Segmental rather than total colectomy may be a safe and effective choice for some patients with colonic Crohn’s disease (cCD), showing significantly lower rates of repeat surgery and reduced need for stoma, according to long-term data.

Gianluca Pellino, MD, with the department of advanced medical and surgical sciences, Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” in Naples, Italy, led the study, which was published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

CD of the colon has gotten less attention than the more prevalent small bowel disease, according to the authors, but it can be debilitating and permanently reduce quality of life. Isolated cCD incidence ranges between 14% and 32% of all CD cases from the start of disease. Historically, extensive resection has been linked with longer disease-free intervals, and reduced repeat surgeries compared with segmental resections. However, most of the data have included low-quality evidence and reports typically have not adequately considered the role of biologics or advances in perioperative management of patients with cCD, the authors wrote.

The Segmental Colectomy for Crohn’s disease (SCOTCH) international study included a retrospective analysis of data from six European Inflammatory Bowel Disease referral centers on patients operated on between 2000 and 2019 who had either segmental or total colectomy for cCD.

Among 687 patients (301 male; 386 female), segmental colectomy was performed in 285 (41.5%) of cases and total colectomy in 402 (58.5%). The 15-year surgical recurrence rate was 44% among patients who had TC and 27% for patients with segmental colectomy (P = .006).

The SCOTCH study found that segmental colectomy may be performed safely and effectively and reduce the need for stoma in cCD patients without increasing risk of repeat surgeries compared with total colectomy, which was the primary measure investigators studied.

The findings of this study also suggest that biologics, when used early and correctly, may allow more conservative options for cCD, with a fivefold reduction in surgical recurrence risk in patients who have one to three large bowel locations.

Morbidity and mortality were similar in the SC and TC groups.

Among the limitations of the study are that the total colectomy patients in the study had indications for total colectomy that were also higher risk factors for recurrence – for instance, perianal disease.

The authors wrote, “The differences between patients who underwent SC vs TC might have accounted for the choice of one treatment over the other. It is however difficult to obtain a homogenous population of cCD patients.” They also cite the difficulties in gathering enough patients for randomized trials.

“These findings need to be discussed with the patients, and the choice of operation should be individualised,” they concluded. “Multidisciplinary management of patients with cCD is of critical importance to achieve optimal long-term results of bowel-sparing approaches.”

Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not part of the study, told this publication the findings should be considered confirmatory rather than suggestive of practice change.

“If a patient has a limited segment of Crohn’s, for example ileocecal Crohn’s – a common phenotype – then the standard of care is a segmental resection and primary anastomosis,” he said. “If the patient has more extensive CD – perianal fistula, colonic-only CD – they’re more likely to undergo a total colectomy. This study confirms that.“

The authors and Dr. Regueiro declared no relevant financial relationships.

Segmental rather than total colectomy may be a safe and effective choice for some patients with colonic Crohn’s disease (cCD), showing significantly lower rates of repeat surgery and reduced need for stoma, according to long-term data.

Gianluca Pellino, MD, with the department of advanced medical and surgical sciences, Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” in Naples, Italy, led the study, which was published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

CD of the colon has gotten less attention than the more prevalent small bowel disease, according to the authors, but it can be debilitating and permanently reduce quality of life. Isolated cCD incidence ranges between 14% and 32% of all CD cases from the start of disease. Historically, extensive resection has been linked with longer disease-free intervals, and reduced repeat surgeries compared with segmental resections. However, most of the data have included low-quality evidence and reports typically have not adequately considered the role of biologics or advances in perioperative management of patients with cCD, the authors wrote.

The Segmental Colectomy for Crohn’s disease (SCOTCH) international study included a retrospective analysis of data from six European Inflammatory Bowel Disease referral centers on patients operated on between 2000 and 2019 who had either segmental or total colectomy for cCD.

Among 687 patients (301 male; 386 female), segmental colectomy was performed in 285 (41.5%) of cases and total colectomy in 402 (58.5%). The 15-year surgical recurrence rate was 44% among patients who had TC and 27% for patients with segmental colectomy (P = .006).

The SCOTCH study found that segmental colectomy may be performed safely and effectively and reduce the need for stoma in cCD patients without increasing risk of repeat surgeries compared with total colectomy, which was the primary measure investigators studied.

The findings of this study also suggest that biologics, when used early and correctly, may allow more conservative options for cCD, with a fivefold reduction in surgical recurrence risk in patients who have one to three large bowel locations.

Morbidity and mortality were similar in the SC and TC groups.

Among the limitations of the study are that the total colectomy patients in the study had indications for total colectomy that were also higher risk factors for recurrence – for instance, perianal disease.

The authors wrote, “The differences between patients who underwent SC vs TC might have accounted for the choice of one treatment over the other. It is however difficult to obtain a homogenous population of cCD patients.” They also cite the difficulties in gathering enough patients for randomized trials.

“These findings need to be discussed with the patients, and the choice of operation should be individualised,” they concluded. “Multidisciplinary management of patients with cCD is of critical importance to achieve optimal long-term results of bowel-sparing approaches.”

Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not part of the study, told this publication the findings should be considered confirmatory rather than suggestive of practice change.

“If a patient has a limited segment of Crohn’s, for example ileocecal Crohn’s – a common phenotype – then the standard of care is a segmental resection and primary anastomosis,” he said. “If the patient has more extensive CD – perianal fistula, colonic-only CD – they’re more likely to undergo a total colectomy. This study confirms that.“

The authors and Dr. Regueiro declared no relevant financial relationships.

Segmental rather than total colectomy may be a safe and effective choice for some patients with colonic Crohn’s disease (cCD), showing significantly lower rates of repeat surgery and reduced need for stoma, according to long-term data.

Gianluca Pellino, MD, with the department of advanced medical and surgical sciences, Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” in Naples, Italy, led the study, which was published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis.

CD of the colon has gotten less attention than the more prevalent small bowel disease, according to the authors, but it can be debilitating and permanently reduce quality of life. Isolated cCD incidence ranges between 14% and 32% of all CD cases from the start of disease. Historically, extensive resection has been linked with longer disease-free intervals, and reduced repeat surgeries compared with segmental resections. However, most of the data have included low-quality evidence and reports typically have not adequately considered the role of biologics or advances in perioperative management of patients with cCD, the authors wrote.

The Segmental Colectomy for Crohn’s disease (SCOTCH) international study included a retrospective analysis of data from six European Inflammatory Bowel Disease referral centers on patients operated on between 2000 and 2019 who had either segmental or total colectomy for cCD.

Among 687 patients (301 male; 386 female), segmental colectomy was performed in 285 (41.5%) of cases and total colectomy in 402 (58.5%). The 15-year surgical recurrence rate was 44% among patients who had TC and 27% for patients with segmental colectomy (P = .006).

The SCOTCH study found that segmental colectomy may be performed safely and effectively and reduce the need for stoma in cCD patients without increasing risk of repeat surgeries compared with total colectomy, which was the primary measure investigators studied.

The findings of this study also suggest that biologics, when used early and correctly, may allow more conservative options for cCD, with a fivefold reduction in surgical recurrence risk in patients who have one to three large bowel locations.

Morbidity and mortality were similar in the SC and TC groups.

Among the limitations of the study are that the total colectomy patients in the study had indications for total colectomy that were also higher risk factors for recurrence – for instance, perianal disease.

The authors wrote, “The differences between patients who underwent SC vs TC might have accounted for the choice of one treatment over the other. It is however difficult to obtain a homogenous population of cCD patients.” They also cite the difficulties in gathering enough patients for randomized trials.

“These findings need to be discussed with the patients, and the choice of operation should be individualised,” they concluded. “Multidisciplinary management of patients with cCD is of critical importance to achieve optimal long-term results of bowel-sparing approaches.”

Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not part of the study, told this publication the findings should be considered confirmatory rather than suggestive of practice change.

“If a patient has a limited segment of Crohn’s, for example ileocecal Crohn’s – a common phenotype – then the standard of care is a segmental resection and primary anastomosis,” he said. “If the patient has more extensive CD – perianal fistula, colonic-only CD – they’re more likely to undergo a total colectomy. This study confirms that.“

The authors and Dr. Regueiro declared no relevant financial relationships.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

The long-struggling field of cardiac xenotransplantation has had a very good year.

In January, the University of Maryland made history by keeping a 57-year-old man deemed too sick for a human heart transplant alive for 2 months with a genetically engineered pig heart. On July 12, New York University surgeons reported that heart function was “completely normal with excellent contractility” in two brain-dead patients with pig hearts beating in their chests for 72 hours.

NYU Langone Health

The NYU team approached the project with a decedent model in mind and, after discussions with their IRB equivalent, settled on a 72-hour window because that’s the time they typically keep people ventilated when trying to place their organs, explained Robert A. Montgomery, MD, DPhil, director of the NYU Langone Transplant Institute.

“There’s no real ethical argument for that,” he said in an interview. The consideration is what the family is willing to do when trying to balance doing “something very altruistic and good versus having closure.”

Some families have religious beliefs that burial or interment has to occur very rapidly, whereas others, including one of the family donors, were willing to have the research go on much longer, Dr. Montgomery said. Indeed, the next protocol is being written to consider maintaining the bodies for 2-4 weeks.

“People do vary and you have to kind of accommodate that variation,” he said. “For some people, this isn’t going to be what they’re going to want and that’s why you have to go through the consent process.”
 

Informed authorization

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at the NYU Langone Medical Center, said the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act recognizes an individual’s right to be an organ donor for transplant and research, but it “mentions nothing about maintaining you in a dead state artificially for research purposes.”

“It’s a major shift in what people are thinking about doing when they die or their relatives die,” he said.

Because organ donation is controlled at the state, not federal, level, the possibility of donating organs for xenotransplantation, like medical aid in dying, will vary between states, observed Dr. Caplan. The best way to ensure that patients whose organs are found to be unsuitable for transplantation have the option is to change state laws.

He noted that cases are already springing up where people are requesting postmortem sperm or egg donations without direct consents from the person who died. “So we have this new area opening up of handling the use of the dead body and we need to bring the law into sync with the possibilities that are out there.”

In terms of informed authorization (informed consent is reserved for the living), Dr. Caplan said there should be written evidence the person wanted to be a donor and, while not required by law, all survivors should give their permission and understand what’s going to be done in terms of the experiment, such as the use of animal parts, when the body will be returned, and the possibility of zoonotic viral infection.

“They have to fully accept that the person is dead and we’re just maintaining them artificially,” he said. “There’s no maintaining anyone who’s alive. That’s a source of a lot of confusion.”

Special committees also need to be appointed with voices from people in organ procurement, law, theology, and patient groups to monitor practice to ensure people who have given permission understood the process, that families have their questions answered independent of the research team, and that clear limits are set on how long experiments will last.

As to what those limits should be: “I think in terms of a week or 2,” Dr. Caplan said. “Obviously we could maintain bodies longer and people have. But I think, culturally in our society, going much past that starts to perhaps stress emotionally, psychologically, family and friends about getting closure.”

“I’m not as comfortable when people say things like, ‘How about 2 months?’ ” he said. “That’s a long time to sort of accept the fact that somebody has died but you can’t complete all the things that go along with the death.”

Dr. Caplan is also uncomfortable with the use of one-off emergency authorizations, as used for Maryland resident David Bennett Sr., who was rejected for standard heart transplantation and required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive.

“It’s too premature, I believe, even to try and rescue someone,” he said. “We need to learn more from the deceased models.”
 

A better model

Dr. Montgomery noted that primates are very imperfect models for predicting what’s going to happen in humans, and that in order to do xenotransplantation in living humans, there are only two pathways – the one-off emergency authorization or a clinical phase 1 trial.

The decedent model, he said, “will make human trials safer because it’s an intermediate step. You don’t have a living human’s life on the line when you’re trying to do iterative changes and improve the procedure.”

Joe Carrotta for NYU Langone Health

The team, for example, omitted a perfusion pump that was used in the Maryland case and would likely have made its way into phase 1 trials based on baboon data that suggested it was important to have the heart on the pump for hours before it was transplanted, he said. “We didn’t do any of that. We just did it like we would do a regular heart transplant and it started right up, immediately, and started to work.”

The researchers did not release details on the immunosuppression regimen, but noted that, unlike Maryland, they also did not use the experimental anti-CD40 antibody to tamp down the recipients’ immune system.

Although Mr. Bennett’s autopsy did not show any conventional sign of graft rejection, the transplanted pig heart was infected with porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) and Mr. Bennett showed traces of DNA from PCMV in his circulation.
 

Nailing down safety

Dr. Montgomery said he wouldn’t rule out xenotransplantation in a living human, but that the safety issues need to be nailed down. “I think that the tests used on the pig that was the donor for the Bennett case were not sensitive enough for latent virus, and that’s how it slipped through. So there was a bit of going back to the drawing board, really looking at each of the tests, and being sure we had the sensitivity to pick up a latent virus.”

He noted that United Therapeutics, which funded the research and provided the engineered pigs through its subsidiary Revivicor, has created and validated a more sensitive polymerase chain reaction test that covers some 35 different pathogens, microbes, and parasites. NYU has also developed its own platform to repeat the testing and for monitoring after the transplant. “The ones that we’re currently using would have picked up the virus.”

Stuart Russell, MD, a professor of medicine who specializes in advanced HF at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said “the biggest thing from my perspective is those two amazing families that were willing let this happen. ... If 20 years from now, this is what we’re doing, it’s related to these families being this generous at a really tough time in their lives.”

Dr. Russell said he awaits publication of the data on what the pathology of the heart looks like, but that the experiments “help to give us a lot of reassurance that we don’t need to worry about hyperacute rejection,” which by definition is going to happen in the first 24-48 hours.

That said, longer-term data is essential to potential safety issues. Notably, among the 10 genetic modifications made to the pigs, four were porcine gene knockouts, including a growth hormone receptor knockout to prevent abnormal organ growth inside the recipient’s chest. As a result, the organs seem to be small for the age of the pig and just don’t grow that well, admitted Dr. Montgomery, who said they are currently analyzing this with echocardiography.

Dr. Russell said this may create a sizing issue, but also “if you have a heart that’s more stressed in the pig, from the point of being a donor, maybe it’s not as good a heart as if it was growing normally. But that kind of stuff, I think, is going to take more than two cases and longer-term data to sort out.”

Sharon Hunt, MD, professor emerita, Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, and past president of the International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation, said it’s not the technical aspects, but the biology of xenotransplantation that’s really daunting.

“It’s not the physical act of doing it, like they needed a bigger heart or a smaller heart. Those are technical problems but they’ll manage them,” she said. “The big problem is biological – and the bottom line is we don’t really know. We may have overcome hyperacute rejection, which is great, but the rest remains to be seen.”

Dr. Hunt, who worked with heart transplantation pioneer Norman Shumway, MD, and spent decades caring for patients after transplantation, said most families will consent to 24 or 48 hours or even a week of experimentation on a brain-dead loved one, but what the transplant community wants to know is whether this is workable for many months.

“So the fact that the xenotransplant works for 72 hours, yeah, that’s groovy. But, you know, the answer is kind of ‘so what,’ ” she said. “I’d like to see this go for months, like they were trying to do in the human in Maryland.”

For phase 1 trials, even longer-term survival with or without rejection or with rejection that’s treatable is needed, Dr. Hunt suggested.

“We haven’t seen that yet. The Maryland people were very valiant but they lost the cause,” she said. “There’s just so much more to do before we have a viable model to start anything like a phase 1 trial. I’d love it if that happens in my lifetime, but I’m not sure it’s going to.”

Dr. Russell and Dr. Hunt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

The long-struggling field of cardiac xenotransplantation has had a very good year.

In January, the University of Maryland made history by keeping a 57-year-old man deemed too sick for a human heart transplant alive for 2 months with a genetically engineered pig heart. On July 12, New York University surgeons reported that heart function was “completely normal with excellent contractility” in two brain-dead patients with pig hearts beating in their chests for 72 hours.

NYU Langone Health

The NYU team approached the project with a decedent model in mind and, after discussions with their IRB equivalent, settled on a 72-hour window because that’s the time they typically keep people ventilated when trying to place their organs, explained Robert A. Montgomery, MD, DPhil, director of the NYU Langone Transplant Institute.

“There’s no real ethical argument for that,” he said in an interview. The consideration is what the family is willing to do when trying to balance doing “something very altruistic and good versus having closure.”

Some families have religious beliefs that burial or interment has to occur very rapidly, whereas others, including one of the family donors, were willing to have the research go on much longer, Dr. Montgomery said. Indeed, the next protocol is being written to consider maintaining the bodies for 2-4 weeks.

“People do vary and you have to kind of accommodate that variation,” he said. “For some people, this isn’t going to be what they’re going to want and that’s why you have to go through the consent process.”
 

Informed authorization

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at the NYU Langone Medical Center, said the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act recognizes an individual’s right to be an organ donor for transplant and research, but it “mentions nothing about maintaining you in a dead state artificially for research purposes.”

“It’s a major shift in what people are thinking about doing when they die or their relatives die,” he said.

Because organ donation is controlled at the state, not federal, level, the possibility of donating organs for xenotransplantation, like medical aid in dying, will vary between states, observed Dr. Caplan. The best way to ensure that patients whose organs are found to be unsuitable for transplantation have the option is to change state laws.

He noted that cases are already springing up where people are requesting postmortem sperm or egg donations without direct consents from the person who died. “So we have this new area opening up of handling the use of the dead body and we need to bring the law into sync with the possibilities that are out there.”

In terms of informed authorization (informed consent is reserved for the living), Dr. Caplan said there should be written evidence the person wanted to be a donor and, while not required by law, all survivors should give their permission and understand what’s going to be done in terms of the experiment, such as the use of animal parts, when the body will be returned, and the possibility of zoonotic viral infection.

“They have to fully accept that the person is dead and we’re just maintaining them artificially,” he said. “There’s no maintaining anyone who’s alive. That’s a source of a lot of confusion.”

Special committees also need to be appointed with voices from people in organ procurement, law, theology, and patient groups to monitor practice to ensure people who have given permission understood the process, that families have their questions answered independent of the research team, and that clear limits are set on how long experiments will last.

As to what those limits should be: “I think in terms of a week or 2,” Dr. Caplan said. “Obviously we could maintain bodies longer and people have. But I think, culturally in our society, going much past that starts to perhaps stress emotionally, psychologically, family and friends about getting closure.”

“I’m not as comfortable when people say things like, ‘How about 2 months?’ ” he said. “That’s a long time to sort of accept the fact that somebody has died but you can’t complete all the things that go along with the death.”

Dr. Caplan is also uncomfortable with the use of one-off emergency authorizations, as used for Maryland resident David Bennett Sr., who was rejected for standard heart transplantation and required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive.

“It’s too premature, I believe, even to try and rescue someone,” he said. “We need to learn more from the deceased models.”
 

A better model

Dr. Montgomery noted that primates are very imperfect models for predicting what’s going to happen in humans, and that in order to do xenotransplantation in living humans, there are only two pathways – the one-off emergency authorization or a clinical phase 1 trial.

The decedent model, he said, “will make human trials safer because it’s an intermediate step. You don’t have a living human’s life on the line when you’re trying to do iterative changes and improve the procedure.”

Joe Carrotta for NYU Langone Health

The team, for example, omitted a perfusion pump that was used in the Maryland case and would likely have made its way into phase 1 trials based on baboon data that suggested it was important to have the heart on the pump for hours before it was transplanted, he said. “We didn’t do any of that. We just did it like we would do a regular heart transplant and it started right up, immediately, and started to work.”

The researchers did not release details on the immunosuppression regimen, but noted that, unlike Maryland, they also did not use the experimental anti-CD40 antibody to tamp down the recipients’ immune system.

Although Mr. Bennett’s autopsy did not show any conventional sign of graft rejection, the transplanted pig heart was infected with porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) and Mr. Bennett showed traces of DNA from PCMV in his circulation.
 

Nailing down safety

Dr. Montgomery said he wouldn’t rule out xenotransplantation in a living human, but that the safety issues need to be nailed down. “I think that the tests used on the pig that was the donor for the Bennett case were not sensitive enough for latent virus, and that’s how it slipped through. So there was a bit of going back to the drawing board, really looking at each of the tests, and being sure we had the sensitivity to pick up a latent virus.”

He noted that United Therapeutics, which funded the research and provided the engineered pigs through its subsidiary Revivicor, has created and validated a more sensitive polymerase chain reaction test that covers some 35 different pathogens, microbes, and parasites. NYU has also developed its own platform to repeat the testing and for monitoring after the transplant. “The ones that we’re currently using would have picked up the virus.”

Stuart Russell, MD, a professor of medicine who specializes in advanced HF at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said “the biggest thing from my perspective is those two amazing families that were willing let this happen. ... If 20 years from now, this is what we’re doing, it’s related to these families being this generous at a really tough time in their lives.”

Dr. Russell said he awaits publication of the data on what the pathology of the heart looks like, but that the experiments “help to give us a lot of reassurance that we don’t need to worry about hyperacute rejection,” which by definition is going to happen in the first 24-48 hours.

That said, longer-term data is essential to potential safety issues. Notably, among the 10 genetic modifications made to the pigs, four were porcine gene knockouts, including a growth hormone receptor knockout to prevent abnormal organ growth inside the recipient’s chest. As a result, the organs seem to be small for the age of the pig and just don’t grow that well, admitted Dr. Montgomery, who said they are currently analyzing this with echocardiography.

Dr. Russell said this may create a sizing issue, but also “if you have a heart that’s more stressed in the pig, from the point of being a donor, maybe it’s not as good a heart as if it was growing normally. But that kind of stuff, I think, is going to take more than two cases and longer-term data to sort out.”

Sharon Hunt, MD, professor emerita, Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, and past president of the International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation, said it’s not the technical aspects, but the biology of xenotransplantation that’s really daunting.

“It’s not the physical act of doing it, like they needed a bigger heart or a smaller heart. Those are technical problems but they’ll manage them,” she said. “The big problem is biological – and the bottom line is we don’t really know. We may have overcome hyperacute rejection, which is great, but the rest remains to be seen.”

Dr. Hunt, who worked with heart transplantation pioneer Norman Shumway, MD, and spent decades caring for patients after transplantation, said most families will consent to 24 or 48 hours or even a week of experimentation on a brain-dead loved one, but what the transplant community wants to know is whether this is workable for many months.

“So the fact that the xenotransplant works for 72 hours, yeah, that’s groovy. But, you know, the answer is kind of ‘so what,’ ” she said. “I’d like to see this go for months, like they were trying to do in the human in Maryland.”

For phase 1 trials, even longer-term survival with or without rejection or with rejection that’s treatable is needed, Dr. Hunt suggested.

“We haven’t seen that yet. The Maryland people were very valiant but they lost the cause,” she said. “There’s just so much more to do before we have a viable model to start anything like a phase 1 trial. I’d love it if that happens in my lifetime, but I’m not sure it’s going to.”

Dr. Russell and Dr. Hunt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

The long-struggling field of cardiac xenotransplantation has had a very good year.

In January, the University of Maryland made history by keeping a 57-year-old man deemed too sick for a human heart transplant alive for 2 months with a genetically engineered pig heart. On July 12, New York University surgeons reported that heart function was “completely normal with excellent contractility” in two brain-dead patients with pig hearts beating in their chests for 72 hours.

NYU Langone Health

The NYU team approached the project with a decedent model in mind and, after discussions with their IRB equivalent, settled on a 72-hour window because that’s the time they typically keep people ventilated when trying to place their organs, explained Robert A. Montgomery, MD, DPhil, director of the NYU Langone Transplant Institute.

“There’s no real ethical argument for that,” he said in an interview. The consideration is what the family is willing to do when trying to balance doing “something very altruistic and good versus having closure.”

Some families have religious beliefs that burial or interment has to occur very rapidly, whereas others, including one of the family donors, were willing to have the research go on much longer, Dr. Montgomery said. Indeed, the next protocol is being written to consider maintaining the bodies for 2-4 weeks.

“People do vary and you have to kind of accommodate that variation,” he said. “For some people, this isn’t going to be what they’re going to want and that’s why you have to go through the consent process.”
 

Informed authorization

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at the NYU Langone Medical Center, said the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act recognizes an individual’s right to be an organ donor for transplant and research, but it “mentions nothing about maintaining you in a dead state artificially for research purposes.”

“It’s a major shift in what people are thinking about doing when they die or their relatives die,” he said.

Because organ donation is controlled at the state, not federal, level, the possibility of donating organs for xenotransplantation, like medical aid in dying, will vary between states, observed Dr. Caplan. The best way to ensure that patients whose organs are found to be unsuitable for transplantation have the option is to change state laws.

He noted that cases are already springing up where people are requesting postmortem sperm or egg donations without direct consents from the person who died. “So we have this new area opening up of handling the use of the dead body and we need to bring the law into sync with the possibilities that are out there.”

In terms of informed authorization (informed consent is reserved for the living), Dr. Caplan said there should be written evidence the person wanted to be a donor and, while not required by law, all survivors should give their permission and understand what’s going to be done in terms of the experiment, such as the use of animal parts, when the body will be returned, and the possibility of zoonotic viral infection.

“They have to fully accept that the person is dead and we’re just maintaining them artificially,” he said. “There’s no maintaining anyone who’s alive. That’s a source of a lot of confusion.”

Special committees also need to be appointed with voices from people in organ procurement, law, theology, and patient groups to monitor practice to ensure people who have given permission understood the process, that families have their questions answered independent of the research team, and that clear limits are set on how long experiments will last.

As to what those limits should be: “I think in terms of a week or 2,” Dr. Caplan said. “Obviously we could maintain bodies longer and people have. But I think, culturally in our society, going much past that starts to perhaps stress emotionally, psychologically, family and friends about getting closure.”

“I’m not as comfortable when people say things like, ‘How about 2 months?’ ” he said. “That’s a long time to sort of accept the fact that somebody has died but you can’t complete all the things that go along with the death.”

Dr. Caplan is also uncomfortable with the use of one-off emergency authorizations, as used for Maryland resident David Bennett Sr., who was rejected for standard heart transplantation and required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive.

“It’s too premature, I believe, even to try and rescue someone,” he said. “We need to learn more from the deceased models.”
 

A better model

Dr. Montgomery noted that primates are very imperfect models for predicting what’s going to happen in humans, and that in order to do xenotransplantation in living humans, there are only two pathways – the one-off emergency authorization or a clinical phase 1 trial.

The decedent model, he said, “will make human trials safer because it’s an intermediate step. You don’t have a living human’s life on the line when you’re trying to do iterative changes and improve the procedure.”

Joe Carrotta for NYU Langone Health

The team, for example, omitted a perfusion pump that was used in the Maryland case and would likely have made its way into phase 1 trials based on baboon data that suggested it was important to have the heart on the pump for hours before it was transplanted, he said. “We didn’t do any of that. We just did it like we would do a regular heart transplant and it started right up, immediately, and started to work.”

The researchers did not release details on the immunosuppression regimen, but noted that, unlike Maryland, they also did not use the experimental anti-CD40 antibody to tamp down the recipients’ immune system.

Although Mr. Bennett’s autopsy did not show any conventional sign of graft rejection, the transplanted pig heart was infected with porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) and Mr. Bennett showed traces of DNA from PCMV in his circulation.
 

Nailing down safety

Dr. Montgomery said he wouldn’t rule out xenotransplantation in a living human, but that the safety issues need to be nailed down. “I think that the tests used on the pig that was the donor for the Bennett case were not sensitive enough for latent virus, and that’s how it slipped through. So there was a bit of going back to the drawing board, really looking at each of the tests, and being sure we had the sensitivity to pick up a latent virus.”

He noted that United Therapeutics, which funded the research and provided the engineered pigs through its subsidiary Revivicor, has created and validated a more sensitive polymerase chain reaction test that covers some 35 different pathogens, microbes, and parasites. NYU has also developed its own platform to repeat the testing and for monitoring after the transplant. “The ones that we’re currently using would have picked up the virus.”

Stuart Russell, MD, a professor of medicine who specializes in advanced HF at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said “the biggest thing from my perspective is those two amazing families that were willing let this happen. ... If 20 years from now, this is what we’re doing, it’s related to these families being this generous at a really tough time in their lives.”

Dr. Russell said he awaits publication of the data on what the pathology of the heart looks like, but that the experiments “help to give us a lot of reassurance that we don’t need to worry about hyperacute rejection,” which by definition is going to happen in the first 24-48 hours.

That said, longer-term data is essential to potential safety issues. Notably, among the 10 genetic modifications made to the pigs, four were porcine gene knockouts, including a growth hormone receptor knockout to prevent abnormal organ growth inside the recipient’s chest. As a result, the organs seem to be small for the age of the pig and just don’t grow that well, admitted Dr. Montgomery, who said they are currently analyzing this with echocardiography.

Dr. Russell said this may create a sizing issue, but also “if you have a heart that’s more stressed in the pig, from the point of being a donor, maybe it’s not as good a heart as if it was growing normally. But that kind of stuff, I think, is going to take more than two cases and longer-term data to sort out.”

Sharon Hunt, MD, professor emerita, Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, and past president of the International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation, said it’s not the technical aspects, but the biology of xenotransplantation that’s really daunting.

“It’s not the physical act of doing it, like they needed a bigger heart or a smaller heart. Those are technical problems but they’ll manage them,” she said. “The big problem is biological – and the bottom line is we don’t really know. We may have overcome hyperacute rejection, which is great, but the rest remains to be seen.”

Dr. Hunt, who worked with heart transplantation pioneer Norman Shumway, MD, and spent decades caring for patients after transplantation, said most families will consent to 24 or 48 hours or even a week of experimentation on a brain-dead loved one, but what the transplant community wants to know is whether this is workable for many months.

“So the fact that the xenotransplant works for 72 hours, yeah, that’s groovy. But, you know, the answer is kind of ‘so what,’ ” she said. “I’d like to see this go for months, like they were trying to do in the human in Maryland.”

For phase 1 trials, even longer-term survival with or without rejection or with rejection that’s treatable is needed, Dr. Hunt suggested.

“We haven’t seen that yet. The Maryland people were very valiant but they lost the cause,” she said. “There’s just so much more to do before we have a viable model to start anything like a phase 1 trial. I’d love it if that happens in my lifetime, but I’m not sure it’s going to.”

Dr. Russell and Dr. Hunt reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan reported serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

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

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

Ten years ago, Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, plunged into an unexplored area of pediatric cancer treatment with a 6-year-old patient for whom every treatment available for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) had been exhausted.

Dr. Grupp, a pioneer in cellular immunotherapy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, had just got the green light to launch the first phase 1 trial of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for children.

“The trial opened at the absolute last possible moment that it could have been helpful to her,” he said in an interview. “There was nothing else to do to temporize her further. ... It had to open then or never.”

The patient was Emily Whitehead, who has since become a poster girl for the dramatic results that can be achieved with these novel therapies. After that one CAR T-cell treatment back in 2012, she has been free of her leukemia and has remained in remission for more than 10 years.

Dr. Grupp said that he is, at last, starting to use the “cure” word.

“I’m not just a doctor, I’m a scientist – and one case isn’t enough to have confidence about anything,” he said. “We wanted more patients to be out longer to be able to say that thing which we have for a long time called the ‘c word.’

“CAR T-cell therapy has now been given to hundreds of patients at CHOP, and – we are unique in this – we have a couple dozen patients who are 5, 6, 7, 9 years out or more without further therapy. That feels like a cure to me,” he commented.
 

First patient with ALL

Emily was the first patient with ALL to receive the novel treatment, and also the first child.

There was a precedent, however. After having been “stuck” for decades, the CAR T-cell field had recently made a breakthrough, thanks to research by Dr. Grupp’s colleague Carl June, MD, and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. By tweaking two key steps in the genetic modification of T cells, Dr. June’s team had successfully treated three adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two of whom were in complete remission.

But using the treatment for a child and for a different type of leukemia was a daunting prospect. Dr. Grupp said that he was candid with Emily’s parents, Tom and Kari Whitehead, emphasizing that there are no guarantees in cancer treatment, particularly in a phase 1 trial.

But the Whiteheads had no time to waste and nowhere else to turn. Her father, Tom, recalled saying: “This is something outside the box, this is going to give her a chance.”

Dr. Grupp, who described himself as being “on the cowboy end” of oncology care, was ready to take the plunge.

Little did any of them know that the treatment would make Emily even sicker than she already was, putting her in intensive care. But thanks to a combination of several lucky breaks and a lot of brain power, she would make a breathtakingly rapid recovery.
 

The ‘magic formula’

CAR T-cell therapy involves harvesting a patient’s T cells and modifying them in the lab with a chimeric antigen receptor to target CD19, a protein found on the surface of ALL cancer cells.

Before the University of Pennsylvania team tweaked the process, clinical trials of the therapy yielded only modest results because the modified T cells “were very powerful in the short term but had almost no proliferative capacity” once they were infused back into the patient, Dr. Grupp explained.

“It does not matter how many cells you give to a patient, what matters is that the cells grow in the patient to the level needed to control the leukemia,” he said.

Dr. June’s team came up with what Dr. Grupp calls “the magic formula”: A bead-based manufacturing process that produced younger T-cell phenotypes with “enormous” proliferative capacity, and a lentiviral approach to the genetic modification, enabling prolonged expression of the CAR-T molecule.

“Was it rogue? Absolutely, positively not,” said Dr. Grupp, thinking back to the day he enrolled Emily in the trial. “Was it risky? Obviously ... we all dived into this pool without knowing what was under the water, so I would say, rogue, no, risky, yes. And I would say we didn’t know nearly enough about the risks.”
 

Cytokine storm

The gravest risk that Dr. Grupp and his team encountered was something they had not anticipated. At the time, they had no name for it.

The three adults with CLL who had received CAR T-cell therapy had experienced a mild version that the researchers referred to as “tumor lysis syndrome”.

But for Emily, on day 3 of her CAR T-cell infusion, there was a ferocious reaction storm that later came to be called cytokine release syndrome.

“The wheels just came off then,” said Mr. Whitehead. “I remember her blood pressure was 53 over 29. They took her to the ICU, induced a coma, and put her on a ventilator. It was brutal to watch. The oscillatory ventilator just pounds on you, and there was blood bubbling out around the hose in her mouth.

“I remember the third or fourth night, a doctor took me in the hallway and said, ‘There’s a one-in-a-thousand chance your daughter is alive when the sun comes up,’” Mr. Whitehead said in an interview. “And I said: ‘All right, I’ll see you at rounds tomorrow, because she’ll still be here.’ ”

“We had some vague notion of toxicity ... but it turned out not nearly enough,” said Dr. Grupp. The ICU “worked flat out” to save her life. “They had deployed everything they had to keep a human being alive and they had nothing more to add. At some point, you run out of things that you can do, and we had run out.”
 

On the fly

It was then that the team ran into some good luck. The first break was when they decided to look at her cytokines. “Our whole knowledge base came together in the moment, on the fly, at the exact moment when Emily was so very sick,” he recalled. “Could we get the result fast enough? The lab dropped everything to run the test.”

They ordered a broad cytokine panel that included 30 analytes. The results showed that a number of cytokines “were just unbelievably elevated,” he said. Among them was interleukin-6.

“IL-6 isn’t even made by T cells, so nobody in the world would have guessed that this would have mattered. If we’d ordered a smaller panel, it might not even have been on it. Yet this was the one cytokine we had a drug for – tocilizumab – so that was chance. And then, another chance was that the drug was at the hospital, because there are rheumatology patients who get it.

“So, we went from making the determination that IL-6 was high and figuring out there was a drug for it at 3:00 o’clock to giving the drug to her at 8:00 o’clock, and then her clinical situation turned around so quickly – I mean hours later.”

Emily woke up from a 14-day medically induced coma on her seventh birthday.

Eight days later, her bone marrow showed complete remission. “The doctors said, ‘We’ve never seen anyone this sick get better any faster,’ ” Mr. Whitehead said.

She had already been through a battery of treatments for her leukemia. “It was 22 months of failed, standard treatment, and then just 23 days after they gave her the first dose of CAR T-cells that she was cancer free,” he added.
 

Talking about ‘cure’

Now that Emily, 17, has remained in remission for 10 years, Dr. Grupp is finally willing to use the word “cure” – but it has taken him a long time.

Now, he says, the challenge from the bedside is to keep parents’ and patients’ expectations realistic about what they see as a miracle cure.

“It’s not a miracle. We can get patients into remission 90-plus percent of the time – but some patients do relapse – and then there are the risks [of the cytokine storm, which can be life-threatening].

“Right now, our experience is that about 12% of patients end up in the ICU, but they hardly ever end up as sick as Emily ... because now we’re giving the tocilizumab much earlier,” Dr. Grupp said.
 

Hearing whispers

Since their daughter’s recovery, Tom and Kari Whitehead have dedicated much of their time to spreading the word about the treatment that saved Emily’s life. Mr. Whitehead testified at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee meeting in 2017 when approval was being considered for the CAR T-cell product that Emily received. The product was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis); at that meeting, there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. This was the first CAR T cell to reach the market.

As cofounders of the Emily Whitehead Foundation, Emily’s parents have helped raise more than $2 million to support research in the field, and they travel around the world telling their story to “move this revolution forward.”

Despite their fierce belief in the science that saved Emily, they also acknowledge there was luck – and faith. Early in their journey, when Emily experienced relapse after her initial treatments, Mr. Whitehead drew comfort from two visions, which he calls “whispers,” that guided them through several forks in the road and through tough decisions about Emily’s treatment.

Several times the parents refused treatment that was offered to Emily, and once they had her discharged against medical advice. “I told Kari she’s definitely going to beat her cancer – I saw it. I don’t know how it’s going to happen, but we’re going to be in the bone marrow transplant hallway [at CHOP] teaching her to walk again. I know a lot of doctors don’t want to hear anything about ‘a sign,’ or what guided us, but I don’t think you have to separate faith and science, I think it takes everything to make something like this to happen.”
 

Enduring effect

The key to the CAR T-cell breakthrough that gave rise to Emily’s therapy was cell proliferation, and the effect is enduring, beyond all expectations, said Dr. Grupp. The modified T cells are still detectable in Emily and other patients in long-term remission.

“The fundamental question is, are the cells still working, or are the patients cured and they don’t need them?” said Dr. Grupp. “I think it’s the latter. The data that we have from several large datasets that we developed with Novartis are that, if you get to a year and your minimal residual disease testing both by flow and by next-generation sequencing is negative and you still have B-cell aplasia, the relapse risk is close to zero at that point.”

While it’s still not clear if and when that risk will ever get to zero, Emily and Dr. Grupp have successfully closed the chapter.

“Oncologists have different notions of what the word ‘cure’ means. If your attitude is you’re not cured until you’ve basically reached the end of your life and you haven’t relapsed, well, that’s an impossible bar to hit. My attitude is, if your likelihood of having a disease recurrence is lower than the other risks in your life, like getting into your car and driving to your appointment, then that’s what a functional cure looks like,” he said.

“I’m probably the doctor that still sees her the most, but honestly, the whole conversation is not about leukemia at all. She has B-cell aplasia, so we have to treat that, and then it’s about making sure there’s no long-term side effects from the totality of her treatment. Generally, for a patient who’s gotten a moderate amount of chemotherapy and CAR T, that should not interfere with fertility. Has any patient in the history of the world ever relapsed more than 5 years out from their therapy? Of course. Is that incredibly rare? Yes, it is. You can be paralyzed by that, or you can compartmentalize it.”

As for the Whiteheads, they are focused on Emily’s college applications, her new driver’s license, and her project to cowrite a film about her story with a Hollywood filmmaker.

Mr. Whitehead said the one thing he hopes clinicians take away from their story is that sometimes a parent’s instinct transcends science.

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

Ten years ago, Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, plunged into an unexplored area of pediatric cancer treatment with a 6-year-old patient for whom every treatment available for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) had been exhausted.

Dr. Grupp, a pioneer in cellular immunotherapy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, had just got the green light to launch the first phase 1 trial of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for children.

“The trial opened at the absolute last possible moment that it could have been helpful to her,” he said in an interview. “There was nothing else to do to temporize her further. ... It had to open then or never.”

The patient was Emily Whitehead, who has since become a poster girl for the dramatic results that can be achieved with these novel therapies. After that one CAR T-cell treatment back in 2012, she has been free of her leukemia and has remained in remission for more than 10 years.

Dr. Grupp said that he is, at last, starting to use the “cure” word.

“I’m not just a doctor, I’m a scientist – and one case isn’t enough to have confidence about anything,” he said. “We wanted more patients to be out longer to be able to say that thing which we have for a long time called the ‘c word.’

“CAR T-cell therapy has now been given to hundreds of patients at CHOP, and – we are unique in this – we have a couple dozen patients who are 5, 6, 7, 9 years out or more without further therapy. That feels like a cure to me,” he commented.
 

First patient with ALL

Emily was the first patient with ALL to receive the novel treatment, and also the first child.

There was a precedent, however. After having been “stuck” for decades, the CAR T-cell field had recently made a breakthrough, thanks to research by Dr. Grupp’s colleague Carl June, MD, and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. By tweaking two key steps in the genetic modification of T cells, Dr. June’s team had successfully treated three adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two of whom were in complete remission.

But using the treatment for a child and for a different type of leukemia was a daunting prospect. Dr. Grupp said that he was candid with Emily’s parents, Tom and Kari Whitehead, emphasizing that there are no guarantees in cancer treatment, particularly in a phase 1 trial.

But the Whiteheads had no time to waste and nowhere else to turn. Her father, Tom, recalled saying: “This is something outside the box, this is going to give her a chance.”

Dr. Grupp, who described himself as being “on the cowboy end” of oncology care, was ready to take the plunge.

Little did any of them know that the treatment would make Emily even sicker than she already was, putting her in intensive care. But thanks to a combination of several lucky breaks and a lot of brain power, she would make a breathtakingly rapid recovery.
 

The ‘magic formula’

CAR T-cell therapy involves harvesting a patient’s T cells and modifying them in the lab with a chimeric antigen receptor to target CD19, a protein found on the surface of ALL cancer cells.

Before the University of Pennsylvania team tweaked the process, clinical trials of the therapy yielded only modest results because the modified T cells “were very powerful in the short term but had almost no proliferative capacity” once they were infused back into the patient, Dr. Grupp explained.

“It does not matter how many cells you give to a patient, what matters is that the cells grow in the patient to the level needed to control the leukemia,” he said.

Dr. June’s team came up with what Dr. Grupp calls “the magic formula”: A bead-based manufacturing process that produced younger T-cell phenotypes with “enormous” proliferative capacity, and a lentiviral approach to the genetic modification, enabling prolonged expression of the CAR-T molecule.

“Was it rogue? Absolutely, positively not,” said Dr. Grupp, thinking back to the day he enrolled Emily in the trial. “Was it risky? Obviously ... we all dived into this pool without knowing what was under the water, so I would say, rogue, no, risky, yes. And I would say we didn’t know nearly enough about the risks.”
 

Cytokine storm

The gravest risk that Dr. Grupp and his team encountered was something they had not anticipated. At the time, they had no name for it.

The three adults with CLL who had received CAR T-cell therapy had experienced a mild version that the researchers referred to as “tumor lysis syndrome”.

But for Emily, on day 3 of her CAR T-cell infusion, there was a ferocious reaction storm that later came to be called cytokine release syndrome.

“The wheels just came off then,” said Mr. Whitehead. “I remember her blood pressure was 53 over 29. They took her to the ICU, induced a coma, and put her on a ventilator. It was brutal to watch. The oscillatory ventilator just pounds on you, and there was blood bubbling out around the hose in her mouth.

“I remember the third or fourth night, a doctor took me in the hallway and said, ‘There’s a one-in-a-thousand chance your daughter is alive when the sun comes up,’” Mr. Whitehead said in an interview. “And I said: ‘All right, I’ll see you at rounds tomorrow, because she’ll still be here.’ ”

“We had some vague notion of toxicity ... but it turned out not nearly enough,” said Dr. Grupp. The ICU “worked flat out” to save her life. “They had deployed everything they had to keep a human being alive and they had nothing more to add. At some point, you run out of things that you can do, and we had run out.”
 

On the fly

It was then that the team ran into some good luck. The first break was when they decided to look at her cytokines. “Our whole knowledge base came together in the moment, on the fly, at the exact moment when Emily was so very sick,” he recalled. “Could we get the result fast enough? The lab dropped everything to run the test.”

They ordered a broad cytokine panel that included 30 analytes. The results showed that a number of cytokines “were just unbelievably elevated,” he said. Among them was interleukin-6.

“IL-6 isn’t even made by T cells, so nobody in the world would have guessed that this would have mattered. If we’d ordered a smaller panel, it might not even have been on it. Yet this was the one cytokine we had a drug for – tocilizumab – so that was chance. And then, another chance was that the drug was at the hospital, because there are rheumatology patients who get it.

“So, we went from making the determination that IL-6 was high and figuring out there was a drug for it at 3:00 o’clock to giving the drug to her at 8:00 o’clock, and then her clinical situation turned around so quickly – I mean hours later.”

Emily woke up from a 14-day medically induced coma on her seventh birthday.

Eight days later, her bone marrow showed complete remission. “The doctors said, ‘We’ve never seen anyone this sick get better any faster,’ ” Mr. Whitehead said.

She had already been through a battery of treatments for her leukemia. “It was 22 months of failed, standard treatment, and then just 23 days after they gave her the first dose of CAR T-cells that she was cancer free,” he added.
 

Talking about ‘cure’

Now that Emily, 17, has remained in remission for 10 years, Dr. Grupp is finally willing to use the word “cure” – but it has taken him a long time.

Now, he says, the challenge from the bedside is to keep parents’ and patients’ expectations realistic about what they see as a miracle cure.

“It’s not a miracle. We can get patients into remission 90-plus percent of the time – but some patients do relapse – and then there are the risks [of the cytokine storm, which can be life-threatening].

“Right now, our experience is that about 12% of patients end up in the ICU, but they hardly ever end up as sick as Emily ... because now we’re giving the tocilizumab much earlier,” Dr. Grupp said.
 

Hearing whispers

Since their daughter’s recovery, Tom and Kari Whitehead have dedicated much of their time to spreading the word about the treatment that saved Emily’s life. Mr. Whitehead testified at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee meeting in 2017 when approval was being considered for the CAR T-cell product that Emily received. The product was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis); at that meeting, there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. This was the first CAR T cell to reach the market.

As cofounders of the Emily Whitehead Foundation, Emily’s parents have helped raise more than $2 million to support research in the field, and they travel around the world telling their story to “move this revolution forward.”

Despite their fierce belief in the science that saved Emily, they also acknowledge there was luck – and faith. Early in their journey, when Emily experienced relapse after her initial treatments, Mr. Whitehead drew comfort from two visions, which he calls “whispers,” that guided them through several forks in the road and through tough decisions about Emily’s treatment.

Several times the parents refused treatment that was offered to Emily, and once they had her discharged against medical advice. “I told Kari she’s definitely going to beat her cancer – I saw it. I don’t know how it’s going to happen, but we’re going to be in the bone marrow transplant hallway [at CHOP] teaching her to walk again. I know a lot of doctors don’t want to hear anything about ‘a sign,’ or what guided us, but I don’t think you have to separate faith and science, I think it takes everything to make something like this to happen.”
 

Enduring effect

The key to the CAR T-cell breakthrough that gave rise to Emily’s therapy was cell proliferation, and the effect is enduring, beyond all expectations, said Dr. Grupp. The modified T cells are still detectable in Emily and other patients in long-term remission.

“The fundamental question is, are the cells still working, or are the patients cured and they don’t need them?” said Dr. Grupp. “I think it’s the latter. The data that we have from several large datasets that we developed with Novartis are that, if you get to a year and your minimal residual disease testing both by flow and by next-generation sequencing is negative and you still have B-cell aplasia, the relapse risk is close to zero at that point.”

While it’s still not clear if and when that risk will ever get to zero, Emily and Dr. Grupp have successfully closed the chapter.

“Oncologists have different notions of what the word ‘cure’ means. If your attitude is you’re not cured until you’ve basically reached the end of your life and you haven’t relapsed, well, that’s an impossible bar to hit. My attitude is, if your likelihood of having a disease recurrence is lower than the other risks in your life, like getting into your car and driving to your appointment, then that’s what a functional cure looks like,” he said.

“I’m probably the doctor that still sees her the most, but honestly, the whole conversation is not about leukemia at all. She has B-cell aplasia, so we have to treat that, and then it’s about making sure there’s no long-term side effects from the totality of her treatment. Generally, for a patient who’s gotten a moderate amount of chemotherapy and CAR T, that should not interfere with fertility. Has any patient in the history of the world ever relapsed more than 5 years out from their therapy? Of course. Is that incredibly rare? Yes, it is. You can be paralyzed by that, or you can compartmentalize it.”

As for the Whiteheads, they are focused on Emily’s college applications, her new driver’s license, and her project to cowrite a film about her story with a Hollywood filmmaker.

Mr. Whitehead said the one thing he hopes clinicians take away from their story is that sometimes a parent’s instinct transcends science.

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

Ten years ago, Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, plunged into an unexplored area of pediatric cancer treatment with a 6-year-old patient for whom every treatment available for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) had been exhausted.

Dr. Grupp, a pioneer in cellular immunotherapy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, had just got the green light to launch the first phase 1 trial of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for children.

“The trial opened at the absolute last possible moment that it could have been helpful to her,” he said in an interview. “There was nothing else to do to temporize her further. ... It had to open then or never.”

The patient was Emily Whitehead, who has since become a poster girl for the dramatic results that can be achieved with these novel therapies. After that one CAR T-cell treatment back in 2012, she has been free of her leukemia and has remained in remission for more than 10 years.

Dr. Grupp said that he is, at last, starting to use the “cure” word.

“I’m not just a doctor, I’m a scientist – and one case isn’t enough to have confidence about anything,” he said. “We wanted more patients to be out longer to be able to say that thing which we have for a long time called the ‘c word.’

“CAR T-cell therapy has now been given to hundreds of patients at CHOP, and – we are unique in this – we have a couple dozen patients who are 5, 6, 7, 9 years out or more without further therapy. That feels like a cure to me,” he commented.
 

First patient with ALL

Emily was the first patient with ALL to receive the novel treatment, and also the first child.

There was a precedent, however. After having been “stuck” for decades, the CAR T-cell field had recently made a breakthrough, thanks to research by Dr. Grupp’s colleague Carl June, MD, and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. By tweaking two key steps in the genetic modification of T cells, Dr. June’s team had successfully treated three adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two of whom were in complete remission.

But using the treatment for a child and for a different type of leukemia was a daunting prospect. Dr. Grupp said that he was candid with Emily’s parents, Tom and Kari Whitehead, emphasizing that there are no guarantees in cancer treatment, particularly in a phase 1 trial.

But the Whiteheads had no time to waste and nowhere else to turn. Her father, Tom, recalled saying: “This is something outside the box, this is going to give her a chance.”

Dr. Grupp, who described himself as being “on the cowboy end” of oncology care, was ready to take the plunge.

Little did any of them know that the treatment would make Emily even sicker than she already was, putting her in intensive care. But thanks to a combination of several lucky breaks and a lot of brain power, she would make a breathtakingly rapid recovery.
 

The ‘magic formula’

CAR T-cell therapy involves harvesting a patient’s T cells and modifying them in the lab with a chimeric antigen receptor to target CD19, a protein found on the surface of ALL cancer cells.

Before the University of Pennsylvania team tweaked the process, clinical trials of the therapy yielded only modest results because the modified T cells “were very powerful in the short term but had almost no proliferative capacity” once they were infused back into the patient, Dr. Grupp explained.

“It does not matter how many cells you give to a patient, what matters is that the cells grow in the patient to the level needed to control the leukemia,” he said.

Dr. June’s team came up with what Dr. Grupp calls “the magic formula”: A bead-based manufacturing process that produced younger T-cell phenotypes with “enormous” proliferative capacity, and a lentiviral approach to the genetic modification, enabling prolonged expression of the CAR-T molecule.

“Was it rogue? Absolutely, positively not,” said Dr. Grupp, thinking back to the day he enrolled Emily in the trial. “Was it risky? Obviously ... we all dived into this pool without knowing what was under the water, so I would say, rogue, no, risky, yes. And I would say we didn’t know nearly enough about the risks.”
 

Cytokine storm

The gravest risk that Dr. Grupp and his team encountered was something they had not anticipated. At the time, they had no name for it.

The three adults with CLL who had received CAR T-cell therapy had experienced a mild version that the researchers referred to as “tumor lysis syndrome”.

But for Emily, on day 3 of her CAR T-cell infusion, there was a ferocious reaction storm that later came to be called cytokine release syndrome.

“The wheels just came off then,” said Mr. Whitehead. “I remember her blood pressure was 53 over 29. They took her to the ICU, induced a coma, and put her on a ventilator. It was brutal to watch. The oscillatory ventilator just pounds on you, and there was blood bubbling out around the hose in her mouth.

“I remember the third or fourth night, a doctor took me in the hallway and said, ‘There’s a one-in-a-thousand chance your daughter is alive when the sun comes up,’” Mr. Whitehead said in an interview. “And I said: ‘All right, I’ll see you at rounds tomorrow, because she’ll still be here.’ ”

“We had some vague notion of toxicity ... but it turned out not nearly enough,” said Dr. Grupp. The ICU “worked flat out” to save her life. “They had deployed everything they had to keep a human being alive and they had nothing more to add. At some point, you run out of things that you can do, and we had run out.”
 

On the fly

It was then that the team ran into some good luck. The first break was when they decided to look at her cytokines. “Our whole knowledge base came together in the moment, on the fly, at the exact moment when Emily was so very sick,” he recalled. “Could we get the result fast enough? The lab dropped everything to run the test.”

They ordered a broad cytokine panel that included 30 analytes. The results showed that a number of cytokines “were just unbelievably elevated,” he said. Among them was interleukin-6.

“IL-6 isn’t even made by T cells, so nobody in the world would have guessed that this would have mattered. If we’d ordered a smaller panel, it might not even have been on it. Yet this was the one cytokine we had a drug for – tocilizumab – so that was chance. And then, another chance was that the drug was at the hospital, because there are rheumatology patients who get it.

“So, we went from making the determination that IL-6 was high and figuring out there was a drug for it at 3:00 o’clock to giving the drug to her at 8:00 o’clock, and then her clinical situation turned around so quickly – I mean hours later.”

Emily woke up from a 14-day medically induced coma on her seventh birthday.

Eight days later, her bone marrow showed complete remission. “The doctors said, ‘We’ve never seen anyone this sick get better any faster,’ ” Mr. Whitehead said.

She had already been through a battery of treatments for her leukemia. “It was 22 months of failed, standard treatment, and then just 23 days after they gave her the first dose of CAR T-cells that she was cancer free,” he added.
 

Talking about ‘cure’

Now that Emily, 17, has remained in remission for 10 years, Dr. Grupp is finally willing to use the word “cure” – but it has taken him a long time.

Now, he says, the challenge from the bedside is to keep parents’ and patients’ expectations realistic about what they see as a miracle cure.

“It’s not a miracle. We can get patients into remission 90-plus percent of the time – but some patients do relapse – and then there are the risks [of the cytokine storm, which can be life-threatening].

“Right now, our experience is that about 12% of patients end up in the ICU, but they hardly ever end up as sick as Emily ... because now we’re giving the tocilizumab much earlier,” Dr. Grupp said.
 

Hearing whispers

Since their daughter’s recovery, Tom and Kari Whitehead have dedicated much of their time to spreading the word about the treatment that saved Emily’s life. Mr. Whitehead testified at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee meeting in 2017 when approval was being considered for the CAR T-cell product that Emily received. The product was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis); at that meeting, there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. This was the first CAR T cell to reach the market.

As cofounders of the Emily Whitehead Foundation, Emily’s parents have helped raise more than $2 million to support research in the field, and they travel around the world telling their story to “move this revolution forward.”

Despite their fierce belief in the science that saved Emily, they also acknowledge there was luck – and faith. Early in their journey, when Emily experienced relapse after her initial treatments, Mr. Whitehead drew comfort from two visions, which he calls “whispers,” that guided them through several forks in the road and through tough decisions about Emily’s treatment.

Several times the parents refused treatment that was offered to Emily, and once they had her discharged against medical advice. “I told Kari she’s definitely going to beat her cancer – I saw it. I don’t know how it’s going to happen, but we’re going to be in the bone marrow transplant hallway [at CHOP] teaching her to walk again. I know a lot of doctors don’t want to hear anything about ‘a sign,’ or what guided us, but I don’t think you have to separate faith and science, I think it takes everything to make something like this to happen.”
 

Enduring effect

The key to the CAR T-cell breakthrough that gave rise to Emily’s therapy was cell proliferation, and the effect is enduring, beyond all expectations, said Dr. Grupp. The modified T cells are still detectable in Emily and other patients in long-term remission.

“The fundamental question is, are the cells still working, or are the patients cured and they don’t need them?” said Dr. Grupp. “I think it’s the latter. The data that we have from several large datasets that we developed with Novartis are that, if you get to a year and your minimal residual disease testing both by flow and by next-generation sequencing is negative and you still have B-cell aplasia, the relapse risk is close to zero at that point.”

While it’s still not clear if and when that risk will ever get to zero, Emily and Dr. Grupp have successfully closed the chapter.

“Oncologists have different notions of what the word ‘cure’ means. If your attitude is you’re not cured until you’ve basically reached the end of your life and you haven’t relapsed, well, that’s an impossible bar to hit. My attitude is, if your likelihood of having a disease recurrence is lower than the other risks in your life, like getting into your car and driving to your appointment, then that’s what a functional cure looks like,” he said.

“I’m probably the doctor that still sees her the most, but honestly, the whole conversation is not about leukemia at all. She has B-cell aplasia, so we have to treat that, and then it’s about making sure there’s no long-term side effects from the totality of her treatment. Generally, for a patient who’s gotten a moderate amount of chemotherapy and CAR T, that should not interfere with fertility. Has any patient in the history of the world ever relapsed more than 5 years out from their therapy? Of course. Is that incredibly rare? Yes, it is. You can be paralyzed by that, or you can compartmentalize it.”

As for the Whiteheads, they are focused on Emily’s college applications, her new driver’s license, and her project to cowrite a film about her story with a Hollywood filmmaker.

Mr. Whitehead said the one thing he hopes clinicians take away from their story is that sometimes a parent’s instinct transcends science.

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

The Health Terminology/Ontology Portal (HeTOP), on which the curious can discover information about off-label use, lists 645 medications prescribed for migraine worldwide. Treatments ranging from blood pressure medications to antidepressants, and anticonvulsants to antiepileptics, along with their doses and administrations, are all listed. The number of migraine-indicated medications is 114.  Dominated by triptans and topiramate, the list also includes erenumab, the calcitonin gene-related peptide CGRP agonist. The difference in figures between the predominately off label and migraine-approved lists is a good indicator of the struggle that health care providers have had through the years to help their patients.

 The idea now is to make that list even longer by finding biomarkers that lead to new therapies.

But first, a conversation about the trigeminal ganglia.

The trigeminal ganglia

The trigeminal ganglia sit on either side of the head, in front of the ears. Their primary role is to receive stimuli and convey it to the brain. The humantrigeminal ganglia contain 20,000 to 35,000 neurons and express an array of neuropeptides, including CGRP. Some neuropeptides, like CGRP and pituitary adenylate cyclase–activating peptide 38 (PACAP38) are vasodilators. Others, like substance P, are vasoconstrictors. Edvinsson and Goadsby discussed in 1994 how CGRP was released simultaneously in those with “spontaneous attacks of migraine.”

Over the past 30 years, researchers in our institution  and elsewhere have shown repeatedly that migraine develops in individuals who are exposed to certain signaling molecules, namely nitroglycerin, CGRP, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), potassium, and PACAP38, among others. Such exposure reinforces the notion that peripheral sensitization of trigeminal sensory neurons brings on headache. The attack could occur due to vasodilation, mast cell degranulation, involvement of the parasympathetic system, or activation of nerve fibers.

Some examples from the literature:

• In our research, results from a small study of patients under spontaneous migraine attack, who underwent a 3-Tesla MRI scan, showed that cortical thickness diminishes in the prefrontal and pericalcarine cortices. The analysis we performed involving individuals with migraine without aura revealed that these patients experience reduced cortical thickness and volume when migraine attacks come on, suggesting that cortical thickness and volume may serve as a potential biomarker.
• A comparison of 20 individuals with chronic migraine and 20 healthy controls by way of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed that those with headache appeared to have substantially increased neural connectivity between the hypothalamus and certain brain areas – yet there appeared to be no connectivity irregularities between the hypothalamus and brainstem, which as the authors noted, is the “migraine generator.”

In other words, vasodilation might be  a secondary symptom of migraine but likely isn’t its source.

Other migraine makers

Neurochemicals and nucleotides play a role in migraine formation, too:

• Nitric oxide. Can open blood vessels in the head and brain and has been shown to set migraine in motion. It leads to peak headache intensity 5.5 hours after infusion and causes migraine without aura.

• GRP. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptors cause delayed headache, including what qualifies as an induced migraine attack. Researchers also note that similar pathways trigger migraine with and without aura. 

• Intracellular cGMP and intracellular cAMP. These 2 cyclic nucleotides are found extensively in the trigeminovascular system and have a role in the pathogenesis of migraine.  Studies demonstrate that cGMP levels increase after nitroglycerin administration and cAMP increases after CGRP and PACAP38 exposure.

• Levcromakalim. This potassium channel opener is sensitive to ATP. In a trial published in 2019, researchers showed that modulating potassium channels could cause some headache pain, even in those without migraine. They infused 20 healthy volunteers with levcromakalim; over the next 5-plus hours, the middle meningeal artery of all 20 became and remained dilated. Later research showed that this dilation is linked to substance P. 

Identifying migraine types

Diagnosing migraine is 1 step; determining its type is another.

Consider that a person with a posttraumatic headache can have migraine-like symptoms. To find objective separate characteristics, researchers at Mayo Clinic designed a headache classification model using questionnaires, which were then paired with the patient’s MRI data. The questionnaires delved into headache characteristics, sensory hypersensitivities, cognitive functioning, and mood. The system worked well with primary migraine, with 97% accuracy. But with posttraumatic headache, the system was 65% accurate. What proved to differentiate persistent posttraumatic headache were questions regarding decision making and anxiety. These patients had severe symptoms of anxiety, depression, physical issues, and mild brain injury attributed to blasts.

All of which explains why we and others are actively looking for biomarkers.

The biomarkers

A look at clinicaltrials.gov shows that 15 trials are recruiting patients (including us) in the search for biomarkers. One wants to identify a computational algorithm using AI, based on 9 types of markers in hopes of identifying those predictive elements that will respond to CGRP-targeting monoclonal antibodies (mABs). The factors range from the clinical to epigenetic to structural and functional brain imaging. Another registered study is using ocular coherence tomography, among other technologies, to identify photophobia.

Our interests are in identifying CGRP as a definitive biomarker; finding structural and functional cerebral changes, using MRI, in study subjects before and after they are given erenumab. We also want to create a registry for migraine based on the structural and functional MRI findings.

Another significant reason for finding biomarkers is to identify the alteration that accompany progression from episodic to chronic migraine. Pozo-Rosich et al write that these imaging, neurophysiological, and biochemical changes that occur with this progression could be used “for developing chronic migraine biomarkers that might assist with diagnosis, prognosticating individual patient outcomes, and predicting responses to migraine therapies.” And, ultimately, in practicing precision medicine to improve care of patients.

Significant barriers still exist in declaring a molecule is a biomarker. For example, a meta-analysis points to the replication challenge observed in neuroimaging research. Additionally, several genetic variants produce small effect sizes, which also might be impacted by environmental factors. This makes it difficult to map genetic biomarkers. Large prospective studies are needed to bring this area of research out of infancy to a place where treatment response can be clinically assessed. Additionally, while research evaluating provocation biomarkers has already contributed to the treatment landscape, large-scale registry studies may help uncover a predictive biomarker of treatment response. Blood biomarker research still needs a standardized protocol. Imaging-based biomarkers show much potential, but standardized imaging protocols and improved characterization and data integration are necessary going forward.

The patients

The discovery of the CGRPs couldn’t have been more timely.

Those of us who have been treating patients with migraine for years have seen the prevalence of this disease slowly rise. In 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence was 15.9% for all adults in the United States; in 2010, it was 13.2%. Worldwide, in 2019, it was 14%. In 2015, it was 11.6%.

In the past few years, journal articles have appeared regarding the connection between obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and migraine severity. Numerous other comorbidities affect our patients – not just the well-known psychiatric disorders – but also the respiratory, digestive, and central nervous system illnesses.

In other words, many of our patients come to us sicker than in years past.

Some cannot take one or more medications designed for acute migraine attacks due to comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, and gastrointestinal bleeding.

A large survey of 15,133 people with migraine confirmed the findings on these numerous comorbidities; they reported that they have more insomnia, depression, and anxiety. As the authors point out, identifying these comorbidities can help with accurate diagnosis, treatment and its adherence, and prognosis. The authors also noted that as migraine days increase per month, so do the rates of comorbidities.

But the CGRPs are showing how beneficial they can be. One study assessing medication overuse showed how 60% of the enrolled patients no longer fit that description 6 months after receiving erenumab or galcanezumab. Some patients who contend with episodic migraine showed a complete response after receiving eptinezumab and galcanezumab. They also have helped patients with menstrual migraine and refractory migraine.

But they are not complete responses to these medications, which is an excellent reason to continue viewing, recording, and assessing the migraine brain, for all it can tell us.

The Health Terminology/Ontology Portal (HeTOP), on which the curious can discover information about off-label use, lists 645 medications prescribed for migraine worldwide. Treatments ranging from blood pressure medications to antidepressants, and anticonvulsants to antiepileptics, along with their doses and administrations, are all listed. The number of migraine-indicated medications is 114.  Dominated by triptans and topiramate, the list also includes erenumab, the calcitonin gene-related peptide CGRP agonist. The difference in figures between the predominately off label and migraine-approved lists is a good indicator of the struggle that health care providers have had through the years to help their patients.

 The idea now is to make that list even longer by finding biomarkers that lead to new therapies.

But first, a conversation about the trigeminal ganglia.

The trigeminal ganglia

The trigeminal ganglia sit on either side of the head, in front of the ears. Their primary role is to receive stimuli and convey it to the brain. The humantrigeminal ganglia contain 20,000 to 35,000 neurons and express an array of neuropeptides, including CGRP. Some neuropeptides, like CGRP and pituitary adenylate cyclase–activating peptide 38 (PACAP38) are vasodilators. Others, like substance P, are vasoconstrictors. Edvinsson and Goadsby discussed in 1994 how CGRP was released simultaneously in those with “spontaneous attacks of migraine.”

Over the past 30 years, researchers in our institution  and elsewhere have shown repeatedly that migraine develops in individuals who are exposed to certain signaling molecules, namely nitroglycerin, CGRP, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), potassium, and PACAP38, among others. Such exposure reinforces the notion that peripheral sensitization of trigeminal sensory neurons brings on headache. The attack could occur due to vasodilation, mast cell degranulation, involvement of the parasympathetic system, or activation of nerve fibers.

Some examples from the literature:

• In our research, results from a small study of patients under spontaneous migraine attack, who underwent a 3-Tesla MRI scan, showed that cortical thickness diminishes in the prefrontal and pericalcarine cortices. The analysis we performed involving individuals with migraine without aura revealed that these patients experience reduced cortical thickness and volume when migraine attacks come on, suggesting that cortical thickness and volume may serve as a potential biomarker.
• A comparison of 20 individuals with chronic migraine and 20 healthy controls by way of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed that those with headache appeared to have substantially increased neural connectivity between the hypothalamus and certain brain areas – yet there appeared to be no connectivity irregularities between the hypothalamus and brainstem, which as the authors noted, is the “migraine generator.”

In other words, vasodilation might be  a secondary symptom of migraine but likely isn’t its source.

Other migraine makers

Neurochemicals and nucleotides play a role in migraine formation, too:

• Nitric oxide. Can open blood vessels in the head and brain and has been shown to set migraine in motion. It leads to peak headache intensity 5.5 hours after infusion and causes migraine without aura.

• GRP. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptors cause delayed headache, including what qualifies as an induced migraine attack. Researchers also note that similar pathways trigger migraine with and without aura. 

• Intracellular cGMP and intracellular cAMP. These 2 cyclic nucleotides are found extensively in the trigeminovascular system and have a role in the pathogenesis of migraine.  Studies demonstrate that cGMP levels increase after nitroglycerin administration and cAMP increases after CGRP and PACAP38 exposure.

• Levcromakalim. This potassium channel opener is sensitive to ATP. In a trial published in 2019, researchers showed that modulating potassium channels could cause some headache pain, even in those without migraine. They infused 20 healthy volunteers with levcromakalim; over the next 5-plus hours, the middle meningeal artery of all 20 became and remained dilated. Later research showed that this dilation is linked to substance P. 

Identifying migraine types

Diagnosing migraine is 1 step; determining its type is another.

Consider that a person with a posttraumatic headache can have migraine-like symptoms. To find objective separate characteristics, researchers at Mayo Clinic designed a headache classification model using questionnaires, which were then paired with the patient’s MRI data. The questionnaires delved into headache characteristics, sensory hypersensitivities, cognitive functioning, and mood. The system worked well with primary migraine, with 97% accuracy. But with posttraumatic headache, the system was 65% accurate. What proved to differentiate persistent posttraumatic headache were questions regarding decision making and anxiety. These patients had severe symptoms of anxiety, depression, physical issues, and mild brain injury attributed to blasts.

All of which explains why we and others are actively looking for biomarkers.

The biomarkers

A look at clinicaltrials.gov shows that 15 trials are recruiting patients (including us) in the search for biomarkers. One wants to identify a computational algorithm using AI, based on 9 types of markers in hopes of identifying those predictive elements that will respond to CGRP-targeting monoclonal antibodies (mABs). The factors range from the clinical to epigenetic to structural and functional brain imaging. Another registered study is using ocular coherence tomography, among other technologies, to identify photophobia.

Our interests are in identifying CGRP as a definitive biomarker; finding structural and functional cerebral changes, using MRI, in study subjects before and after they are given erenumab. We also want to create a registry for migraine based on the structural and functional MRI findings.

Another significant reason for finding biomarkers is to identify the alteration that accompany progression from episodic to chronic migraine. Pozo-Rosich et al write that these imaging, neurophysiological, and biochemical changes that occur with this progression could be used “for developing chronic migraine biomarkers that might assist with diagnosis, prognosticating individual patient outcomes, and predicting responses to migraine therapies.” And, ultimately, in practicing precision medicine to improve care of patients.

Significant barriers still exist in declaring a molecule is a biomarker. For example, a meta-analysis points to the replication challenge observed in neuroimaging research. Additionally, several genetic variants produce small effect sizes, which also might be impacted by environmental factors. This makes it difficult to map genetic biomarkers. Large prospective studies are needed to bring this area of research out of infancy to a place where treatment response can be clinically assessed. Additionally, while research evaluating provocation biomarkers has already contributed to the treatment landscape, large-scale registry studies may help uncover a predictive biomarker of treatment response. Blood biomarker research still needs a standardized protocol. Imaging-based biomarkers show much potential, but standardized imaging protocols and improved characterization and data integration are necessary going forward.

The patients

The discovery of the CGRPs couldn’t have been more timely.

Those of us who have been treating patients with migraine for years have seen the prevalence of this disease slowly rise. In 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence was 15.9% for all adults in the United States; in 2010, it was 13.2%. Worldwide, in 2019, it was 14%. In 2015, it was 11.6%.

In the past few years, journal articles have appeared regarding the connection between obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and migraine severity. Numerous other comorbidities affect our patients – not just the well-known psychiatric disorders – but also the respiratory, digestive, and central nervous system illnesses.

In other words, many of our patients come to us sicker than in years past.

Some cannot take one or more medications designed for acute migraine attacks due to comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, and gastrointestinal bleeding.

A large survey of 15,133 people with migraine confirmed the findings on these numerous comorbidities; they reported that they have more insomnia, depression, and anxiety. As the authors point out, identifying these comorbidities can help with accurate diagnosis, treatment and its adherence, and prognosis. The authors also noted that as migraine days increase per month, so do the rates of comorbidities.

But the CGRPs are showing how beneficial they can be. One study assessing medication overuse showed how 60% of the enrolled patients no longer fit that description 6 months after receiving erenumab or galcanezumab. Some patients who contend with episodic migraine showed a complete response after receiving eptinezumab and galcanezumab. They also have helped patients with menstrual migraine and refractory migraine.

But they are not complete responses to these medications, which is an excellent reason to continue viewing, recording, and assessing the migraine brain, for all it can tell us.

The Health Terminology/Ontology Portal (HeTOP), on which the curious can discover information about off-label use, lists 645 medications prescribed for migraine worldwide. Treatments ranging from blood pressure medications to antidepressants, and anticonvulsants to antiepileptics, along with their doses and administrations, are all listed. The number of migraine-indicated medications is 114.  Dominated by triptans and topiramate, the list also includes erenumab, the calcitonin gene-related peptide CGRP agonist. The difference in figures between the predominately off label and migraine-approved lists is a good indicator of the struggle that health care providers have had through the years to help their patients.

 The idea now is to make that list even longer by finding biomarkers that lead to new therapies.

But first, a conversation about the trigeminal ganglia.

The trigeminal ganglia

The trigeminal ganglia sit on either side of the head, in front of the ears. Their primary role is to receive stimuli and convey it to the brain. The humantrigeminal ganglia contain 20,000 to 35,000 neurons and express an array of neuropeptides, including CGRP. Some neuropeptides, like CGRP and pituitary adenylate cyclase–activating peptide 38 (PACAP38) are vasodilators. Others, like substance P, are vasoconstrictors. Edvinsson and Goadsby discussed in 1994 how CGRP was released simultaneously in those with “spontaneous attacks of migraine.”

Over the past 30 years, researchers in our institution  and elsewhere have shown repeatedly that migraine develops in individuals who are exposed to certain signaling molecules, namely nitroglycerin, CGRP, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), potassium, and PACAP38, among others. Such exposure reinforces the notion that peripheral sensitization of trigeminal sensory neurons brings on headache. The attack could occur due to vasodilation, mast cell degranulation, involvement of the parasympathetic system, or activation of nerve fibers.

Some examples from the literature:

• In our research, results from a small study of patients under spontaneous migraine attack, who underwent a 3-Tesla MRI scan, showed that cortical thickness diminishes in the prefrontal and pericalcarine cortices. The analysis we performed involving individuals with migraine without aura revealed that these patients experience reduced cortical thickness and volume when migraine attacks come on, suggesting that cortical thickness and volume may serve as a potential biomarker.
• A comparison of 20 individuals with chronic migraine and 20 healthy controls by way of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed that those with headache appeared to have substantially increased neural connectivity between the hypothalamus and certain brain areas – yet there appeared to be no connectivity irregularities between the hypothalamus and brainstem, which as the authors noted, is the “migraine generator.”

In other words, vasodilation might be  a secondary symptom of migraine but likely isn’t its source.

Other migraine makers

Neurochemicals and nucleotides play a role in migraine formation, too:

• Nitric oxide. Can open blood vessels in the head and brain and has been shown to set migraine in motion. It leads to peak headache intensity 5.5 hours after infusion and causes migraine without aura.

• GRP. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptors cause delayed headache, including what qualifies as an induced migraine attack. Researchers also note that similar pathways trigger migraine with and without aura. 

• Intracellular cGMP and intracellular cAMP. These 2 cyclic nucleotides are found extensively in the trigeminovascular system and have a role in the pathogenesis of migraine.  Studies demonstrate that cGMP levels increase after nitroglycerin administration and cAMP increases after CGRP and PACAP38 exposure.

• Levcromakalim. This potassium channel opener is sensitive to ATP. In a trial published in 2019, researchers showed that modulating potassium channels could cause some headache pain, even in those without migraine. They infused 20 healthy volunteers with levcromakalim; over the next 5-plus hours, the middle meningeal artery of all 20 became and remained dilated. Later research showed that this dilation is linked to substance P. 

Identifying migraine types

Diagnosing migraine is 1 step; determining its type is another.

Consider that a person with a posttraumatic headache can have migraine-like symptoms. To find objective separate characteristics, researchers at Mayo Clinic designed a headache classification model using questionnaires, which were then paired with the patient’s MRI data. The questionnaires delved into headache characteristics, sensory hypersensitivities, cognitive functioning, and mood. The system worked well with primary migraine, with 97% accuracy. But with posttraumatic headache, the system was 65% accurate. What proved to differentiate persistent posttraumatic headache were questions regarding decision making and anxiety. These patients had severe symptoms of anxiety, depression, physical issues, and mild brain injury attributed to blasts.

All of which explains why we and others are actively looking for biomarkers.

The biomarkers

A look at clinicaltrials.gov shows that 15 trials are recruiting patients (including us) in the search for biomarkers. One wants to identify a computational algorithm using AI, based on 9 types of markers in hopes of identifying those predictive elements that will respond to CGRP-targeting monoclonal antibodies (mABs). The factors range from the clinical to epigenetic to structural and functional brain imaging. Another registered study is using ocular coherence tomography, among other technologies, to identify photophobia.

Our interests are in identifying CGRP as a definitive biomarker; finding structural and functional cerebral changes, using MRI, in study subjects before and after they are given erenumab. We also want to create a registry for migraine based on the structural and functional MRI findings.

Another significant reason for finding biomarkers is to identify the alteration that accompany progression from episodic to chronic migraine. Pozo-Rosich et al write that these imaging, neurophysiological, and biochemical changes that occur with this progression could be used “for developing chronic migraine biomarkers that might assist with diagnosis, prognosticating individual patient outcomes, and predicting responses to migraine therapies.” And, ultimately, in practicing precision medicine to improve care of patients.

Significant barriers still exist in declaring a molecule is a biomarker. For example, a meta-analysis points to the replication challenge observed in neuroimaging research. Additionally, several genetic variants produce small effect sizes, which also might be impacted by environmental factors. This makes it difficult to map genetic biomarkers. Large prospective studies are needed to bring this area of research out of infancy to a place where treatment response can be clinically assessed. Additionally, while research evaluating provocation biomarkers has already contributed to the treatment landscape, large-scale registry studies may help uncover a predictive biomarker of treatment response. Blood biomarker research still needs a standardized protocol. Imaging-based biomarkers show much potential, but standardized imaging protocols and improved characterization and data integration are necessary going forward.

The patients

The discovery of the CGRPs couldn’t have been more timely.

Those of us who have been treating patients with migraine for years have seen the prevalence of this disease slowly rise. In 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence was 15.9% for all adults in the United States; in 2010, it was 13.2%. Worldwide, in 2019, it was 14%. In 2015, it was 11.6%.

In the past few years, journal articles have appeared regarding the connection between obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and migraine severity. Numerous other comorbidities affect our patients – not just the well-known psychiatric disorders – but also the respiratory, digestive, and central nervous system illnesses.

In other words, many of our patients come to us sicker than in years past.

Some cannot take one or more medications designed for acute migraine attacks due to comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, and gastrointestinal bleeding.

A large survey of 15,133 people with migraine confirmed the findings on these numerous comorbidities; they reported that they have more insomnia, depression, and anxiety. As the authors point out, identifying these comorbidities can help with accurate diagnosis, treatment and its adherence, and prognosis. The authors also noted that as migraine days increase per month, so do the rates of comorbidities.

But the CGRPs are showing how beneficial they can be. One study assessing medication overuse showed how 60% of the enrolled patients no longer fit that description 6 months after receiving erenumab or galcanezumab. Some patients who contend with episodic migraine showed a complete response after receiving eptinezumab and galcanezumab. They also have helped patients with menstrual migraine and refractory migraine.

But they are not complete responses to these medications, which is an excellent reason to continue viewing, recording, and assessing the migraine brain, for all it can tell us.

Some people thrive on hours-long runs and sweaty Peloton classes, but a much larger group of people lack the time, motivation, or ability for long workouts. Take, for example, those with chronic health conditions, limited mobility, prior negative fitness experiences, or the hopelessly overscheduled.

That doesn’t mean they have to forgo the physical and psychological benefits of exercise. In recent years, headlines have touted research on the benefits of a few minutes of physical activity. Not to mention the cottage fitness industry that has risen in response by promising physical transformations in X minutes a day (or less!).

What’s true? What’s too good to be true? Can short bursts of activity – 10 minutes or less – really help improve your health and fitness? Even when U.S. Health & Human Services physical activity guidelines recommend 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate intensity movement per week?

The research says yes. While you should never expect total-body transformation, short workouts, even 10 minutes or less, really can improve your health, mental wellbeing, and fitness – if you approach them right.
 

Why short bursts of movement can be beneficial

Since at least 2005, researchers have been attempting to pinpoint just how short you can go and still benefit, says Edward F. Coyle, PhD, professor and director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin.

Part of the equation is intensity. His studies show 10-minute workouts in which people cycle as hard as they can for 4 seconds, then rest for 15-30 seconds, improve fitness in young and older adults (and in the latter, also build muscle mass). Other studies have shown shorter “exercise snacks” – climbing three flights of stairs three times, with 1-4 hours in between – improved fitness over six weeks.

By turning up the intensity, Dr. Coyle says, these interval sessions temporarily deprive your muscles of both fuel and the oxygen they need to produce more, just like longer workouts. In response, your blood volume increases, your heart pumps more with each beat, and your muscle cells develop more mitochondria (tiny energy-producing factories).

That doesn’t mean less-intense physical activity isn’t beneficial, too. It is. In fact, there are several ways you can approach shorter movement sessions and really do well.

1. “Accumulate” a healthier lifestyle by moving throughout the day.

To reap the myriad benefits of physical activity – from lower blood pressure to better sleep to a longer life – health experts recommend the aforementioned 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity weekly. Moderate means your heart’s beating faster, but you can still speak.

That averages out to 20 minutes daily. However, if you’ve been inactive or have physical or logistical limitations, a full 20 minutes can seem daunting.

Fortunately, the most recent update to the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans specifically states you don’t have to log those minutes at once. Any amount of movement “counts” toward the total.

Four minutes here, 8 minutes there, another 5 minutes again later … it all adds up.

In fact, depending on what you do with the rest of your hours, small, frequent bouts of movement may be better for your health than one solid workout.

“Being very sedentary all day and just doing 30 minutes of exercise once a day is not very healthy for you,” says Anthony Wall, MS, a certified personal trainer and spokesperson for the American Council on Exercise. Emphasis on very sedentary. Long periods of sitting have their own health risks, including more heart disease and diabetes. While a single concentrated workout session is better than nothing, it may not reverse the damage done by all that sitting.

Remember: Our bodies are designed for movement. It’s okay to work up to 150 minutes gradually. Begin where you are, perhaps with a 5-minute walk around the block or easy stretches or exercises on the nearest patch of carpet. Establish consistency, then add on – it’ll feel easier as body and mind adapt.

“Data show the more you exercise, the more motivated you›ll be to exercise,” says Julia Basso, PhD, assistant professor and director of the embodied brain laboratory at Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg. When you crave movement, it’s easier to sneak it in. Eventually, all those minutes will add up to 150 a week – or more.

2. Improve mood and thinking as well as your health.

Short sessions of physical activity also benefit brain function, says Dr. Basso, a neuroscientist and dancer. Moving your body increases blood flow to the brain and modulates levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. It also stimulates the release of growth factors that, over time, help sprout new brain cells.

And movement has near-immediate perks. In a recent Japanese study, running for just 10 minutes improved participant’s moods and reaction times on a color-word matching test. Brain imaging showed increased activity in prefrontal cortex areas that control executive functions such as attention, planning, and working memory.

So if you’re feeling low, stressed, or stuck on a tough problem at work, try a 10-minute break for moderate movement. In this case, don’t go all-out – tougher workouts still benefit your brain over time, but the immediate stress response may temporarily cloud your thinking, Dr. Basso says.

Instead, level up by adding another brain-boosting element like social connection or rhythmic music. Walk with a friend, for instance, or fire up a playlist and dance.

3. Gain fitness through brief, hard bursts.

The government’s exercise guidelines acknowledge the harder you work, the faster you reap rewards. Choosing more vigorous activities – where you›re breathing so hard you can only gasp a few words – halves the minimum requirement to 75 minutes weekly.

Plus, intensity brings added fitness gains, Mr. Wall says. This includes getting better at sport-specific skills and building anaerobic endurance, or the ability to work harder for longer periods of time.

However, the short, hard approach has its challenges. It’s often tricky to replicate lab-based protocols in the real world (Dr. Coyle’s cycling experiments, for example, use specialized bikes). Warming up first can add time; stair-climbing study participants began with 10 jumping jacks, 10 air squats, and five lunges on each leg.

Finally, pushing hard is uncomfortable. Doing it daily puts you at risk of overtraining or injury, Mr. Wall says. Even Dr. Coyle himself alternates 3 days per week of 4-second training with 45-minute steady rides, where he can watch Netflix.

Longer sessions bring more pronounced improvements in health markers like blood pressure and resting heart rate, Mr. Wall says. And while any movement is better than none, mixing up everything from modality to length and intensity likely provides the biggest bounty of benefits.

Consider these physical activity ideas “ingredients,” Mr. Wall says. “We all eat vegetables, but some of us like bell peppers more than carrots and tomatoes. We all need to get our five fruits and vegetables a day – but how we mix it up, there’s a lot of variation there. Movement works the same way.”

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

Some people thrive on hours-long runs and sweaty Peloton classes, but a much larger group of people lack the time, motivation, or ability for long workouts. Take, for example, those with chronic health conditions, limited mobility, prior negative fitness experiences, or the hopelessly overscheduled.

That doesn’t mean they have to forgo the physical and psychological benefits of exercise. In recent years, headlines have touted research on the benefits of a few minutes of physical activity. Not to mention the cottage fitness industry that has risen in response by promising physical transformations in X minutes a day (or less!).

What’s true? What’s too good to be true? Can short bursts of activity – 10 minutes or less – really help improve your health and fitness? Even when U.S. Health & Human Services physical activity guidelines recommend 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate intensity movement per week?

The research says yes. While you should never expect total-body transformation, short workouts, even 10 minutes or less, really can improve your health, mental wellbeing, and fitness – if you approach them right.
 

Why short bursts of movement can be beneficial

Since at least 2005, researchers have been attempting to pinpoint just how short you can go and still benefit, says Edward F. Coyle, PhD, professor and director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin.

Part of the equation is intensity. His studies show 10-minute workouts in which people cycle as hard as they can for 4 seconds, then rest for 15-30 seconds, improve fitness in young and older adults (and in the latter, also build muscle mass). Other studies have shown shorter “exercise snacks” – climbing three flights of stairs three times, with 1-4 hours in between – improved fitness over six weeks.

By turning up the intensity, Dr. Coyle says, these interval sessions temporarily deprive your muscles of both fuel and the oxygen they need to produce more, just like longer workouts. In response, your blood volume increases, your heart pumps more with each beat, and your muscle cells develop more mitochondria (tiny energy-producing factories).

That doesn’t mean less-intense physical activity isn’t beneficial, too. It is. In fact, there are several ways you can approach shorter movement sessions and really do well.

1. “Accumulate” a healthier lifestyle by moving throughout the day.

To reap the myriad benefits of physical activity – from lower blood pressure to better sleep to a longer life – health experts recommend the aforementioned 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity weekly. Moderate means your heart’s beating faster, but you can still speak.

That averages out to 20 minutes daily. However, if you’ve been inactive or have physical or logistical limitations, a full 20 minutes can seem daunting.

Fortunately, the most recent update to the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans specifically states you don’t have to log those minutes at once. Any amount of movement “counts” toward the total.

Four minutes here, 8 minutes there, another 5 minutes again later … it all adds up.

In fact, depending on what you do with the rest of your hours, small, frequent bouts of movement may be better for your health than one solid workout.

“Being very sedentary all day and just doing 30 minutes of exercise once a day is not very healthy for you,” says Anthony Wall, MS, a certified personal trainer and spokesperson for the American Council on Exercise. Emphasis on very sedentary. Long periods of sitting have their own health risks, including more heart disease and diabetes. While a single concentrated workout session is better than nothing, it may not reverse the damage done by all that sitting.

Remember: Our bodies are designed for movement. It’s okay to work up to 150 minutes gradually. Begin where you are, perhaps with a 5-minute walk around the block or easy stretches or exercises on the nearest patch of carpet. Establish consistency, then add on – it’ll feel easier as body and mind adapt.

“Data show the more you exercise, the more motivated you›ll be to exercise,” says Julia Basso, PhD, assistant professor and director of the embodied brain laboratory at Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg. When you crave movement, it’s easier to sneak it in. Eventually, all those minutes will add up to 150 a week – or more.

2. Improve mood and thinking as well as your health.

Short sessions of physical activity also benefit brain function, says Dr. Basso, a neuroscientist and dancer. Moving your body increases blood flow to the brain and modulates levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. It also stimulates the release of growth factors that, over time, help sprout new brain cells.

And movement has near-immediate perks. In a recent Japanese study, running for just 10 minutes improved participant’s moods and reaction times on a color-word matching test. Brain imaging showed increased activity in prefrontal cortex areas that control executive functions such as attention, planning, and working memory.

So if you’re feeling low, stressed, or stuck on a tough problem at work, try a 10-minute break for moderate movement. In this case, don’t go all-out – tougher workouts still benefit your brain over time, but the immediate stress response may temporarily cloud your thinking, Dr. Basso says.

Instead, level up by adding another brain-boosting element like social connection or rhythmic music. Walk with a friend, for instance, or fire up a playlist and dance.

3. Gain fitness through brief, hard bursts.

The government’s exercise guidelines acknowledge the harder you work, the faster you reap rewards. Choosing more vigorous activities – where you›re breathing so hard you can only gasp a few words – halves the minimum requirement to 75 minutes weekly.

Plus, intensity brings added fitness gains, Mr. Wall says. This includes getting better at sport-specific skills and building anaerobic endurance, or the ability to work harder for longer periods of time.

However, the short, hard approach has its challenges. It’s often tricky to replicate lab-based protocols in the real world (Dr. Coyle’s cycling experiments, for example, use specialized bikes). Warming up first can add time; stair-climbing study participants began with 10 jumping jacks, 10 air squats, and five lunges on each leg.

Finally, pushing hard is uncomfortable. Doing it daily puts you at risk of overtraining or injury, Mr. Wall says. Even Dr. Coyle himself alternates 3 days per week of 4-second training with 45-minute steady rides, where he can watch Netflix.

Longer sessions bring more pronounced improvements in health markers like blood pressure and resting heart rate, Mr. Wall says. And while any movement is better than none, mixing up everything from modality to length and intensity likely provides the biggest bounty of benefits.

Consider these physical activity ideas “ingredients,” Mr. Wall says. “We all eat vegetables, but some of us like bell peppers more than carrots and tomatoes. We all need to get our five fruits and vegetables a day – but how we mix it up, there’s a lot of variation there. Movement works the same way.”

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

Some people thrive on hours-long runs and sweaty Peloton classes, but a much larger group of people lack the time, motivation, or ability for long workouts. Take, for example, those with chronic health conditions, limited mobility, prior negative fitness experiences, or the hopelessly overscheduled.

That doesn’t mean they have to forgo the physical and psychological benefits of exercise. In recent years, headlines have touted research on the benefits of a few minutes of physical activity. Not to mention the cottage fitness industry that has risen in response by promising physical transformations in X minutes a day (or less!).

What’s true? What’s too good to be true? Can short bursts of activity – 10 minutes or less – really help improve your health and fitness? Even when U.S. Health & Human Services physical activity guidelines recommend 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate intensity movement per week?

The research says yes. While you should never expect total-body transformation, short workouts, even 10 minutes or less, really can improve your health, mental wellbeing, and fitness – if you approach them right.
 

Why short bursts of movement can be beneficial

Since at least 2005, researchers have been attempting to pinpoint just how short you can go and still benefit, says Edward F. Coyle, PhD, professor and director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin.

Part of the equation is intensity. His studies show 10-minute workouts in which people cycle as hard as they can for 4 seconds, then rest for 15-30 seconds, improve fitness in young and older adults (and in the latter, also build muscle mass). Other studies have shown shorter “exercise snacks” – climbing three flights of stairs three times, with 1-4 hours in between – improved fitness over six weeks.

By turning up the intensity, Dr. Coyle says, these interval sessions temporarily deprive your muscles of both fuel and the oxygen they need to produce more, just like longer workouts. In response, your blood volume increases, your heart pumps more with each beat, and your muscle cells develop more mitochondria (tiny energy-producing factories).

That doesn’t mean less-intense physical activity isn’t beneficial, too. It is. In fact, there are several ways you can approach shorter movement sessions and really do well.

1. “Accumulate” a healthier lifestyle by moving throughout the day.

To reap the myriad benefits of physical activity – from lower blood pressure to better sleep to a longer life – health experts recommend the aforementioned 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity weekly. Moderate means your heart’s beating faster, but you can still speak.

That averages out to 20 minutes daily. However, if you’ve been inactive or have physical or logistical limitations, a full 20 minutes can seem daunting.

Fortunately, the most recent update to the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans specifically states you don’t have to log those minutes at once. Any amount of movement “counts” toward the total.

Four minutes here, 8 minutes there, another 5 minutes again later … it all adds up.

In fact, depending on what you do with the rest of your hours, small, frequent bouts of movement may be better for your health than one solid workout.

“Being very sedentary all day and just doing 30 minutes of exercise once a day is not very healthy for you,” says Anthony Wall, MS, a certified personal trainer and spokesperson for the American Council on Exercise. Emphasis on very sedentary. Long periods of sitting have their own health risks, including more heart disease and diabetes. While a single concentrated workout session is better than nothing, it may not reverse the damage done by all that sitting.

Remember: Our bodies are designed for movement. It’s okay to work up to 150 minutes gradually. Begin where you are, perhaps with a 5-minute walk around the block or easy stretches or exercises on the nearest patch of carpet. Establish consistency, then add on – it’ll feel easier as body and mind adapt.

“Data show the more you exercise, the more motivated you›ll be to exercise,” says Julia Basso, PhD, assistant professor and director of the embodied brain laboratory at Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg. When you crave movement, it’s easier to sneak it in. Eventually, all those minutes will add up to 150 a week – or more.

2. Improve mood and thinking as well as your health.

Short sessions of physical activity also benefit brain function, says Dr. Basso, a neuroscientist and dancer. Moving your body increases blood flow to the brain and modulates levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. It also stimulates the release of growth factors that, over time, help sprout new brain cells.

And movement has near-immediate perks. In a recent Japanese study, running for just 10 minutes improved participant’s moods and reaction times on a color-word matching test. Brain imaging showed increased activity in prefrontal cortex areas that control executive functions such as attention, planning, and working memory.

So if you’re feeling low, stressed, or stuck on a tough problem at work, try a 10-minute break for moderate movement. In this case, don’t go all-out – tougher workouts still benefit your brain over time, but the immediate stress response may temporarily cloud your thinking, Dr. Basso says.

Instead, level up by adding another brain-boosting element like social connection or rhythmic music. Walk with a friend, for instance, or fire up a playlist and dance.

3. Gain fitness through brief, hard bursts.

The government’s exercise guidelines acknowledge the harder you work, the faster you reap rewards. Choosing more vigorous activities – where you›re breathing so hard you can only gasp a few words – halves the minimum requirement to 75 minutes weekly.

Plus, intensity brings added fitness gains, Mr. Wall says. This includes getting better at sport-specific skills and building anaerobic endurance, or the ability to work harder for longer periods of time.

However, the short, hard approach has its challenges. It’s often tricky to replicate lab-based protocols in the real world (Dr. Coyle’s cycling experiments, for example, use specialized bikes). Warming up first can add time; stair-climbing study participants began with 10 jumping jacks, 10 air squats, and five lunges on each leg.

Finally, pushing hard is uncomfortable. Doing it daily puts you at risk of overtraining or injury, Mr. Wall says. Even Dr. Coyle himself alternates 3 days per week of 4-second training with 45-minute steady rides, where he can watch Netflix.

Longer sessions bring more pronounced improvements in health markers like blood pressure and resting heart rate, Mr. Wall says. And while any movement is better than none, mixing up everything from modality to length and intensity likely provides the biggest bounty of benefits.

Consider these physical activity ideas “ingredients,” Mr. Wall says. “We all eat vegetables, but some of us like bell peppers more than carrots and tomatoes. We all need to get our five fruits and vegetables a day – but how we mix it up, there’s a lot of variation there. Movement works the same way.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

Given the history of sudden hair loss, with the exam revealing a well-circumscribed patch of focal alopecia without cutaneous inflammation, hairs with a narrow base and broad distal shaft, the diagnosis is alopecia areata (AA).

Alopecia areata (AA) is a nonscarring alopecia, within a set of diseases characterized by the preservation of hair follicles and therefore the potential for future hair regrowth.¹ AA is believed to be caused by a breakdown of the immune-privileged nature of hair follicles, resulting in T-lymphocytes targeting the hair follicle directly, shifting follicles to early catagen or telogen phase, but sparing follicular stem cells, thereby allowing the follicle to regenerate in the future.^1-3 Risk factors include family history of AA, thyroid disorders, as well as iron and vitamin D deficiency.^4,5 It characteristically presents with focal, well-demarcated patches of hair loss in the scalp, typically with background skin normal to slightly pink.^3,6 Exam can show “exclamation point” hairs consisting of hairs that are narrow at their base and wide at the distal end.^3,7 Patients may also exhibit eyebrow and eyelash loss as well as nail changes including nail pitting and splitting.⁸ Diagnosis is typically made clinically but is supported by a positive hair pull test, where hairs are pulled from the periphery of an alopecic lesion; the presence of greater than 10% of hairs plucked from the scalp indicates a positive result.^9,10

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of AA includes other nonscarring alopecias such as trichotillomania and telogen effluvium. Other possible diagnoses include lichen planopilaris and tinea capitis.

Trichotillomania results in irregularly bordered hair loss and broken hairs of different lengths because of an internal urge to remove one’s hair, resulting in nonscarring alopecia. It can be associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, or other body-altering behaviors like skin picking and nail biting (characterized as body-focused repetitive behavior disorders). Treatments include reassurance and education, behavior modification, or systemic therapy including tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs. Toddlers can engage in hair pulling behavior and trichotillomania can be difficult to differentiate from AA. However, the absence of broken hairs of varying lengths makes trichotillomania less likely in this patient.

Telogen effluvium is another form of nonscarring alopecia that presents as diffuse hair thinning across the entire scalp in response to acute psychological or physiological stress, hormonal changes, certain medications, systemic illness, or nutritional deficiency. The timing between the triggering event and hair loss can vary from weeks to months. Diagnosis requires detailed history-taking and may include evaluation for endocrinologic hair thinning (e.g. thyroid function tests) to identify reversible causes. Treatment involves directing therapy to the underlying etiology and most cases of telogen effluvium are self-limited. The presence of a well-circumscribed patch of hair loss in this patient makes AA more likely.

What’s the management plan?

The diagnosis of AA is usually a clinical one, though assessment of alternative diagnoses is appropriate dependent on signs and symptoms. Workup of AA can include thyroid studies because of the association with autoimmune thyroid disease, though studies suggest limited screening benefits in children.¹¹ Given its variable and unpredictable course, management can include “watchful waiting” because of its potential for spontaneous remission.⁶ For limited patchy loss, active treatment with mid to superpotent topical steroids or intralesional triamcinolone acetonide in older children and adolescents is reasonable.¹² Other treatment options include topical or low-dose oral minoxidil and immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone or squaric acid (inducing an allergic contact dermatitis).¹² Management of therapies for more extensive AA is evolving, with ongoing studies of oral JAK-inhibitors and biologic agents.^12,13

Our patient was started on topical fluocinonide 0.05% solution and achieved good disease control and hair regrowth over the course of 3 months.

Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the university and Rady Children’s Hospital. They had no disclosures.

References

1. Bernardez C et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2015;106(3):158-67.

2. Rajabi F et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(5):1033-48.

3. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):1-12.

4. Lee S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):466-77 e16.

5. MacLean KJ and Tidman MJ. Practitioner. 2013;257(1764):29-32, 3.

6. Pratt CH et al. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17011.

7. Gilhar A et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1515-25.

8. Wyrwich KW et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(5):725-32.

9. Spano F and Donovan JC. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(9):751-5.

10. Mounsey AL and Reed SW. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(4):356-62.

11. Hordinsky MK. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2015;17(2):44-6.

12. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):15-24.

13. Zhou C et al. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2021;61(3):403-23.

Given the history of sudden hair loss, with the exam revealing a well-circumscribed patch of focal alopecia without cutaneous inflammation, hairs with a narrow base and broad distal shaft, the diagnosis is alopecia areata (AA).

Alopecia areata (AA) is a nonscarring alopecia, within a set of diseases characterized by the preservation of hair follicles and therefore the potential for future hair regrowth.¹ AA is believed to be caused by a breakdown of the immune-privileged nature of hair follicles, resulting in T-lymphocytes targeting the hair follicle directly, shifting follicles to early catagen or telogen phase, but sparing follicular stem cells, thereby allowing the follicle to regenerate in the future.^1-3 Risk factors include family history of AA, thyroid disorders, as well as iron and vitamin D deficiency.^4,5 It characteristically presents with focal, well-demarcated patches of hair loss in the scalp, typically with background skin normal to slightly pink.^3,6 Exam can show “exclamation point” hairs consisting of hairs that are narrow at their base and wide at the distal end.^3,7 Patients may also exhibit eyebrow and eyelash loss as well as nail changes including nail pitting and splitting.⁸ Diagnosis is typically made clinically but is supported by a positive hair pull test, where hairs are pulled from the periphery of an alopecic lesion; the presence of greater than 10% of hairs plucked from the scalp indicates a positive result.^9,10

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of AA includes other nonscarring alopecias such as trichotillomania and telogen effluvium. Other possible diagnoses include lichen planopilaris and tinea capitis.

Trichotillomania results in irregularly bordered hair loss and broken hairs of different lengths because of an internal urge to remove one’s hair, resulting in nonscarring alopecia. It can be associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, or other body-altering behaviors like skin picking and nail biting (characterized as body-focused repetitive behavior disorders). Treatments include reassurance and education, behavior modification, or systemic therapy including tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs. Toddlers can engage in hair pulling behavior and trichotillomania can be difficult to differentiate from AA. However, the absence of broken hairs of varying lengths makes trichotillomania less likely in this patient.

Telogen effluvium is another form of nonscarring alopecia that presents as diffuse hair thinning across the entire scalp in response to acute psychological or physiological stress, hormonal changes, certain medications, systemic illness, or nutritional deficiency. The timing between the triggering event and hair loss can vary from weeks to months. Diagnosis requires detailed history-taking and may include evaluation for endocrinologic hair thinning (e.g. thyroid function tests) to identify reversible causes. Treatment involves directing therapy to the underlying etiology and most cases of telogen effluvium are self-limited. The presence of a well-circumscribed patch of hair loss in this patient makes AA more likely.

What’s the management plan?

The diagnosis of AA is usually a clinical one, though assessment of alternative diagnoses is appropriate dependent on signs and symptoms. Workup of AA can include thyroid studies because of the association with autoimmune thyroid disease, though studies suggest limited screening benefits in children.¹¹ Given its variable and unpredictable course, management can include “watchful waiting” because of its potential for spontaneous remission.⁶ For limited patchy loss, active treatment with mid to superpotent topical steroids or intralesional triamcinolone acetonide in older children and adolescents is reasonable.¹² Other treatment options include topical or low-dose oral minoxidil and immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone or squaric acid (inducing an allergic contact dermatitis).¹² Management of therapies for more extensive AA is evolving, with ongoing studies of oral JAK-inhibitors and biologic agents.^12,13

Our patient was started on topical fluocinonide 0.05% solution and achieved good disease control and hair regrowth over the course of 3 months.

Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the university and Rady Children’s Hospital. They had no disclosures.

References

1. Bernardez C et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2015;106(3):158-67.

2. Rajabi F et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(5):1033-48.

3. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):1-12.

4. Lee S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):466-77 e16.

5. MacLean KJ and Tidman MJ. Practitioner. 2013;257(1764):29-32, 3.

6. Pratt CH et al. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17011.

7. Gilhar A et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1515-25.

8. Wyrwich KW et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(5):725-32.

9. Spano F and Donovan JC. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(9):751-5.

10. Mounsey AL and Reed SW. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(4):356-62.

11. Hordinsky MK. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2015;17(2):44-6.

12. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):15-24.

13. Zhou C et al. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2021;61(3):403-23.

Given the history of sudden hair loss, with the exam revealing a well-circumscribed patch of focal alopecia without cutaneous inflammation, hairs with a narrow base and broad distal shaft, the diagnosis is alopecia areata (AA).

Alopecia areata (AA) is a nonscarring alopecia, within a set of diseases characterized by the preservation of hair follicles and therefore the potential for future hair regrowth.¹ AA is believed to be caused by a breakdown of the immune-privileged nature of hair follicles, resulting in T-lymphocytes targeting the hair follicle directly, shifting follicles to early catagen or telogen phase, but sparing follicular stem cells, thereby allowing the follicle to regenerate in the future.^1-3 Risk factors include family history of AA, thyroid disorders, as well as iron and vitamin D deficiency.^4,5 It characteristically presents with focal, well-demarcated patches of hair loss in the scalp, typically with background skin normal to slightly pink.^3,6 Exam can show “exclamation point” hairs consisting of hairs that are narrow at their base and wide at the distal end.^3,7 Patients may also exhibit eyebrow and eyelash loss as well as nail changes including nail pitting and splitting.⁸ Diagnosis is typically made clinically but is supported by a positive hair pull test, where hairs are pulled from the periphery of an alopecic lesion; the presence of greater than 10% of hairs plucked from the scalp indicates a positive result.^9,10

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of AA includes other nonscarring alopecias such as trichotillomania and telogen effluvium. Other possible diagnoses include lichen planopilaris and tinea capitis.

Trichotillomania results in irregularly bordered hair loss and broken hairs of different lengths because of an internal urge to remove one’s hair, resulting in nonscarring alopecia. It can be associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, or other body-altering behaviors like skin picking and nail biting (characterized as body-focused repetitive behavior disorders). Treatments include reassurance and education, behavior modification, or systemic therapy including tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs. Toddlers can engage in hair pulling behavior and trichotillomania can be difficult to differentiate from AA. However, the absence of broken hairs of varying lengths makes trichotillomania less likely in this patient.

Telogen effluvium is another form of nonscarring alopecia that presents as diffuse hair thinning across the entire scalp in response to acute psychological or physiological stress, hormonal changes, certain medications, systemic illness, or nutritional deficiency. The timing between the triggering event and hair loss can vary from weeks to months. Diagnosis requires detailed history-taking and may include evaluation for endocrinologic hair thinning (e.g. thyroid function tests) to identify reversible causes. Treatment involves directing therapy to the underlying etiology and most cases of telogen effluvium are self-limited. The presence of a well-circumscribed patch of hair loss in this patient makes AA more likely.

What’s the management plan?

The diagnosis of AA is usually a clinical one, though assessment of alternative diagnoses is appropriate dependent on signs and symptoms. Workup of AA can include thyroid studies because of the association with autoimmune thyroid disease, though studies suggest limited screening benefits in children.¹¹ Given its variable and unpredictable course, management can include “watchful waiting” because of its potential for spontaneous remission.⁶ For limited patchy loss, active treatment with mid to superpotent topical steroids or intralesional triamcinolone acetonide in older children and adolescents is reasonable.¹² Other treatment options include topical or low-dose oral minoxidil and immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone or squaric acid (inducing an allergic contact dermatitis).¹² Management of therapies for more extensive AA is evolving, with ongoing studies of oral JAK-inhibitors and biologic agents.^12,13

Our patient was started on topical fluocinonide 0.05% solution and achieved good disease control and hair regrowth over the course of 3 months.

Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the university and Rady Children’s Hospital. They had no disclosures.

References

1. Bernardez C et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2015;106(3):158-67.

2. Rajabi F et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(5):1033-48.

3. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):1-12.

4. Lee S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):466-77 e16.

5. MacLean KJ and Tidman MJ. Practitioner. 2013;257(1764):29-32, 3.

6. Pratt CH et al. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17011.

7. Gilhar A et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1515-25.

8. Wyrwich KW et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(5):725-32.

9. Spano F and Donovan JC. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(9):751-5.

10. Mounsey AL and Reed SW. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(4):356-62.

11. Hordinsky MK. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2015;17(2):44-6.

12. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):15-24.

13. Zhou C et al. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2021;61(3):403-23.

An overreliance on spirometry to identify emphysema led to missed cases in Black individuals, particularly men, based on a secondary data analysis of 2,674 people.

“Over the last few years, there has been growing debate around the use of race adjustment in diagnostic algorithms and equations commonly used in medicine,” lead author Gabrielle Yi-Hui Liu, MD, said in an interview. “Whereas, previously it was common to accept racial or ethnic differences in clinical measures and outcomes as inherent differences among populations, there is now more recognition of how racism, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures can cause these racial differences. Our initial interest in this study was to examine how the use of race-specific spirometry reference equations, and the use of spirometry in general, may be contributing to racial disparities.”

“Previous studies have suggested that the use of race-specific equations in spirometry can exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare outcomes by under-recognition of early disease in Black adults, and this study adds to that evidence,” said Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“By examining the crucial ways in which systemic factors in medicine, such as race-specific equations, exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare, this study is a timely analysis in a moment of national reckoning of structural racism,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

jgaunion/Thinkstock

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Liu and colleagues at Northwestern University, Chicago, conducted a secondary analysis of data from the CARDIA Lung study (Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults).

The primary outcome of the study was the prevalence of emphysema among participants with various measures of normal spirometry results, stratified by sex and race. The normal results included an forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎–forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio greater than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to the lower limit of normal. The participants also were stratified by FEV₁ percent predicted, using race-specific reference equations, for FEV₁ between 80% and 99% of predicted, or an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted.

The study population included 485 Black men, 762 Black women, 659 White men, and 768 White women who received both a CT scan (in 2010-2011) and spirometry (obtained in 2015-2016) in the CARDIA study. The mean age of the participants at the spirometry exam was 55 years.

A total of 5.3% of the participants had emphysema after stratifying by FEV₁-FVC ratio. The prevalence was significantly higher for Black men, compared with White men (12.3% vs. 4.0%; relative risk, 3.0), and for Black women, compared with White women (5.0% vs. 2.6%; RR, 1.9).

The association between Black race and emphysema risk persisted but decreased when the researchers used a race-neutral estimate.

When the participants were stratified by race-specific FEV₁ percent predicted, 6.5% of individuals with a race-specific FEV₁ between 80% and 99% had emphysema. After controlling for factors including age and smoking, emphysema was significantly more prevalent in Black men versus White men (15.5% vs. 4.0%) and in Black women, compared with White women (6.6% vs. 3.4%).

The racial difference persisted in men with a race-specific FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted. Of these, 4.0% had emphysema. The prevalence was significantly higher in Black men, compared with White men (13.9% vs. 2.2%), but similar between Black women and White women (2.6% vs. 2.0%).

The use of race-neutral equations reduced, but did not eliminate, these disparities, the researchers said.

The findings were limited by the lack of CT imaging data from the same visit as the final spirometry collection, the researchers noted. “Given that imaging was obtained 5 years before spirometry and emphysema is an irreversible finding, this may have led to an overall underestimation of the prevalence of emphysema.”
 

Spirometry alone misses cases

“We were surprised by the substantial rates of emphysema we saw among Black men in our cohort with normal spirometry,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “We did not expect to find than more than one in eight Black men with an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% predicted would have emphysema – a rate more than six times higher than White men with the same range of FEV₁.”

“One takeaway is that we are likely missing a lot of people with impaired respiratory health or true lung disease by only using spirometry to diagnose COPD,” said Dr. Liu. In clinical practice, “physicians should consider ordering CT scans on patients with normal spirometry who have respiratory symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath. If emphysema is found, physicians should discuss mitigating any potential risk factors and consider the use of COPD medications such as inhalers.

“Our findings also support using race-neutral reference equations to interpret spirometry instead of race-specific equations. Racial disparities in rates of emphysema among those with ‘normal’ FEV₁ [between 80% and 120% predicted], were attenuated or eliminated when race-neutral equations were used to calculate FEV₁. This suggests that race-specific equations are normalizing worse lung health in Black adults,” Dr. Liu explained.

“We need to continue research into additional tools that can be used to assess respiratory health and diagnose COPD, while keeping in mind how these tools may affect racial disparities,” said Dr. Liu. “Our study suggests that our reliance on spirometry measures such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and FEV₁ is missing a number of people with respiratory symptoms and CT evidence of lung disease, and that this is disproportionately affecting Black adults in the United States.” Looking ahead, “it is important to find better tools to identify people with impaired respiratory health or early manifestations of disease so we can intercept chronic lung disease before it becomes clinically apparent and patients have sustained significant lung damage.”

The CARDIA study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Liu was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated 7/22/2022.

An overreliance on spirometry to identify emphysema led to missed cases in Black individuals, particularly men, based on a secondary data analysis of 2,674 people.

“Over the last few years, there has been growing debate around the use of race adjustment in diagnostic algorithms and equations commonly used in medicine,” lead author Gabrielle Yi-Hui Liu, MD, said in an interview. “Whereas, previously it was common to accept racial or ethnic differences in clinical measures and outcomes as inherent differences among populations, there is now more recognition of how racism, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures can cause these racial differences. Our initial interest in this study was to examine how the use of race-specific spirometry reference equations, and the use of spirometry in general, may be contributing to racial disparities.”

“Previous studies have suggested that the use of race-specific equations in spirometry can exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare outcomes by under-recognition of early disease in Black adults, and this study adds to that evidence,” said Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“By examining the crucial ways in which systemic factors in medicine, such as race-specific equations, exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare, this study is a timely analysis in a moment of national reckoning of structural racism,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

jgaunion/Thinkstock

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Liu and colleagues at Northwestern University, Chicago, conducted a secondary analysis of data from the CARDIA Lung study (Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults).

The primary outcome of the study was the prevalence of emphysema among participants with various measures of normal spirometry results, stratified by sex and race. The normal results included an forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎–forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio greater than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to the lower limit of normal. The participants also were stratified by FEV₁ percent predicted, using race-specific reference equations, for FEV₁ between 80% and 99% of predicted, or an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted.

The study population included 485 Black men, 762 Black women, 659 White men, and 768 White women who received both a CT scan (in 2010-2011) and spirometry (obtained in 2015-2016) in the CARDIA study. The mean age of the participants at the spirometry exam was 55 years.

A total of 5.3% of the participants had emphysema after stratifying by FEV₁-FVC ratio. The prevalence was significantly higher for Black men, compared with White men (12.3% vs. 4.0%; relative risk, 3.0), and for Black women, compared with White women (5.0% vs. 2.6%; RR, 1.9).

The association between Black race and emphysema risk persisted but decreased when the researchers used a race-neutral estimate.

When the participants were stratified by race-specific FEV₁ percent predicted, 6.5% of individuals with a race-specific FEV₁ between 80% and 99% had emphysema. After controlling for factors including age and smoking, emphysema was significantly more prevalent in Black men versus White men (15.5% vs. 4.0%) and in Black women, compared with White women (6.6% vs. 3.4%).

The racial difference persisted in men with a race-specific FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted. Of these, 4.0% had emphysema. The prevalence was significantly higher in Black men, compared with White men (13.9% vs. 2.2%), but similar between Black women and White women (2.6% vs. 2.0%).

The use of race-neutral equations reduced, but did not eliminate, these disparities, the researchers said.

The findings were limited by the lack of CT imaging data from the same visit as the final spirometry collection, the researchers noted. “Given that imaging was obtained 5 years before spirometry and emphysema is an irreversible finding, this may have led to an overall underestimation of the prevalence of emphysema.”
 

Spirometry alone misses cases

“We were surprised by the substantial rates of emphysema we saw among Black men in our cohort with normal spirometry,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “We did not expect to find than more than one in eight Black men with an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% predicted would have emphysema – a rate more than six times higher than White men with the same range of FEV₁.”

“One takeaway is that we are likely missing a lot of people with impaired respiratory health or true lung disease by only using spirometry to diagnose COPD,” said Dr. Liu. In clinical practice, “physicians should consider ordering CT scans on patients with normal spirometry who have respiratory symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath. If emphysema is found, physicians should discuss mitigating any potential risk factors and consider the use of COPD medications such as inhalers.

“Our findings also support using race-neutral reference equations to interpret spirometry instead of race-specific equations. Racial disparities in rates of emphysema among those with ‘normal’ FEV₁ [between 80% and 120% predicted], were attenuated or eliminated when race-neutral equations were used to calculate FEV₁. This suggests that race-specific equations are normalizing worse lung health in Black adults,” Dr. Liu explained.

“We need to continue research into additional tools that can be used to assess respiratory health and diagnose COPD, while keeping in mind how these tools may affect racial disparities,” said Dr. Liu. “Our study suggests that our reliance on spirometry measures such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and FEV₁ is missing a number of people with respiratory symptoms and CT evidence of lung disease, and that this is disproportionately affecting Black adults in the United States.” Looking ahead, “it is important to find better tools to identify people with impaired respiratory health or early manifestations of disease so we can intercept chronic lung disease before it becomes clinically apparent and patients have sustained significant lung damage.”

The CARDIA study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Liu was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated 7/22/2022.

An overreliance on spirometry to identify emphysema led to missed cases in Black individuals, particularly men, based on a secondary data analysis of 2,674 people.

“Over the last few years, there has been growing debate around the use of race adjustment in diagnostic algorithms and equations commonly used in medicine,” lead author Gabrielle Yi-Hui Liu, MD, said in an interview. “Whereas, previously it was common to accept racial or ethnic differences in clinical measures and outcomes as inherent differences among populations, there is now more recognition of how racism, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures can cause these racial differences. Our initial interest in this study was to examine how the use of race-specific spirometry reference equations, and the use of spirometry in general, may be contributing to racial disparities.”

“Previous studies have suggested that the use of race-specific equations in spirometry can exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare outcomes by under-recognition of early disease in Black adults, and this study adds to that evidence,” said Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“By examining the crucial ways in which systemic factors in medicine, such as race-specific equations, exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare, this study is a timely analysis in a moment of national reckoning of structural racism,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

jgaunion/Thinkstock

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Liu and colleagues at Northwestern University, Chicago, conducted a secondary analysis of data from the CARDIA Lung study (Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults).

The primary outcome of the study was the prevalence of emphysema among participants with various measures of normal spirometry results, stratified by sex and race. The normal results included an forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎–forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio greater than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to the lower limit of normal. The participants also were stratified by FEV₁ percent predicted, using race-specific reference equations, for FEV₁ between 80% and 99% of predicted, or an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted.

The study population included 485 Black men, 762 Black women, 659 White men, and 768 White women who received both a CT scan (in 2010-2011) and spirometry (obtained in 2015-2016) in the CARDIA study. The mean age of the participants at the spirometry exam was 55 years.

A total of 5.3% of the participants had emphysema after stratifying by FEV₁-FVC ratio. The prevalence was significantly higher for Black men, compared with White men (12.3% vs. 4.0%; relative risk, 3.0), and for Black women, compared with White women (5.0% vs. 2.6%; RR, 1.9).

The association between Black race and emphysema risk persisted but decreased when the researchers used a race-neutral estimate.

When the participants were stratified by race-specific FEV₁ percent predicted, 6.5% of individuals with a race-specific FEV₁ between 80% and 99% had emphysema. After controlling for factors including age and smoking, emphysema was significantly more prevalent in Black men versus White men (15.5% vs. 4.0%) and in Black women, compared with White women (6.6% vs. 3.4%).

The racial difference persisted in men with a race-specific FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted. Of these, 4.0% had emphysema. The prevalence was significantly higher in Black men, compared with White men (13.9% vs. 2.2%), but similar between Black women and White women (2.6% vs. 2.0%).

The use of race-neutral equations reduced, but did not eliminate, these disparities, the researchers said.

The findings were limited by the lack of CT imaging data from the same visit as the final spirometry collection, the researchers noted. “Given that imaging was obtained 5 years before spirometry and emphysema is an irreversible finding, this may have led to an overall underestimation of the prevalence of emphysema.”
 

Spirometry alone misses cases

“We were surprised by the substantial rates of emphysema we saw among Black men in our cohort with normal spirometry,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “We did not expect to find than more than one in eight Black men with an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% predicted would have emphysema – a rate more than six times higher than White men with the same range of FEV₁.”

“One takeaway is that we are likely missing a lot of people with impaired respiratory health or true lung disease by only using spirometry to diagnose COPD,” said Dr. Liu. In clinical practice, “physicians should consider ordering CT scans on patients with normal spirometry who have respiratory symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath. If emphysema is found, physicians should discuss mitigating any potential risk factors and consider the use of COPD medications such as inhalers.

“Our findings also support using race-neutral reference equations to interpret spirometry instead of race-specific equations. Racial disparities in rates of emphysema among those with ‘normal’ FEV₁ [between 80% and 120% predicted], were attenuated or eliminated when race-neutral equations were used to calculate FEV₁. This suggests that race-specific equations are normalizing worse lung health in Black adults,” Dr. Liu explained.

“We need to continue research into additional tools that can be used to assess respiratory health and diagnose COPD, while keeping in mind how these tools may affect racial disparities,” said Dr. Liu. “Our study suggests that our reliance on spirometry measures such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and FEV₁ is missing a number of people with respiratory symptoms and CT evidence of lung disease, and that this is disproportionately affecting Black adults in the United States.” Looking ahead, “it is important to find better tools to identify people with impaired respiratory health or early manifestations of disease so we can intercept chronic lung disease before it becomes clinically apparent and patients have sustained significant lung damage.”

The CARDIA study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Liu was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated 7/22/2022.