Biogen, Lundbeck, Roche, Genentech, National MS Society, The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, Department of Defense, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Hua declares relationships with Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, Horizon Therapeutics, and Novartis. Other authors also declare relationships.

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

T3D-959, an oral dual delta/gamma peroxisome proliferator-activated nuclear receptor (PPAR) agonist, has shown promise in a phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled study of adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Topline results provide “clinical evidence of a modification of multiple AD pathologies associated with amyloid plaque burden,” said John Didsbury, PhD, chief executive officer of T3D Therapeutics Inc., the company developing the drug.

While the primary cognitive endpoints were not met in the overall study population, the data suggest that a “high plasma pTau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio, a marker of AD pathology, likely defines an AD population responsive to T3D-959 therapy,” Dr. Didsbury said.

He said it’s important to note that no PET imaging (amyloid/tau) or biomarkers were used as entry criteria and, in hindsight, some participants likely did not have AD, which likely played a role in the negative primary outcome.

The findings from the PIONEER study were presented at the annual Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
 

‘Surprised and shocked’

The PPAR family of proteins helps regulate blood sugar and triglyceride levels. The rationale for evaluating PPAR agonists in AD is based on the hypothesis that sporadic AD is fundamentally an age-related metabolic disease.

T3D-959 is the first PPAR delta-activating compound to be developed for the treatment of AD. Uniquely, this drug also activates PPAR gamma, which may provide potential additive or synergistic effects in regulating dysfunctional brain glucose energy and lipid metabolism in AD.

The PIONEER tested three doses of T3D-959 (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg) vs. placebo in 250 adults with mild to moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 14-26, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global 0.5-2.0, and Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] ≥ 3.0). T3D-959 or placebo was taken once daily for 24 weeks.

In the overall population, the primary endpoints – Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – were not met.

“Plain and simple, when we saw this data, we were surprised and shocked,” said Dr. Didsbury, and wondered, “How can placebo be doing so well on a 6-month AD trial?”

“We suspect the presence of non-AD subjects in the trial based on the lower-than-typical number of ApoE4 positive subjects, increased cognitive performance and learning effects observed, and only 45% of trial subjects having a low pTau-217 ratio, a biomarker indicating that they would have no AD pathology plasma,” he explained.

Plasma baseline pTau-217 ratio correlates with AD risk and severity and is a marker of AD pathology; in the subgroup with high pTau-217 ratio, the ADAS-Cog11 endpoint was met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group vs. the placebo group (–0.74 vs. 1.27; P = .112), “consistent with clinical benefit,” Dr. Didsbury noted.

The secondary endpoint of change in plasma amyloid-beta (Ab)42/40 ratio was also met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group – increasing at week 24 with T3D-959 vs. decreasing with placebo (P = .0206), with even greater improvement in the high pTau-217 ratio group. In this group, improvement of Ab42/40 ratio was nearly twofold greater than the overall group.

T3D-959 had a similar magnitude of effect on Ab42/40 as lecanemab (Leqembi) at 6 months, the researchers point out in their late-breaking abstract.

Biomarkers of all three AD diagnostic criteria (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) were improved, as well as markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and dysfunctional lipid metabolism – results that demonstrate “peripheral targeted engagement,” Dr. Didsbury said.

“Along with the strong safety profile of T3D-959, the evidence supports a larger study evaluating T3D-959 30 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate AD and a baseline plasma p-Tau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio of ≥ 0.015,” the researchers conclude in their abstract.
 

Lessons learned

Commenting on the research for this article, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “the idea behind this treatment is that impaired glucose metabolism in the brain leads to toxic misfolded proteins, including amyloid and tau in people with Alzheimer’s disease.”

“The treatment focuses on improving regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism in the brain. This is one of more than 140 approaches that are being tested today to target the biological drivers and contributors to Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

Because biomarkers were not used to enroll participants, “there was a high population of people in the trial who did not have Alzheimer’s. This very likely contributed to the negative result,” she noted.

However, the results also suggest that those taking the drug who had a high pTau217 ratio – and are likely to have brain amyloid plaques – had less cognitive decline, she noted.

Lessons learned from this negative trial include “the proper dose to balance efficacy and safety, and how to screen participants for their next study,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Didsbury and Dr. Edelmayer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

T3D-959, an oral dual delta/gamma peroxisome proliferator-activated nuclear receptor (PPAR) agonist, has shown promise in a phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled study of adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Topline results provide “clinical evidence of a modification of multiple AD pathologies associated with amyloid plaque burden,” said John Didsbury, PhD, chief executive officer of T3D Therapeutics Inc., the company developing the drug.

While the primary cognitive endpoints were not met in the overall study population, the data suggest that a “high plasma pTau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio, a marker of AD pathology, likely defines an AD population responsive to T3D-959 therapy,” Dr. Didsbury said.

He said it’s important to note that no PET imaging (amyloid/tau) or biomarkers were used as entry criteria and, in hindsight, some participants likely did not have AD, which likely played a role in the negative primary outcome.

The findings from the PIONEER study were presented at the annual Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
 

‘Surprised and shocked’

The PPAR family of proteins helps regulate blood sugar and triglyceride levels. The rationale for evaluating PPAR agonists in AD is based on the hypothesis that sporadic AD is fundamentally an age-related metabolic disease.

T3D-959 is the first PPAR delta-activating compound to be developed for the treatment of AD. Uniquely, this drug also activates PPAR gamma, which may provide potential additive or synergistic effects in regulating dysfunctional brain glucose energy and lipid metabolism in AD.

The PIONEER tested three doses of T3D-959 (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg) vs. placebo in 250 adults with mild to moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 14-26, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global 0.5-2.0, and Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] ≥ 3.0). T3D-959 or placebo was taken once daily for 24 weeks.

In the overall population, the primary endpoints – Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – were not met.

“Plain and simple, when we saw this data, we were surprised and shocked,” said Dr. Didsbury, and wondered, “How can placebo be doing so well on a 6-month AD trial?”

“We suspect the presence of non-AD subjects in the trial based on the lower-than-typical number of ApoE4 positive subjects, increased cognitive performance and learning effects observed, and only 45% of trial subjects having a low pTau-217 ratio, a biomarker indicating that they would have no AD pathology plasma,” he explained.

Plasma baseline pTau-217 ratio correlates with AD risk and severity and is a marker of AD pathology; in the subgroup with high pTau-217 ratio, the ADAS-Cog11 endpoint was met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group vs. the placebo group (–0.74 vs. 1.27; P = .112), “consistent with clinical benefit,” Dr. Didsbury noted.

The secondary endpoint of change in plasma amyloid-beta (Ab)42/40 ratio was also met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group – increasing at week 24 with T3D-959 vs. decreasing with placebo (P = .0206), with even greater improvement in the high pTau-217 ratio group. In this group, improvement of Ab42/40 ratio was nearly twofold greater than the overall group.

T3D-959 had a similar magnitude of effect on Ab42/40 as lecanemab (Leqembi) at 6 months, the researchers point out in their late-breaking abstract.

Biomarkers of all three AD diagnostic criteria (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) were improved, as well as markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and dysfunctional lipid metabolism – results that demonstrate “peripheral targeted engagement,” Dr. Didsbury said.

“Along with the strong safety profile of T3D-959, the evidence supports a larger study evaluating T3D-959 30 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate AD and a baseline plasma p-Tau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio of ≥ 0.015,” the researchers conclude in their abstract.
 

Lessons learned

Commenting on the research for this article, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “the idea behind this treatment is that impaired glucose metabolism in the brain leads to toxic misfolded proteins, including amyloid and tau in people with Alzheimer’s disease.”

“The treatment focuses on improving regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism in the brain. This is one of more than 140 approaches that are being tested today to target the biological drivers and contributors to Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

Because biomarkers were not used to enroll participants, “there was a high population of people in the trial who did not have Alzheimer’s. This very likely contributed to the negative result,” she noted.

However, the results also suggest that those taking the drug who had a high pTau217 ratio – and are likely to have brain amyloid plaques – had less cognitive decline, she noted.

Lessons learned from this negative trial include “the proper dose to balance efficacy and safety, and how to screen participants for their next study,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Didsbury and Dr. Edelmayer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

T3D-959, an oral dual delta/gamma peroxisome proliferator-activated nuclear receptor (PPAR) agonist, has shown promise in a phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled study of adults with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Topline results provide “clinical evidence of a modification of multiple AD pathologies associated with amyloid plaque burden,” said John Didsbury, PhD, chief executive officer of T3D Therapeutics Inc., the company developing the drug.

While the primary cognitive endpoints were not met in the overall study population, the data suggest that a “high plasma pTau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio, a marker of AD pathology, likely defines an AD population responsive to T3D-959 therapy,” Dr. Didsbury said.

He said it’s important to note that no PET imaging (amyloid/tau) or biomarkers were used as entry criteria and, in hindsight, some participants likely did not have AD, which likely played a role in the negative primary outcome.

The findings from the PIONEER study were presented at the annual Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.
 

‘Surprised and shocked’

The PPAR family of proteins helps regulate blood sugar and triglyceride levels. The rationale for evaluating PPAR agonists in AD is based on the hypothesis that sporadic AD is fundamentally an age-related metabolic disease.

T3D-959 is the first PPAR delta-activating compound to be developed for the treatment of AD. Uniquely, this drug also activates PPAR gamma, which may provide potential additive or synergistic effects in regulating dysfunctional brain glucose energy and lipid metabolism in AD.

The PIONEER tested three doses of T3D-959 (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg) vs. placebo in 250 adults with mild to moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 14-26, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global 0.5-2.0, and Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] ≥ 3.0). T3D-959 or placebo was taken once daily for 24 weeks.

In the overall population, the primary endpoints – Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) – were not met.

“Plain and simple, when we saw this data, we were surprised and shocked,” said Dr. Didsbury, and wondered, “How can placebo be doing so well on a 6-month AD trial?”

“We suspect the presence of non-AD subjects in the trial based on the lower-than-typical number of ApoE4 positive subjects, increased cognitive performance and learning effects observed, and only 45% of trial subjects having a low pTau-217 ratio, a biomarker indicating that they would have no AD pathology plasma,” he explained.

Plasma baseline pTau-217 ratio correlates with AD risk and severity and is a marker of AD pathology; in the subgroup with high pTau-217 ratio, the ADAS-Cog11 endpoint was met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group vs. the placebo group (–0.74 vs. 1.27; P = .112), “consistent with clinical benefit,” Dr. Didsbury noted.

The secondary endpoint of change in plasma amyloid-beta (Ab)42/40 ratio was also met in the 30-mg T3D-959 group – increasing at week 24 with T3D-959 vs. decreasing with placebo (P = .0206), with even greater improvement in the high pTau-217 ratio group. In this group, improvement of Ab42/40 ratio was nearly twofold greater than the overall group.

T3D-959 had a similar magnitude of effect on Ab42/40 as lecanemab (Leqembi) at 6 months, the researchers point out in their late-breaking abstract.

Biomarkers of all three AD diagnostic criteria (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) were improved, as well as markers of inflammation, insulin resistance, and dysfunctional lipid metabolism – results that demonstrate “peripheral targeted engagement,” Dr. Didsbury said.

“Along with the strong safety profile of T3D-959, the evidence supports a larger study evaluating T3D-959 30 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate AD and a baseline plasma p-Tau-217/non–pTau-217 ratio of ≥ 0.015,” the researchers conclude in their abstract.
 

Lessons learned

Commenting on the research for this article, Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “the idea behind this treatment is that impaired glucose metabolism in the brain leads to toxic misfolded proteins, including amyloid and tau in people with Alzheimer’s disease.”

“The treatment focuses on improving regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism in the brain. This is one of more than 140 approaches that are being tested today to target the biological drivers and contributors to Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

Because biomarkers were not used to enroll participants, “there was a high population of people in the trial who did not have Alzheimer’s. This very likely contributed to the negative result,” she noted.

However, the results also suggest that those taking the drug who had a high pTau217 ratio – and are likely to have brain amyloid plaques – had less cognitive decline, she noted.

Lessons learned from this negative trial include “the proper dose to balance efficacy and safety, and how to screen participants for their next study,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Didsbury and Dr. Edelmayer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

MILAN – A specially adapted frame to support individuals with walking and balance disabilities could help people with multiple sclerosis engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity and improve their physical function, a pilot study suggests.

“Frame running” uses a three-wheeled frame with a saddle and body supports but no pedals to allow individuals with disabilities and balance impairments to walk and run under their own power.

Eight individuals with multiple sclerosis and moderate to severe walking impairments took part in a 12-week frame running intervention, which improved both objective physical performance and patient-reported outcomes measures.

“Frame running presents a feasible and enjoyable exercise option for people with multiple sclerosis,” lead author Gary McEwan, PhD, research fellow at the Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, and colleagues conclude.

It may, they add, “have potential to improve measures of physical function and the ability to perform mobility-related daily activities.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
 

Dearth of exercise opportunities

The authors note regular physical activity and exercise are “amongst the most important adjunct therapies for managing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis,” and yet people with the disease are significantly less physically active than the general population.

This is particularly the case for individuals at the upper end of the disability spectrum, they continue, and may reflect the “relative dearth of exercise opportunities that are suitable for those with more severe mobility impairments.”

In recent years, frame running has emerged as a form of exercise that allows individuals with walking difficulties to engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity in a safe manner, but its feasibility in multiple sclerosis has not been investigated.

The researchers recruited people with multiple sclerosis who had moderate to severe walking impairments to take part in a 12-week frame running intervention, comprising a 1-hour session every week.

The 6-minute frame running test (6MFRT) and an adapted shuttle frame running test (SFRT) were used to assess physical function at baseline and after the intervention. Recruitment, retention, and attendance rates were recorded.

The participants also completed a series of patient-reported outcome measures, alongside the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, to calculate self-perceived abilities in activities of daily living, and semistructured interviews to capture their experiences of the intervention.
 

The camaraderie of physical activity

With six females and two males enrolled in the study, the team reported that the recruitment rate was 47.1%, the retention rate was 75%, and attendance was 86.7%. No adverse events were reported, they note.

The results indicate there were improvements in performance on the physical measures, with small effect sizes on both the 6MFRT (d = 0.37) and the SFRT (d = 0.30).

There were also improvements on the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (d = 0.27), the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (d = 0.20), and the Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (d = 0.46), again with small effect sizes.

A medium effect size was seen for improvements on the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (d = 0.73), and 80% of the participants reported “changes in performance and in satisfaction with their activities of daily living,” the team says.

The qualitative data also suggested the patients found frame running to be “safe and enjoyable,” with key highlights being the “social aspect and camaraderie developed amongst participants.”
 

Mix of physical interventions

Approached for comment, Robert Motl, MD, professor of kinesiology and nutrition, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, said it “makes a lot of sense” that frame running can improve walking-related outcomes.

He told this news organization that, “for people who have balance-related problems, using their legs in that rhythmical way could really have some great benefits for walking.”

However, Dr. Motl said he is a “little more skeptical about the benefits for balance, because to improve balance you have to be doing something that challenges upright posture.”

With the frame, “I don’t think you’re having to regulate upright posture while you’re doing that intervention, because you have stability with three points and the ground,” he said. “So, I wonder a little bit about that as an outcome.”

Dr. Motl nevertheless underlined that walking can certainly improve physical activity, “and all the other things like vascular function, cardiovascular fitness,” and so on.

Consequently, frame running “could be part of the mix of things for people who are having a disability, particularly individuals who have some balance dysfunction and [for whom] ambulating might put them at risk of falling.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society UK. The study authors and Dr. Modl report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – A specially adapted frame to support individuals with walking and balance disabilities could help people with multiple sclerosis engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity and improve their physical function, a pilot study suggests.

“Frame running” uses a three-wheeled frame with a saddle and body supports but no pedals to allow individuals with disabilities and balance impairments to walk and run under their own power.

Eight individuals with multiple sclerosis and moderate to severe walking impairments took part in a 12-week frame running intervention, which improved both objective physical performance and patient-reported outcomes measures.

“Frame running presents a feasible and enjoyable exercise option for people with multiple sclerosis,” lead author Gary McEwan, PhD, research fellow at the Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, and colleagues conclude.

It may, they add, “have potential to improve measures of physical function and the ability to perform mobility-related daily activities.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
 

Dearth of exercise opportunities

The authors note regular physical activity and exercise are “amongst the most important adjunct therapies for managing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis,” and yet people with the disease are significantly less physically active than the general population.

This is particularly the case for individuals at the upper end of the disability spectrum, they continue, and may reflect the “relative dearth of exercise opportunities that are suitable for those with more severe mobility impairments.”

In recent years, frame running has emerged as a form of exercise that allows individuals with walking difficulties to engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity in a safe manner, but its feasibility in multiple sclerosis has not been investigated.

The researchers recruited people with multiple sclerosis who had moderate to severe walking impairments to take part in a 12-week frame running intervention, comprising a 1-hour session every week.

The 6-minute frame running test (6MFRT) and an adapted shuttle frame running test (SFRT) were used to assess physical function at baseline and after the intervention. Recruitment, retention, and attendance rates were recorded.

The participants also completed a series of patient-reported outcome measures, alongside the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, to calculate self-perceived abilities in activities of daily living, and semistructured interviews to capture their experiences of the intervention.
 

The camaraderie of physical activity

With six females and two males enrolled in the study, the team reported that the recruitment rate was 47.1%, the retention rate was 75%, and attendance was 86.7%. No adverse events were reported, they note.

The results indicate there were improvements in performance on the physical measures, with small effect sizes on both the 6MFRT (d = 0.37) and the SFRT (d = 0.30).

There were also improvements on the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (d = 0.27), the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (d = 0.20), and the Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (d = 0.46), again with small effect sizes.

A medium effect size was seen for improvements on the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (d = 0.73), and 80% of the participants reported “changes in performance and in satisfaction with their activities of daily living,” the team says.

The qualitative data also suggested the patients found frame running to be “safe and enjoyable,” with key highlights being the “social aspect and camaraderie developed amongst participants.”
 

Mix of physical interventions

Approached for comment, Robert Motl, MD, professor of kinesiology and nutrition, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, said it “makes a lot of sense” that frame running can improve walking-related outcomes.

He told this news organization that, “for people who have balance-related problems, using their legs in that rhythmical way could really have some great benefits for walking.”

However, Dr. Motl said he is a “little more skeptical about the benefits for balance, because to improve balance you have to be doing something that challenges upright posture.”

With the frame, “I don’t think you’re having to regulate upright posture while you’re doing that intervention, because you have stability with three points and the ground,” he said. “So, I wonder a little bit about that as an outcome.”

Dr. Motl nevertheless underlined that walking can certainly improve physical activity, “and all the other things like vascular function, cardiovascular fitness,” and so on.

Consequently, frame running “could be part of the mix of things for people who are having a disability, particularly individuals who have some balance dysfunction and [for whom] ambulating might put them at risk of falling.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society UK. The study authors and Dr. Modl report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – A specially adapted frame to support individuals with walking and balance disabilities could help people with multiple sclerosis engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity and improve their physical function, a pilot study suggests.

“Frame running” uses a three-wheeled frame with a saddle and body supports but no pedals to allow individuals with disabilities and balance impairments to walk and run under their own power.

Eight individuals with multiple sclerosis and moderate to severe walking impairments took part in a 12-week frame running intervention, which improved both objective physical performance and patient-reported outcomes measures.

“Frame running presents a feasible and enjoyable exercise option for people with multiple sclerosis,” lead author Gary McEwan, PhD, research fellow at the Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, and colleagues conclude.

It may, they add, “have potential to improve measures of physical function and the ability to perform mobility-related daily activities.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting.
 

Dearth of exercise opportunities

The authors note regular physical activity and exercise are “amongst the most important adjunct therapies for managing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis,” and yet people with the disease are significantly less physically active than the general population.

This is particularly the case for individuals at the upper end of the disability spectrum, they continue, and may reflect the “relative dearth of exercise opportunities that are suitable for those with more severe mobility impairments.”

In recent years, frame running has emerged as a form of exercise that allows individuals with walking difficulties to engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity in a safe manner, but its feasibility in multiple sclerosis has not been investigated.

The researchers recruited people with multiple sclerosis who had moderate to severe walking impairments to take part in a 12-week frame running intervention, comprising a 1-hour session every week.

The 6-minute frame running test (6MFRT) and an adapted shuttle frame running test (SFRT) were used to assess physical function at baseline and after the intervention. Recruitment, retention, and attendance rates were recorded.

The participants also completed a series of patient-reported outcome measures, alongside the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, to calculate self-perceived abilities in activities of daily living, and semistructured interviews to capture their experiences of the intervention.
 

The camaraderie of physical activity

With six females and two males enrolled in the study, the team reported that the recruitment rate was 47.1%, the retention rate was 75%, and attendance was 86.7%. No adverse events were reported, they note.

The results indicate there were improvements in performance on the physical measures, with small effect sizes on both the 6MFRT (d = 0.37) and the SFRT (d = 0.30).

There were also improvements on the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (d = 0.27), the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (d = 0.20), and the Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (d = 0.46), again with small effect sizes.

A medium effect size was seen for improvements on the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (d = 0.73), and 80% of the participants reported “changes in performance and in satisfaction with their activities of daily living,” the team says.

The qualitative data also suggested the patients found frame running to be “safe and enjoyable,” with key highlights being the “social aspect and camaraderie developed amongst participants.”
 

Mix of physical interventions

Approached for comment, Robert Motl, MD, professor of kinesiology and nutrition, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, said it “makes a lot of sense” that frame running can improve walking-related outcomes.

He told this news organization that, “for people who have balance-related problems, using their legs in that rhythmical way could really have some great benefits for walking.”

However, Dr. Motl said he is a “little more skeptical about the benefits for balance, because to improve balance you have to be doing something that challenges upright posture.”

With the frame, “I don’t think you’re having to regulate upright posture while you’re doing that intervention, because you have stability with three points and the ground,” he said. “So, I wonder a little bit about that as an outcome.”

Dr. Motl nevertheless underlined that walking can certainly improve physical activity, “and all the other things like vascular function, cardiovascular fitness,” and so on.

Consequently, frame running “could be part of the mix of things for people who are having a disability, particularly individuals who have some balance dysfunction and [for whom] ambulating might put them at risk of falling.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society UK. The study authors and Dr. Modl report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Challenging conventional wisdom, new research suggests that hitting the snooze button does not lead to cognitive impairment on waking and may actually provide cognitive benefits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did two studies to determine why intermittent morning alarms are used and how they affect sleep, cognition, cortisol, and mood.
• Study 1 was a survey of 1,732 healthy adults (mean age 34 years; 66% women) designed to elucidate the characteristics of people who snooze and why they choose to delay their waking in this way.
• Study 2 was a within-subject polysomnography study of 31 healthy habitual snoozers (mean age 27 years; 18 women) designed to explore the acute effects of snoozing on sleep architecture, sleepiness, cognitive ability, mood, and cortisol awakening response.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 69% reported using the snooze button or setting multiple alarms at least sometimes, most often on workdays (71%), with an average snooze time per morning of 22 minutes.
• Sleep quality did not differ between snoozers and nonsnoozers, but snoozers were more likely to feel mentally drowsy on waking (odds ratio, 3.0; P < .001) and had slightly shorter sleep time on workdays (13 minutes).
• In the polysomnography study, compared with waking up abruptly, 30 minutes of snoozing in the morning improved or did not affect performance on standard cognitive tests completed directly on final awakening.
• Snoozing resulted in about 6 minutes of lost sleep, but it prevented awakening from slow-wave sleep and had no clear effects on the cortisol awakening response, morning sleepiness, mood, or overnight sleep architecture.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that there is no reason to stop snoozing in the morning if you enjoy it, at least not for snooze times around 30 minutes. In fact, it may even help those with morning drowsiness to be slightly more awake once they get up,” corresponding author Tina Sundelin, PhD, of Stockholm University, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study 1 focused on waking preferences in a convenience sample of adults. Study 2 included only habitual snoozers making it difficult to generalize the findings to people who don’t usually snooze. The study investigated only the effect of 30 minutes of snoozing on the studied parameters. It’s possible that shorter or longer snooze times have different cognitive effects.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by the Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, and a grant from Vetenskapsrådet. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Challenging conventional wisdom, new research suggests that hitting the snooze button does not lead to cognitive impairment on waking and may actually provide cognitive benefits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did two studies to determine why intermittent morning alarms are used and how they affect sleep, cognition, cortisol, and mood.
• Study 1 was a survey of 1,732 healthy adults (mean age 34 years; 66% women) designed to elucidate the characteristics of people who snooze and why they choose to delay their waking in this way.
• Study 2 was a within-subject polysomnography study of 31 healthy habitual snoozers (mean age 27 years; 18 women) designed to explore the acute effects of snoozing on sleep architecture, sleepiness, cognitive ability, mood, and cortisol awakening response.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 69% reported using the snooze button or setting multiple alarms at least sometimes, most often on workdays (71%), with an average snooze time per morning of 22 minutes.
• Sleep quality did not differ between snoozers and nonsnoozers, but snoozers were more likely to feel mentally drowsy on waking (odds ratio, 3.0; P < .001) and had slightly shorter sleep time on workdays (13 minutes).
• In the polysomnography study, compared with waking up abruptly, 30 minutes of snoozing in the morning improved or did not affect performance on standard cognitive tests completed directly on final awakening.
• Snoozing resulted in about 6 minutes of lost sleep, but it prevented awakening from slow-wave sleep and had no clear effects on the cortisol awakening response, morning sleepiness, mood, or overnight sleep architecture.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that there is no reason to stop snoozing in the morning if you enjoy it, at least not for snooze times around 30 minutes. In fact, it may even help those with morning drowsiness to be slightly more awake once they get up,” corresponding author Tina Sundelin, PhD, of Stockholm University, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study 1 focused on waking preferences in a convenience sample of adults. Study 2 included only habitual snoozers making it difficult to generalize the findings to people who don’t usually snooze. The study investigated only the effect of 30 minutes of snoozing on the studied parameters. It’s possible that shorter or longer snooze times have different cognitive effects.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by the Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, and a grant from Vetenskapsrådet. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Challenging conventional wisdom, new research suggests that hitting the snooze button does not lead to cognitive impairment on waking and may actually provide cognitive benefits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did two studies to determine why intermittent morning alarms are used and how they affect sleep, cognition, cortisol, and mood.
• Study 1 was a survey of 1,732 healthy adults (mean age 34 years; 66% women) designed to elucidate the characteristics of people who snooze and why they choose to delay their waking in this way.
• Study 2 was a within-subject polysomnography study of 31 healthy habitual snoozers (mean age 27 years; 18 women) designed to explore the acute effects of snoozing on sleep architecture, sleepiness, cognitive ability, mood, and cortisol awakening response.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 69% reported using the snooze button or setting multiple alarms at least sometimes, most often on workdays (71%), with an average snooze time per morning of 22 minutes.
• Sleep quality did not differ between snoozers and nonsnoozers, but snoozers were more likely to feel mentally drowsy on waking (odds ratio, 3.0; P < .001) and had slightly shorter sleep time on workdays (13 minutes).
• In the polysomnography study, compared with waking up abruptly, 30 minutes of snoozing in the morning improved or did not affect performance on standard cognitive tests completed directly on final awakening.
• Snoozing resulted in about 6 minutes of lost sleep, but it prevented awakening from slow-wave sleep and had no clear effects on the cortisol awakening response, morning sleepiness, mood, or overnight sleep architecture.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that there is no reason to stop snoozing in the morning if you enjoy it, at least not for snooze times around 30 minutes. In fact, it may even help those with morning drowsiness to be slightly more awake once they get up,” corresponding author Tina Sundelin, PhD, of Stockholm University, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study 1 focused on waking preferences in a convenience sample of adults. Study 2 included only habitual snoozers making it difficult to generalize the findings to people who don’t usually snooze. The study investigated only the effect of 30 minutes of snoozing on the studied parameters. It’s possible that shorter or longer snooze times have different cognitive effects.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by the Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, and a grant from Vetenskapsrådet. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

Alexandra Kharazi, MD, a California-based cardiothoracic surgeon, previously worked as an employed physician and is now in private practice. Though she appreciates that there are some trade-offs to working with her small group of three surgeons, Dr. Kharazi has no qualms about her choice.

“For me, it’s an issue of autonomy,” she said. “While I have to work a lot of hours, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule. I also don’t have to follow specific policies and rules.”

In contrast, Cassandra Boduch, MD, an employed psychiatrist with PsychPlus in Houston, is very satisfied with working as an employee. “I looked into private practice, but no one really prepares you for the complications that come with it,” she said. “There’s a lot more that goes into it than people realize.”

By hanging up her own shingle, Dr. Kharazi may be living a rapidly shrinking dream. According to the American Medical Association, between 2012 and 2022, the share of physicians working in private practice fell from 60% to 47%. The share of physicians working in hospitals as direct employees or contractors increased from about 6% to about 10% during the same time period.

Many factors contribute to these shifting trends, a major factor being economic stress stemming from payment cuts in Medicare. Add in rising practice costs and administrative burdens, and more doctors than ever are seeking employment, according to the AMA.

Though the traditional dream of owning your own practice may be slipping away, are employed physicians less happy than are their self-employed peers? By many measures, the answer is no.

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report 2023, doctors weighed in on the pros and cons of their jobs.

When asked what they like most about their jobs, employed physician respondents reported “not having to run a business” as their number-one benefit, followed closely by a stable income. The fact that employers pay for malpractice insurance ranked third, followed by work-life balance.

“We get no business classes in medical school or residency,” said one employed physician. “Having a good salary feels good,” said another. Yet another respondent chimed in: “Running a practice as a small business has become undoable over the past 10-12 years.”

And 50% of employed physicians said that they were “very satisfied/satisfied” with their degree of autonomy.

Still, employed physicians also had plenty to say about the downsides of their jobs.

Many pointed to “feeling like a cog in the machine,” and one doctor pointed to the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy. Others complained about the fact that nonphysicians ran the business and lacked an understanding of what physicians really need from their jobs. When asked whether administrative rules made sense, 63% of physician respondents said that yes, the rules make sense for the business; but, only 52% said that the rules make sense for the doctors themselves.

Other complaints included the requirement to reach high productivity targets and too low an income potential. In the 9 years since Medscape’s 2104 Employed Physicians Report, the share of employed doctors paid on a straight salary has declined from 46% to 31%. Those compensated on a base salary plus productivity targets and other performance metrics rose from 13% in 2014 to 32% now.

“Many doctors go into private practice because of the freedom it brings and the potential financial incentives,” added Dr. Boduch. “I know that many doctors have a dream of working for themselves, and in many cases, that works out great for them.”

Dr. Boduch noted that in her job as chief medical officer at PsychPlus, she still has flexibility plus the perks of working with a bigger practice. In this scenario, Dr. Boduch said, the company can negotiate with insurance companies, allowing her the financial rewards of private practice.
 

What’s right for you?

“I think it might be somewhat generational,” said Cody Futch, senior recruiting executive at AMN Healthcare. “It used to be that fewer hospitals offered employment, so private practice was the way to go. Now, there are fewer privates because hospitals and corporations are buying them up.”

This reality has potentially shaped the way younger generations approach their workplace. Also, Gen Z tends to have less intention to stay with a current employer for the long term than did their parents. “Older physicians were trained to expect they’d run their own business and build it over the years,” said Mr. Futch. “The younger generations look at it as a job, something they may want to switch in a few years. It’s a combination of candidates wanting more options, and also the fact that there are more options to be employed.”

Along those lines, younger generations in general tend to place work-life balance as a higher priority than do older generations, and employed physicians place this equation high on the list as well. In the Employed Physicians Report 2023, 54% said that they are satisfied or better with their work-life balance, up from 51% in the 2022 report.

With that in mind, Dr. Kharazi noted that flexibility is one of the chief reasons why she likes private practice. “If my kid has an event I want to attend, I don’t have to adhere to a strict schedule,” she said.

Satisfaction as an employee vs. employed doctor sometimes changes based on the type of medicine you practice too. With specialties that tend to be primarily outpatient, such as dermatology and allergy, private practice may be the best option regardless. “Hospitals don’t seek out those specialists as much and the specialists can operate successfully without a hospital,” said Mr. Futch.

Hospitals try to incentivize doctors with perks like hefty sign-on bonuses, student loan forgiveness, plenty of vacation time, and more. They also put money into marketing their doctors, a time-consuming and expensive aspect that is tough to shoulder in private practice, especially in the early years. Mr. Futch adds that many doctors view employment as a more stable option. “As the government changes reimbursement policies, the income from private practice fluctuates,” he said. “So many doctors worry that if they buy into a private practice, it is a risky endeavor.”

Hospitals aren’t always a sure bet in that regard, either: They go through tough financial times, lay off staff, or make salary cuts. Historically, however, employment tends to be the safer route, which can make it an attractive option.

Ultimately, the pros and cons of each scenario are individual. It’s up to physicians to do their own math and balance sheet before making a decision.

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

MILAN – The news about multiple sclerosis (MS) and child-bearing in women is largely good, a researcher told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting. Evidence suggests that MS doesn’t disrupt fertility, pregnancy, birth, or lactation. However, there are still uncertainties about the timing of medical treatment for MS before, during, and after pregnancy.

Epidemiologist Emmanuelle Leray, PhD, of French School of Public Health in Rennes, urged neurologists to not be too eager to take women off medication – or too slow to put them back on it. “MS should not be undertreated due to a desire for pregnancy, as there are several options that are possible and compatible with pregnancy,” she said. As for after pregnancy, when women face a well-known high risk of MS rebound, “we can reasonably assume that women with active MS need to be advised to restart rapid, highly effective DMT [disease-modifying therapy] soon after delivery,” she said.

Women are more likely than men to develop MS, and they often do so during child-bearing years. Pregnancy among women with MS has become more common over the years: A 2018 Neurology study examined U.S. data from 2006 to 2014 and reported that the annual adjusted proportion of women with MS and pregnancy increased from 7.91% to 9.47%.

While it appears that women with MS get pregnant less often than the age-matched general population, that “doesn’t mean that fertility is impaired. It probably rather reflects the impact of an early diagnosis of MS on associated consequences regarding psychological and physical impact,” Dr. Leray said. “Regarding pregnancy outcomes, there is no evidence of an increased risk of prematurity or adverse neonatal outcomes. That’s why we can assume that multiple sclerosis will not impact the course of pregnancy and does not make a pregnancy at-risk.”

But some treatments may be harmful to the fetus, she said. Teriflunomide must be stopped before pregnancy. Natalizumab and fingolimod-siponimod raise the risk of rebound, and alternate drugs should be considered before pregnancy. However, anti–CD 20 drugs and cladribine “may be a relevant option because their use before pregnancy may provide effective disease control without exposing the fetus or the baby.”

Should women be on MS drugs at all during pregnancy, a period when MS typically wanes? “The recommendation is to discontinue disease-modifying therapy before conception,” Dr. Leray said. “However, we know now that some DMTs can be used safely during pregnancy, especially injectables.” Specifically, beta interferon and glatiramer acetate can be used safely during pregnancy, she said.

The biggest hurdle comes after pregnancy, when women face a high risk of MS rebound. The relapse rate has fallen in recent years from about 30% to 11%-14%, Dr. Leray said, possibly because of the rise of more effective treatment. But the risk, she said, is still significant.

What can clinicians do to avert relapse? According to Dr. Leray, research has failed to support several possible alternatives to DMTs – high-dose corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, and hormonal treatment. “There was no evidence of efficacy of any of these strategies, both in randomized clinical trials and in real-world studies.”

For now, it seems best to restart DMTs as soon as possible after delivery, Dr. Leray said. She urged colleagues to keep in mind that it takes about 3 months for DMTs to reach full efficacy – and research suggests the highest risk of relapse is during the first 3 months after delivery. “That has to be taken into account in the therapeutic strategy,” she said.

Dr. Leray reports consulting/lecture/travel grants from Biogen, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, and Roche.

MILAN – The news about multiple sclerosis (MS) and child-bearing in women is largely good, a researcher told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting. Evidence suggests that MS doesn’t disrupt fertility, pregnancy, birth, or lactation. However, there are still uncertainties about the timing of medical treatment for MS before, during, and after pregnancy.

Epidemiologist Emmanuelle Leray, PhD, of French School of Public Health in Rennes, urged neurologists to not be too eager to take women off medication – or too slow to put them back on it. “MS should not be undertreated due to a desire for pregnancy, as there are several options that are possible and compatible with pregnancy,” she said. As for after pregnancy, when women face a well-known high risk of MS rebound, “we can reasonably assume that women with active MS need to be advised to restart rapid, highly effective DMT [disease-modifying therapy] soon after delivery,” she said.

Women are more likely than men to develop MS, and they often do so during child-bearing years. Pregnancy among women with MS has become more common over the years: A 2018 Neurology study examined U.S. data from 2006 to 2014 and reported that the annual adjusted proportion of women with MS and pregnancy increased from 7.91% to 9.47%.

While it appears that women with MS get pregnant less often than the age-matched general population, that “doesn’t mean that fertility is impaired. It probably rather reflects the impact of an early diagnosis of MS on associated consequences regarding psychological and physical impact,” Dr. Leray said. “Regarding pregnancy outcomes, there is no evidence of an increased risk of prematurity or adverse neonatal outcomes. That’s why we can assume that multiple sclerosis will not impact the course of pregnancy and does not make a pregnancy at-risk.”

But some treatments may be harmful to the fetus, she said. Teriflunomide must be stopped before pregnancy. Natalizumab and fingolimod-siponimod raise the risk of rebound, and alternate drugs should be considered before pregnancy. However, anti–CD 20 drugs and cladribine “may be a relevant option because their use before pregnancy may provide effective disease control without exposing the fetus or the baby.”

Should women be on MS drugs at all during pregnancy, a period when MS typically wanes? “The recommendation is to discontinue disease-modifying therapy before conception,” Dr. Leray said. “However, we know now that some DMTs can be used safely during pregnancy, especially injectables.” Specifically, beta interferon and glatiramer acetate can be used safely during pregnancy, she said.

The biggest hurdle comes after pregnancy, when women face a high risk of MS rebound. The relapse rate has fallen in recent years from about 30% to 11%-14%, Dr. Leray said, possibly because of the rise of more effective treatment. But the risk, she said, is still significant.

What can clinicians do to avert relapse? According to Dr. Leray, research has failed to support several possible alternatives to DMTs – high-dose corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, and hormonal treatment. “There was no evidence of efficacy of any of these strategies, both in randomized clinical trials and in real-world studies.”

For now, it seems best to restart DMTs as soon as possible after delivery, Dr. Leray said. She urged colleagues to keep in mind that it takes about 3 months for DMTs to reach full efficacy – and research suggests the highest risk of relapse is during the first 3 months after delivery. “That has to be taken into account in the therapeutic strategy,” she said.

Dr. Leray reports consulting/lecture/travel grants from Biogen, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, and Roche.

MILAN – The news about multiple sclerosis (MS) and child-bearing in women is largely good, a researcher told colleagues at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS Meeting. Evidence suggests that MS doesn’t disrupt fertility, pregnancy, birth, or lactation. However, there are still uncertainties about the timing of medical treatment for MS before, during, and after pregnancy.

Epidemiologist Emmanuelle Leray, PhD, of French School of Public Health in Rennes, urged neurologists to not be too eager to take women off medication – or too slow to put them back on it. “MS should not be undertreated due to a desire for pregnancy, as there are several options that are possible and compatible with pregnancy,” she said. As for after pregnancy, when women face a well-known high risk of MS rebound, “we can reasonably assume that women with active MS need to be advised to restart rapid, highly effective DMT [disease-modifying therapy] soon after delivery,” she said.

Women are more likely than men to develop MS, and they often do so during child-bearing years. Pregnancy among women with MS has become more common over the years: A 2018 Neurology study examined U.S. data from 2006 to 2014 and reported that the annual adjusted proportion of women with MS and pregnancy increased from 7.91% to 9.47%.

While it appears that women with MS get pregnant less often than the age-matched general population, that “doesn’t mean that fertility is impaired. It probably rather reflects the impact of an early diagnosis of MS on associated consequences regarding psychological and physical impact,” Dr. Leray said. “Regarding pregnancy outcomes, there is no evidence of an increased risk of prematurity or adverse neonatal outcomes. That’s why we can assume that multiple sclerosis will not impact the course of pregnancy and does not make a pregnancy at-risk.”

But some treatments may be harmful to the fetus, she said. Teriflunomide must be stopped before pregnancy. Natalizumab and fingolimod-siponimod raise the risk of rebound, and alternate drugs should be considered before pregnancy. However, anti–CD 20 drugs and cladribine “may be a relevant option because their use before pregnancy may provide effective disease control without exposing the fetus or the baby.”

Should women be on MS drugs at all during pregnancy, a period when MS typically wanes? “The recommendation is to discontinue disease-modifying therapy before conception,” Dr. Leray said. “However, we know now that some DMTs can be used safely during pregnancy, especially injectables.” Specifically, beta interferon and glatiramer acetate can be used safely during pregnancy, she said.

The biggest hurdle comes after pregnancy, when women face a high risk of MS rebound. The relapse rate has fallen in recent years from about 30% to 11%-14%, Dr. Leray said, possibly because of the rise of more effective treatment. But the risk, she said, is still significant.

What can clinicians do to avert relapse? According to Dr. Leray, research has failed to support several possible alternatives to DMTs – high-dose corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, and hormonal treatment. “There was no evidence of efficacy of any of these strategies, both in randomized clinical trials and in real-world studies.”

For now, it seems best to restart DMTs as soon as possible after delivery, Dr. Leray said. She urged colleagues to keep in mind that it takes about 3 months for DMTs to reach full efficacy – and research suggests the highest risk of relapse is during the first 3 months after delivery. “That has to be taken into account in the therapeutic strategy,” she said.

Dr. Leray reports consulting/lecture/travel grants from Biogen, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, and Roche.