Feature

Once again, America is deeply divided before a national election, with people on each side convinced of the horrors that will be visited upon us if the other side wins. 

’Tis the season — and regrettably, not to be jolly but to be worried.

As a neuroscientist, I am especially aware of the deleterious mental and physical impact of chronic worry on our citizenry. That’s because worry is not “all in your head.” Chronic mild stress drives a panoply of negative changes in your body and brain that add to your risk for physical and neurologic troubles. We modern humans live in a world of worry which appears to be progressively growing.
 

Flight or Fight

Worry stems from the brain’s rather remarkable ability to foresee and reflexively respond to threat. Our “fight or flight” brain machinery probably arose in our vertebrate ancestors more than 300 million years ago. The fact that we have machinery akin to that possessed by lizards or tigers or shrews is testimony to its crucial contribution to our species’ survival.

As the phrase “fight or flight” suggests, a brain that senses trouble immediately biases certain body and brain functions. As it shifts into a higher-alert mode, it increases the energy supplies in our blood and supports other changes that facilitate faster and stronger reactions, while it shuts down less essential processes which do not contribute to hiding, fighting, or running like hell.

This hyperreactive response is initiated in the amygdala in the anterior brain, which identifies “what’s happening” as immediately or potentially threatening. The now-activated amygdala generates a response in the hypothalamus that provokes an immediate increase of adrenaline and cortisol in the body, and cortisol and noradrenaline in the brain. Both sharply speed up our physical and neurologic reactivity. In the brain, that is achieved by increasing the level of excitability of neurons across the forebrain. Depending on the perceived level of threat, an excitable brain will be just a little or a lot more “on alert,” just a little or a lot faster to respond, and just a little or a lot better at remembering the specific “warning” events that trigger this lizard-brain response. 

Alas, this machinery was designed to be engaged every so often when a potentially dangerous surprise arises in life. When the worry and stress are persistent, the brain experiences a kind of neurologic “burn-out” of its fight versus flight machinery.
 

Dangers of Nonstop Anxiety and Stress

A consistently stressed-out brain turns down its production and release of noradrenaline, and the brain becomes less attentive, less engaged. This sets the brain on the path to an anxiety (and then a depressive) disorder, and, in the longer term, to cognitive losses in memory and executive control systems, and to emotional distortions that can lead to substance abuse or other addictions.

Our political distress is but one source of persistent worry and stress. Worry is a modern plague. The head counts of individuals seeking psychiatric or psychological health are at an all-time high in the United States. Near-universal low-level stressors, such as 2 years of COVID, insecurities about the changing demands of our professional and private lives, and a deeply divided body politic are unequivocally affecting American brain health.

The brain also collaborates in our body’s response to stress. Its regulation of hormonal responses and its autonomic nervous system’s mediated responses contribute to elevated blood sugar levels, to craving high-sugar foods, to elevated blood pressure, and to weaker immune responses. This all contributes to higher risks for cardiovascular and other dietary- and immune system–related disease. And ultimately, to shorter lifespans.
 

Strategies to Address Neurologic Changes Arising From Chronic Stress

There are many things you can try to bring your worry back to a manageable (and even productive) level.

• Engage in a “reset” strategy several times a day to bring your amygdala and locus coeruleus back under control. It takes a minute (or five) of calm, positive meditation to take your brain to a happy, optimistic place. Or use a mindfulness exercise to quiet down that overactive amygdala.
• Talk to people. Keeping your worries to yourself can compound them. Hashing through your concerns with a family member, friend, professional coach, or therapist can help put them in perspective and may allow you to come up with strategies to identify and neurologically respond to your sources of stress.
• Exercise, both physically and mentally. Do what works for you, whether it’s a run, a long walk, pumping iron, playing racquetball — anything that promotes physical release. Exercise your brain too. Engage in a project or activity that is mentally demanding. Personally, I like to garden and do online brain exercises. There’s nothing quite like yanking out weeds or hitting a new personal best at a cognitive exercise for me to notch a sense of accomplishment to counterbalance the unresolved issues driving my worry.
• Accept the uncertainty. Life is full of uncertainty. To paraphrase from Yale theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s “Serenity Prayer”: Have the serenity to accept what you cannot help, the courage to change what you can, and the wisdom to recognize one from the other.

And, please, be assured that you’ll make it through this election season.

Dr. Merzenich, professor emeritus, Department of Neuroscience, University of California San Francisco, disclosed ties with Posit Science. He is often credited with discovering lifelong plasticity, with being the first to harness plasticity for human benefit (in his co-invention of the cochlear implant), and for pioneering the field of plasticity-based computerized brain exercise. He is a Kavli Laureate in Neuroscience, and he has been honored by each of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. He may be most widely known for a series of specials on the brain on public television. His current focus is  BrainHQ, a brain exercise app.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once again, America is deeply divided before a national election, with people on each side convinced of the horrors that will be visited upon us if the other side wins. 

’Tis the season — and regrettably, not to be jolly but to be worried.

As a neuroscientist, I am especially aware of the deleterious mental and physical impact of chronic worry on our citizenry. That’s because worry is not “all in your head.” Chronic mild stress drives a panoply of negative changes in your body and brain that add to your risk for physical and neurologic troubles. We modern humans live in a world of worry which appears to be progressively growing.
 

Flight or Fight

Worry stems from the brain’s rather remarkable ability to foresee and reflexively respond to threat. Our “fight or flight” brain machinery probably arose in our vertebrate ancestors more than 300 million years ago. The fact that we have machinery akin to that possessed by lizards or tigers or shrews is testimony to its crucial contribution to our species’ survival.

As the phrase “fight or flight” suggests, a brain that senses trouble immediately biases certain body and brain functions. As it shifts into a higher-alert mode, it increases the energy supplies in our blood and supports other changes that facilitate faster and stronger reactions, while it shuts down less essential processes which do not contribute to hiding, fighting, or running like hell.

This hyperreactive response is initiated in the amygdala in the anterior brain, which identifies “what’s happening” as immediately or potentially threatening. The now-activated amygdala generates a response in the hypothalamus that provokes an immediate increase of adrenaline and cortisol in the body, and cortisol and noradrenaline in the brain. Both sharply speed up our physical and neurologic reactivity. In the brain, that is achieved by increasing the level of excitability of neurons across the forebrain. Depending on the perceived level of threat, an excitable brain will be just a little or a lot more “on alert,” just a little or a lot faster to respond, and just a little or a lot better at remembering the specific “warning” events that trigger this lizard-brain response. 

Alas, this machinery was designed to be engaged every so often when a potentially dangerous surprise arises in life. When the worry and stress are persistent, the brain experiences a kind of neurologic “burn-out” of its fight versus flight machinery.
 

Dangers of Nonstop Anxiety and Stress

A consistently stressed-out brain turns down its production and release of noradrenaline, and the brain becomes less attentive, less engaged. This sets the brain on the path to an anxiety (and then a depressive) disorder, and, in the longer term, to cognitive losses in memory and executive control systems, and to emotional distortions that can lead to substance abuse or other addictions.

Our political distress is but one source of persistent worry and stress. Worry is a modern plague. The head counts of individuals seeking psychiatric or psychological health are at an all-time high in the United States. Near-universal low-level stressors, such as 2 years of COVID, insecurities about the changing demands of our professional and private lives, and a deeply divided body politic are unequivocally affecting American brain health.

The brain also collaborates in our body’s response to stress. Its regulation of hormonal responses and its autonomic nervous system’s mediated responses contribute to elevated blood sugar levels, to craving high-sugar foods, to elevated blood pressure, and to weaker immune responses. This all contributes to higher risks for cardiovascular and other dietary- and immune system–related disease. And ultimately, to shorter lifespans.
 

Strategies to Address Neurologic Changes Arising From Chronic Stress

There are many things you can try to bring your worry back to a manageable (and even productive) level.

• Engage in a “reset” strategy several times a day to bring your amygdala and locus coeruleus back under control. It takes a minute (or five) of calm, positive meditation to take your brain to a happy, optimistic place. Or use a mindfulness exercise to quiet down that overactive amygdala.
• Talk to people. Keeping your worries to yourself can compound them. Hashing through your concerns with a family member, friend, professional coach, or therapist can help put them in perspective and may allow you to come up with strategies to identify and neurologically respond to your sources of stress.
• Exercise, both physically and mentally. Do what works for you, whether it’s a run, a long walk, pumping iron, playing racquetball — anything that promotes physical release. Exercise your brain too. Engage in a project or activity that is mentally demanding. Personally, I like to garden and do online brain exercises. There’s nothing quite like yanking out weeds or hitting a new personal best at a cognitive exercise for me to notch a sense of accomplishment to counterbalance the unresolved issues driving my worry.
• Accept the uncertainty. Life is full of uncertainty. To paraphrase from Yale theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s “Serenity Prayer”: Have the serenity to accept what you cannot help, the courage to change what you can, and the wisdom to recognize one from the other.

And, please, be assured that you’ll make it through this election season.

Dr. Merzenich, professor emeritus, Department of Neuroscience, University of California San Francisco, disclosed ties with Posit Science. He is often credited with discovering lifelong plasticity, with being the first to harness plasticity for human benefit (in his co-invention of the cochlear implant), and for pioneering the field of plasticity-based computerized brain exercise. He is a Kavli Laureate in Neuroscience, and he has been honored by each of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. He may be most widely known for a series of specials on the brain on public television. His current focus is  BrainHQ, a brain exercise app.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once again, America is deeply divided before a national election, with people on each side convinced of the horrors that will be visited upon us if the other side wins. 

’Tis the season — and regrettably, not to be jolly but to be worried.

As a neuroscientist, I am especially aware of the deleterious mental and physical impact of chronic worry on our citizenry. That’s because worry is not “all in your head.” Chronic mild stress drives a panoply of negative changes in your body and brain that add to your risk for physical and neurologic troubles. We modern humans live in a world of worry which appears to be progressively growing.
 

Flight or Fight

Worry stems from the brain’s rather remarkable ability to foresee and reflexively respond to threat. Our “fight or flight” brain machinery probably arose in our vertebrate ancestors more than 300 million years ago. The fact that we have machinery akin to that possessed by lizards or tigers or shrews is testimony to its crucial contribution to our species’ survival.

As the phrase “fight or flight” suggests, a brain that senses trouble immediately biases certain body and brain functions. As it shifts into a higher-alert mode, it increases the energy supplies in our blood and supports other changes that facilitate faster and stronger reactions, while it shuts down less essential processes which do not contribute to hiding, fighting, or running like hell.

This hyperreactive response is initiated in the amygdala in the anterior brain, which identifies “what’s happening” as immediately or potentially threatening. The now-activated amygdala generates a response in the hypothalamus that provokes an immediate increase of adrenaline and cortisol in the body, and cortisol and noradrenaline in the brain. Both sharply speed up our physical and neurologic reactivity. In the brain, that is achieved by increasing the level of excitability of neurons across the forebrain. Depending on the perceived level of threat, an excitable brain will be just a little or a lot more “on alert,” just a little or a lot faster to respond, and just a little or a lot better at remembering the specific “warning” events that trigger this lizard-brain response. 

Alas, this machinery was designed to be engaged every so often when a potentially dangerous surprise arises in life. When the worry and stress are persistent, the brain experiences a kind of neurologic “burn-out” of its fight versus flight machinery.
 

Dangers of Nonstop Anxiety and Stress

A consistently stressed-out brain turns down its production and release of noradrenaline, and the brain becomes less attentive, less engaged. This sets the brain on the path to an anxiety (and then a depressive) disorder, and, in the longer term, to cognitive losses in memory and executive control systems, and to emotional distortions that can lead to substance abuse or other addictions.

Our political distress is but one source of persistent worry and stress. Worry is a modern plague. The head counts of individuals seeking psychiatric or psychological health are at an all-time high in the United States. Near-universal low-level stressors, such as 2 years of COVID, insecurities about the changing demands of our professional and private lives, and a deeply divided body politic are unequivocally affecting American brain health.

The brain also collaborates in our body’s response to stress. Its regulation of hormonal responses and its autonomic nervous system’s mediated responses contribute to elevated blood sugar levels, to craving high-sugar foods, to elevated blood pressure, and to weaker immune responses. This all contributes to higher risks for cardiovascular and other dietary- and immune system–related disease. And ultimately, to shorter lifespans.
 

Strategies to Address Neurologic Changes Arising From Chronic Stress

There are many things you can try to bring your worry back to a manageable (and even productive) level.

• Engage in a “reset” strategy several times a day to bring your amygdala and locus coeruleus back under control. It takes a minute (or five) of calm, positive meditation to take your brain to a happy, optimistic place. Or use a mindfulness exercise to quiet down that overactive amygdala.
• Talk to people. Keeping your worries to yourself can compound them. Hashing through your concerns with a family member, friend, professional coach, or therapist can help put them in perspective and may allow you to come up with strategies to identify and neurologically respond to your sources of stress.
• Exercise, both physically and mentally. Do what works for you, whether it’s a run, a long walk, pumping iron, playing racquetball — anything that promotes physical release. Exercise your brain too. Engage in a project or activity that is mentally demanding. Personally, I like to garden and do online brain exercises. There’s nothing quite like yanking out weeds or hitting a new personal best at a cognitive exercise for me to notch a sense of accomplishment to counterbalance the unresolved issues driving my worry.
• Accept the uncertainty. Life is full of uncertainty. To paraphrase from Yale theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s “Serenity Prayer”: Have the serenity to accept what you cannot help, the courage to change what you can, and the wisdom to recognize one from the other.

And, please, be assured that you’ll make it through this election season.

Dr. Merzenich, professor emeritus, Department of Neuroscience, University of California San Francisco, disclosed ties with Posit Science. He is often credited with discovering lifelong plasticity, with being the first to harness plasticity for human benefit (in his co-invention of the cochlear implant), and for pioneering the field of plasticity-based computerized brain exercise. He is a Kavli Laureate in Neuroscience, and he has been honored by each of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. He may be most widely known for a series of specials on the brain on public television. His current focus is  BrainHQ, a brain exercise app.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved denileukin diftitox-cxdl (Lymphir, Citius Pharmaceuticals) for adults with relapsed or refractory stage 1-3 cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after at least one prior systemic therapy.

The immunotherapy is a reformulation of denileukin diftitox (Ontak), initially approved in 1999 for certain patients with persistent or recurrent cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In 2014, the original formulation was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market. Citius acquired rights to market a reformulated product outside of Asia in 2021. 

This is the first indication for Lymphir, which targets interleukin-2 receptors on malignant T cells.

This approval marks “a significant milestone” for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer, company CEO Leonard Mazur said in a press release announcing the approval. “The introduction of Lymphir, with its potential to rapidly reduce skin disease and control symptomatic itching without cumulative toxicity, is expected to expand the [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] treatment landscape and grow the overall market, currently estimated to be $300-$400 million.” 

Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label 302 study in 69 patients who had a median of four prior anticancer therapies. Patients received 9 mcg/kg daily from day 1 to day 5 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 36.2%, including complete responses in 8.7% of patients. Responses lasted 6 months or longer in 52% of patients. Over 80% of subjects had a decrease in skin tumor burden, and almost a third had clinically significant improvements in pruritus. 

Adverse events occurring in 20% or more of patients include increased transaminases, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, nausea, edema, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, chills, constipation, pyrexia, and capillary leak syndrome.

Labeling carries a boxed warning of capillary leak syndrome. Other warnings include visual impairment, infusion reactions, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. Citius is under a postmarketing requirement to characterize the risk for visual impairment.

The company expects to launch the agent within 5 months.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved denileukin diftitox-cxdl (Lymphir, Citius Pharmaceuticals) for adults with relapsed or refractory stage 1-3 cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after at least one prior systemic therapy.

The immunotherapy is a reformulation of denileukin diftitox (Ontak), initially approved in 1999 for certain patients with persistent or recurrent cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In 2014, the original formulation was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market. Citius acquired rights to market a reformulated product outside of Asia in 2021. 

This is the first indication for Lymphir, which targets interleukin-2 receptors on malignant T cells.

This approval marks “a significant milestone” for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer, company CEO Leonard Mazur said in a press release announcing the approval. “The introduction of Lymphir, with its potential to rapidly reduce skin disease and control symptomatic itching without cumulative toxicity, is expected to expand the [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] treatment landscape and grow the overall market, currently estimated to be $300-$400 million.” 

Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label 302 study in 69 patients who had a median of four prior anticancer therapies. Patients received 9 mcg/kg daily from day 1 to day 5 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 36.2%, including complete responses in 8.7% of patients. Responses lasted 6 months or longer in 52% of patients. Over 80% of subjects had a decrease in skin tumor burden, and almost a third had clinically significant improvements in pruritus. 

Adverse events occurring in 20% or more of patients include increased transaminases, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, nausea, edema, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, chills, constipation, pyrexia, and capillary leak syndrome.

Labeling carries a boxed warning of capillary leak syndrome. Other warnings include visual impairment, infusion reactions, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. Citius is under a postmarketing requirement to characterize the risk for visual impairment.

The company expects to launch the agent within 5 months.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved denileukin diftitox-cxdl (Lymphir, Citius Pharmaceuticals) for adults with relapsed or refractory stage 1-3 cutaneous T-cell lymphoma after at least one prior systemic therapy.

The immunotherapy is a reformulation of denileukin diftitox (Ontak), initially approved in 1999 for certain patients with persistent or recurrent cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In 2014, the original formulation was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market. Citius acquired rights to market a reformulated product outside of Asia in 2021. 

This is the first indication for Lymphir, which targets interleukin-2 receptors on malignant T cells.

This approval marks “a significant milestone” for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer, company CEO Leonard Mazur said in a press release announcing the approval. “The introduction of Lymphir, with its potential to rapidly reduce skin disease and control symptomatic itching without cumulative toxicity, is expected to expand the [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] treatment landscape and grow the overall market, currently estimated to be $300-$400 million.” 

Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label 302 study in 69 patients who had a median of four prior anticancer therapies. Patients received 9 mcg/kg daily from day 1 to day 5 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The objective response rate was 36.2%, including complete responses in 8.7% of patients. Responses lasted 6 months or longer in 52% of patients. Over 80% of subjects had a decrease in skin tumor burden, and almost a third had clinically significant improvements in pruritus. 

Adverse events occurring in 20% or more of patients include increased transaminases, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, nausea, edema, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, chills, constipation, pyrexia, and capillary leak syndrome.

Labeling carries a boxed warning of capillary leak syndrome. Other warnings include visual impairment, infusion reactions, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. Citius is under a postmarketing requirement to characterize the risk for visual impairment.

The company expects to launch the agent within 5 months.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Peter Grinspoon, MD, has some advice for clinicians when patients ask questions about microdosing of psychedelics: Keep the lines of communication open — and don’t be judgmental.

“If you’re dismissive or critical or sound like you’re judging them, then the patients just clam up,” said Dr. Grinspoon, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a primary care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

Psychedelic drugs are still illegal in the majority of states despite the growth of public interest in and use of these substances. That growth is evidenced by a flurry of workshops, reports, law enforcement seizures, and pressure by Congressional members for the Food and Drug Administration to approve new psychedelic drugs, just in the past year.

A recent study in JAMA Health Forum showed a nearly 14-fold increase in Google searches — from 7.9 to 105.6 per 10 million nationwide — for the term “microdosing” and related wording, between 2015 and 2023.

Two states — Oregon and Colorado — have decriminalized certain psychedelic drugs and are in various stages of establishing regulations and centers for prospective clients. Almost two dozen localities, like Ann Arbor, Michigan, have decriminalized psychedelic drugs. A handful of states have active legislation to decriminalize use, while others have bills that never made it out of committee.

But no definitive studies have reported that microdosing produces positive mental effects at a higher rate than placebo, according to Dr. Grinspoon. So responding to patient inquiries about microdosing can be complicated, and clinicians must provide counsel on issues of legality and therapeutic appropriateness.

“We’re in this renaissance where everybody is idealizing these medications, as opposed to 20 years ago when we were in the war on drugs and everybody was dismissing them,” Dr. Grinspoon said. “The truth is somewhere in between.”
 

The Science

Microdosing is defined as taking doses of 1/5 to 1/20 of the conventional recreational amount, which might include a dried psilocybin mushroom, lysergic acid diethylamide, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. But even that much may be neither effective nor safe.

Dr. Grinspoon said clinicians should tell patients that psychedelics may cause harm, although the drugs are relatively nontoxic and are not addictive. An illegally obtained psilocybin could cause negative reactions, especially if the drug has been adulterated with other substances and if the actual dose is higher than what was indicated by the seller.

He noted that people have different reactions to psychedelics, just as they have to prescription medications. He cited one example of a woman who microdosed and could not sleep for 2 weeks afterward. Only recently have randomized, double-blinded studies begun on benefits and harms.

Researchers have also begun investigating whether long-term microdosing of psilocybin could lead to valvular heart disease (VHD), said Kevin Yang, MD, a psychiatry resident at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. A recent review of evidence concluded that microdosing various psychedelics over a period of months can lead to drug-induced VHD.

“It’s extremely important to emphasize with patients that not only do we not know if it works or not, we also don’t really know how safe it is,” Dr. Yang said.

Dr. Yang also said clinicians should consider referring patients to a mental health professional, and especially those that may have expertise in psychedelic therapies.

One of those experts is Rachel Yehuda, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Psychotherapy and Trauma Research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. She said therapists should be able to assess the patient’s perceived need for microdosing and “invite reflections about why current approaches are falling short.”

“I would also not actively discourage it either but remain curious until both of you have a better understanding of the reasons for seeking this out and potential alternative strategies for obtaining more therapeutic benefits,” she said. “I think it is really important to study the effects of both micro- and macrodosing of psychedelics but not move in advance of the data.”
 

Navigating Legality

Recent ballot measures in Oregon and Colorado directed the states to develop regulated and licensed psilocybin-assisted therapy centers for legal “trips.” Oregon’s first center was opened in 2023, and Colorado is now developing its own licensing model.

According to the Oregon Health Authority, the centers are not medical facilities, and prescription or referral from a medical professional is not required.

The Oregon Academy of Family Physicians (OAFP) has yet to release guidance to clinicians on how to talk to their patients about these drugs or potential interest in visiting a licensed therapy center.

However, Betsy Boyd-Flynn, executive director of OAFP, said the organization is working on continuing medical education for what the average family physician needs to know if a patient asks about use.

“We suspect that many of our members have interest and want to learn more,” she said.

Dr. Grinspoon said clinicians should talk with patients about legality during these conversations.

“The big question I get is: ‘I really want to try microdosing, but how do I obtain the mushrooms?’ ” he said. “You can’t really as a physician tell them to do anything illegal. So you tell them to be safe, be careful, and to use their judgment.”

Patients who want to pursue microdosing who do not live in Oregon have two legal and safe options, Dr. Grinspoon said: Enroll in a clinical study or find a facility in a state or country — such as Oregon or Jamaica — that offers microdosing with psilocybin.

Clinicians also should warn their patients that the consequences of obtaining illicit psilocybin could exacerbate the mental health stresses they are seeking to alleviate.

“It’s going to get worse if they get tangled up with law enforcement or take something that’s contaminated and they get real sick,” he said.

Lisa Gillespie contributed reporting to this story. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Peter Grinspoon, MD, has some advice for clinicians when patients ask questions about microdosing of psychedelics: Keep the lines of communication open — and don’t be judgmental.

“If you’re dismissive or critical or sound like you’re judging them, then the patients just clam up,” said Dr. Grinspoon, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a primary care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

Psychedelic drugs are still illegal in the majority of states despite the growth of public interest in and use of these substances. That growth is evidenced by a flurry of workshops, reports, law enforcement seizures, and pressure by Congressional members for the Food and Drug Administration to approve new psychedelic drugs, just in the past year.

A recent study in JAMA Health Forum showed a nearly 14-fold increase in Google searches — from 7.9 to 105.6 per 10 million nationwide — for the term “microdosing” and related wording, between 2015 and 2023.

Two states — Oregon and Colorado — have decriminalized certain psychedelic drugs and are in various stages of establishing regulations and centers for prospective clients. Almost two dozen localities, like Ann Arbor, Michigan, have decriminalized psychedelic drugs. A handful of states have active legislation to decriminalize use, while others have bills that never made it out of committee.

But no definitive studies have reported that microdosing produces positive mental effects at a higher rate than placebo, according to Dr. Grinspoon. So responding to patient inquiries about microdosing can be complicated, and clinicians must provide counsel on issues of legality and therapeutic appropriateness.

“We’re in this renaissance where everybody is idealizing these medications, as opposed to 20 years ago when we were in the war on drugs and everybody was dismissing them,” Dr. Grinspoon said. “The truth is somewhere in between.”
 

The Science

Microdosing is defined as taking doses of 1/5 to 1/20 of the conventional recreational amount, which might include a dried psilocybin mushroom, lysergic acid diethylamide, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. But even that much may be neither effective nor safe.

Dr. Grinspoon said clinicians should tell patients that psychedelics may cause harm, although the drugs are relatively nontoxic and are not addictive. An illegally obtained psilocybin could cause negative reactions, especially if the drug has been adulterated with other substances and if the actual dose is higher than what was indicated by the seller.

He noted that people have different reactions to psychedelics, just as they have to prescription medications. He cited one example of a woman who microdosed and could not sleep for 2 weeks afterward. Only recently have randomized, double-blinded studies begun on benefits and harms.

Researchers have also begun investigating whether long-term microdosing of psilocybin could lead to valvular heart disease (VHD), said Kevin Yang, MD, a psychiatry resident at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. A recent review of evidence concluded that microdosing various psychedelics over a period of months can lead to drug-induced VHD.

“It’s extremely important to emphasize with patients that not only do we not know if it works or not, we also don’t really know how safe it is,” Dr. Yang said.

Dr. Yang also said clinicians should consider referring patients to a mental health professional, and especially those that may have expertise in psychedelic therapies.

One of those experts is Rachel Yehuda, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Psychotherapy and Trauma Research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. She said therapists should be able to assess the patient’s perceived need for microdosing and “invite reflections about why current approaches are falling short.”

“I would also not actively discourage it either but remain curious until both of you have a better understanding of the reasons for seeking this out and potential alternative strategies for obtaining more therapeutic benefits,” she said. “I think it is really important to study the effects of both micro- and macrodosing of psychedelics but not move in advance of the data.”
 

Navigating Legality

Recent ballot measures in Oregon and Colorado directed the states to develop regulated and licensed psilocybin-assisted therapy centers for legal “trips.” Oregon’s first center was opened in 2023, and Colorado is now developing its own licensing model.

According to the Oregon Health Authority, the centers are not medical facilities, and prescription or referral from a medical professional is not required.

The Oregon Academy of Family Physicians (OAFP) has yet to release guidance to clinicians on how to talk to their patients about these drugs or potential interest in visiting a licensed therapy center.

However, Betsy Boyd-Flynn, executive director of OAFP, said the organization is working on continuing medical education for what the average family physician needs to know if a patient asks about use.

“We suspect that many of our members have interest and want to learn more,” she said.

Dr. Grinspoon said clinicians should talk with patients about legality during these conversations.

“The big question I get is: ‘I really want to try microdosing, but how do I obtain the mushrooms?’ ” he said. “You can’t really as a physician tell them to do anything illegal. So you tell them to be safe, be careful, and to use their judgment.”

Patients who want to pursue microdosing who do not live in Oregon have two legal and safe options, Dr. Grinspoon said: Enroll in a clinical study or find a facility in a state or country — such as Oregon or Jamaica — that offers microdosing with psilocybin.

Clinicians also should warn their patients that the consequences of obtaining illicit psilocybin could exacerbate the mental health stresses they are seeking to alleviate.

“It’s going to get worse if they get tangled up with law enforcement or take something that’s contaminated and they get real sick,” he said.

Lisa Gillespie contributed reporting to this story. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Peter Grinspoon, MD, has some advice for clinicians when patients ask questions about microdosing of psychedelics: Keep the lines of communication open — and don’t be judgmental.

“If you’re dismissive or critical or sound like you’re judging them, then the patients just clam up,” said Dr. Grinspoon, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a primary care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

Psychedelic drugs are still illegal in the majority of states despite the growth of public interest in and use of these substances. That growth is evidenced by a flurry of workshops, reports, law enforcement seizures, and pressure by Congressional members for the Food and Drug Administration to approve new psychedelic drugs, just in the past year.

A recent study in JAMA Health Forum showed a nearly 14-fold increase in Google searches — from 7.9 to 105.6 per 10 million nationwide — for the term “microdosing” and related wording, between 2015 and 2023.

Two states — Oregon and Colorado — have decriminalized certain psychedelic drugs and are in various stages of establishing regulations and centers for prospective clients. Almost two dozen localities, like Ann Arbor, Michigan, have decriminalized psychedelic drugs. A handful of states have active legislation to decriminalize use, while others have bills that never made it out of committee.

But no definitive studies have reported that microdosing produces positive mental effects at a higher rate than placebo, according to Dr. Grinspoon. So responding to patient inquiries about microdosing can be complicated, and clinicians must provide counsel on issues of legality and therapeutic appropriateness.

“We’re in this renaissance where everybody is idealizing these medications, as opposed to 20 years ago when we were in the war on drugs and everybody was dismissing them,” Dr. Grinspoon said. “The truth is somewhere in between.”
 

The Science

Microdosing is defined as taking doses of 1/5 to 1/20 of the conventional recreational amount, which might include a dried psilocybin mushroom, lysergic acid diethylamide, or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. But even that much may be neither effective nor safe.

Dr. Grinspoon said clinicians should tell patients that psychedelics may cause harm, although the drugs are relatively nontoxic and are not addictive. An illegally obtained psilocybin could cause negative reactions, especially if the drug has been adulterated with other substances and if the actual dose is higher than what was indicated by the seller.

He noted that people have different reactions to psychedelics, just as they have to prescription medications. He cited one example of a woman who microdosed and could not sleep for 2 weeks afterward. Only recently have randomized, double-blinded studies begun on benefits and harms.

Researchers have also begun investigating whether long-term microdosing of psilocybin could lead to valvular heart disease (VHD), said Kevin Yang, MD, a psychiatry resident at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. A recent review of evidence concluded that microdosing various psychedelics over a period of months can lead to drug-induced VHD.

“It’s extremely important to emphasize with patients that not only do we not know if it works or not, we also don’t really know how safe it is,” Dr. Yang said.

Dr. Yang also said clinicians should consider referring patients to a mental health professional, and especially those that may have expertise in psychedelic therapies.

One of those experts is Rachel Yehuda, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Psychotherapy and Trauma Research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. She said therapists should be able to assess the patient’s perceived need for microdosing and “invite reflections about why current approaches are falling short.”

“I would also not actively discourage it either but remain curious until both of you have a better understanding of the reasons for seeking this out and potential alternative strategies for obtaining more therapeutic benefits,” she said. “I think it is really important to study the effects of both micro- and macrodosing of psychedelics but not move in advance of the data.”
 

Navigating Legality

Recent ballot measures in Oregon and Colorado directed the states to develop regulated and licensed psilocybin-assisted therapy centers for legal “trips.” Oregon’s first center was opened in 2023, and Colorado is now developing its own licensing model.

According to the Oregon Health Authority, the centers are not medical facilities, and prescription or referral from a medical professional is not required.

The Oregon Academy of Family Physicians (OAFP) has yet to release guidance to clinicians on how to talk to their patients about these drugs or potential interest in visiting a licensed therapy center.

However, Betsy Boyd-Flynn, executive director of OAFP, said the organization is working on continuing medical education for what the average family physician needs to know if a patient asks about use.

“We suspect that many of our members have interest and want to learn more,” she said.

Dr. Grinspoon said clinicians should talk with patients about legality during these conversations.

“The big question I get is: ‘I really want to try microdosing, but how do I obtain the mushrooms?’ ” he said. “You can’t really as a physician tell them to do anything illegal. So you tell them to be safe, be careful, and to use their judgment.”

Patients who want to pursue microdosing who do not live in Oregon have two legal and safe options, Dr. Grinspoon said: Enroll in a clinical study or find a facility in a state or country — such as Oregon or Jamaica — that offers microdosing with psilocybin.

Clinicians also should warn their patients that the consequences of obtaining illicit psilocybin could exacerbate the mental health stresses they are seeking to alleviate.

“It’s going to get worse if they get tangled up with law enforcement or take something that’s contaminated and they get real sick,” he said.

Lisa Gillespie contributed reporting to this story. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been a lifesaving treatment for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), yet exactly how it works has largely remained a mystery. Now researchers believe they have uncovered the underlying mechanisms behind its therapeutic effects — a discovery that may help clinicians better predict treatment response in individual patients and quell much of the fear and stigma associated with one of psychiatry’s most effective, yet misunderstood, treatments.

Two recent papers published in Translational Psychiatry have highlighted the significance of aperiodic neural activity. The first study showed this activity increased following ECT treatment. The second study expanded on these data by demonstrating a significant increase in aperiodic activity after patients received either ECT or magnetic seizure therapy (MST), which has a better side-effect profile than ECT but lower efficacy.

Aperiodic activity is “like the brain’s background noise, and for years scientists treated it that way and didn’t pay much attention to it,” first author Sydney E. Smith, a PhD candidate at the Voytek Lab in the Neuroscience Graduate Program at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), said in a press release.

However, aperiodic activity boosts inhibitory activity in the brain, effectively slowing it down,” the investigators noted.

In an interview with this news organization, Ms. Smith used a car analogy to explain the mechanism behind ECT. “ECT might be increasing the activity levels in the brain cells that help calm it down. It taps on the brakes that tend to malfunction in depression. By restoring the balance between the gas and the brakes in the brain, some of those depressive symptoms are alleviated,” she said.

Ms. Smith added her team’s research helps demystify one of the most effective yet stigmatized treatments for severe depression.

“Aperiodic activity as a physiologically interpretable EEG metric could be a really valuable new predictive indicator for treatment response,” she added.
 

Fear and Stigma

ECT is primarily used for TRD and is effective in up to 80% of patients, yet it remains one of the least prescribed treatments.

Although it’s been around for almost 90 years, fear and concern about its potential cognitive side effects have contributed to its poor uptake. It is estimated that less than 1% of patients with TRD receive ECT.

Smith noted that the 1970s movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest still contributes to ECT’s stigma. In the film, actor Jack Nicholson’s character is forced to undergo ECT as a punishment.

It’s important for clinicians to acknowledge the stigma while advising patients that “the actual treatment doesn’t look anything like what’s in the movies,” noted Ms. Smith. Patients must give informed consent for the procedure, and it’s delivered with the lowest level of effective stimulation.

“So many steps are taken to consider comfort and efficacy for patients and to minimize how scary it can be,” she said.

ECT uses an electrical current to induce a seizure that spreads to deep subcortical structures. MST, which was developed as an alternative to ECT, uses a magnetic field to induce a more focal seizure primarily confined to the cortex.

Although MST has a better side-effect profile, experts noted it has remission rates of 30%-60% compared with ECT. Even one of MST’s inventors, Harold Sackeim, PhD, professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, is skeptical about its efficacy for TRD.

“I don’t think it works,” Dr. Sackeim, founding editor of Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation, told this news organization.

In addition to being more expensive, MST produces a peak electrical intensity at one-tenth of what a typical ECT stimulus produces. “We’re limited by electrical engineering at this point with MST. That’s my view; others are more optimistic,” he said.
 

A Lifesaving Treatment

One of the reasons ECT isn’t more popular is because for many patients, it’s easier and more convenient to just take a pill, senior investigator Bradley Voytek, PhD, professor of cognitive science at UCSD, said in the release.

“However, in people for whom medications don’t work, [ECT] can be lifesaving. Understanding how it works will help us discover ways to increase the benefits while minimizing side effects,” he added.

In the first study, which included nine patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), EEG results showed an increase in aperiodic activity following ECT.

The investigators then wanted to test whether these findings could be replicated in a larger study. They retrospectively assessed two previous datasets — 1 of 22 patients with MDD who received ECT and 1 of 23 patients who received MST. After treatment, both groups showed increased aperiodic activity.

“Although not directly related to clinical efficacy in this dataset, increased aperiodic activity is linked to greater amounts of neural inhibition, which is suggestive of a potential shared neural mechanism of action across ECT and MST,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers noted that this increase in aperiodic activity is a more parsimonious explanation for observations of clinical slowing than delta band power or delta oscillations for both ECT and MST.”

So why is it important to know exactly how ECT works, and is there any clinical utility to these research findings?

“It’s important for clinicians to give a patient who has questions, a meaningful understanding of what the treatment is going to do, especially with something so scary and stigmatized. The ability to tell a patient why this treatment is working could provide a level of comfort that can assuage some of these fears,” Ms. Smith said.
 

A New Predictor of Response?

In addition, she noted that psychiatry is becoming more focused on predictive indicators for treatment.

“It’s asking: Are there any biological measures that can be used to predict whether someone is going to respond to a treatment or not?” said Ms. Smith.

“Aperiodic activity might be a valuable asset to add to that arsenal. Maybe we can better predict which patients might respond to ECT by using this as an additional biological indicator,” she added.

Smith noted that while more studies are needed, it’s exciting that some investigators are already starting to include aperiodic activity as a variable in their research analyses on a variety of topics, such as pharmacological intervention and transcranial magnetic stimulation.

“I don’t know exactly how much utility aperiodic activity is going to have in terms of being a great biological indicator, but I hope that the research will start to play out and reveal a little bit more,” she said.

Dr. Sackeim noted that ECT is one of the most misunderstood, controversial, and infrequently used treatments in psychiatry.

“But there’s also no doubt that when you look at ECT, it saves the lives of people with psychiatric illness. Period, full stop,” he said.

He added that although restarting a patient’s heart doesn’t seem to cause unease in the public, the idea of applying electricity to the brain under anesthesia in order to provoke a seizure for therapeutic purpose causes anxiety.

Still, the benefits and harms of a treatment are more important than how it looks, Sackeim said. “If it was only about how it looks, we’d never have surgery,” he added.
 

‘A Huge Success Story’

ECT was first introduced by Hungarian neuropsychiatrist László Meduna in 1935, and today clinicians “know where the current goes in the brain, at what dosage, and with what path you can get 70%, 80% fully remitted,” said Dr. Sackeim.

He noted that in a randomized study published in JAMA Psychiatry, investigators compared the outcomes of MST vs ECT for major depressive episodes in 73 patients. They reported that although depression symptom scores decreased for both treatments, there was “no significant difference” between the two in response or remission rates.

However, in an opinion letter the journal published in April, Dr. Sackeim and colleagues Mark S. George, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, and William V. McCall, MD, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, strongly questioned the findings.

At less than 30%, “the ECT remission rate after acute treatment was exceptionally low, limiting confidence in the validity and/or generalizability of the findings,” they wrote.

“It’s undoubtedly the case that either if you recruited a sample from whom the treatment may not be as efficacious or if there are issues in delivering them, then you may be finding equivalence” between ECT and MST, Dr. Sackeim said.

In addition, he noted that although there have been concerns about cognitive side effects with ECT, they have improved over the years. Sackeim reported that when he entered the field, the average time for a patient to remember their name or the day of the week was 6 hours after receiving unilateral ECT and 8 hours after bilateral ECT. “With modern methods, that’s now down to 10 minutes,” he said.

“The fundamental knowledge is that this treatment can be administered far softer than it ever was in the past. Impressions from the 50s and 60s and portrayed in movies have very little to do with modern practice and with the real effects of the treatment,” Dr. Sackeim said.

As for the new studies about aperiodic activity, the investigators are “essentially saying, ‘We have a better marker’ of the process. That way of thinking had in many ways been left behind in the run to study connectivity,” Dr. Sackeim said.

He noted that years ago, while he was with Columbia University, his team found that patients who had frontal inhibition were more likely to get well after ECT.

“And that’s essentially the same thing you’re hearing from the UCSD group. They’re saying that the aperiodic measure is hopefully of clearer physiological significance than simply delta [waves] in the EEG,” Dr. Sackeim said.

“The idea that inhibition was the key to its efficacy has been around. This is saying it’s a better measure of that, and that may be true. It’s certainly an interesting contribution,” he added.

Dr. Sackeim said the takeaway message for clinicians regarding ECT today is that it can be lifesaving but is still often only used as a last resort and reserved for those who have run out of options.

However, he said, ECT is “a huge success story: Maintaining its efficacy, reducing its side effects, getting an understanding as to what the physics of it are. We have some compelling stories about ECT, but even more so, we know what’s not true. And what’s not true are most of the assumptions people have about the treatment,” he concluded.

Ms. Smith and Dr. Voytek reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Sackeim reported holding patents in ECT technology and consulting with the MECTA Corporation and SigmaStim LLC and other neuromodulation companies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been a lifesaving treatment for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), yet exactly how it works has largely remained a mystery. Now researchers believe they have uncovered the underlying mechanisms behind its therapeutic effects — a discovery that may help clinicians better predict treatment response in individual patients and quell much of the fear and stigma associated with one of psychiatry’s most effective, yet misunderstood, treatments.

Two recent papers published in Translational Psychiatry have highlighted the significance of aperiodic neural activity. The first study showed this activity increased following ECT treatment. The second study expanded on these data by demonstrating a significant increase in aperiodic activity after patients received either ECT or magnetic seizure therapy (MST), which has a better side-effect profile than ECT but lower efficacy.

Aperiodic activity is “like the brain’s background noise, and for years scientists treated it that way and didn’t pay much attention to it,” first author Sydney E. Smith, a PhD candidate at the Voytek Lab in the Neuroscience Graduate Program at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), said in a press release.

However, aperiodic activity boosts inhibitory activity in the brain, effectively slowing it down,” the investigators noted.

In an interview with this news organization, Ms. Smith used a car analogy to explain the mechanism behind ECT. “ECT might be increasing the activity levels in the brain cells that help calm it down. It taps on the brakes that tend to malfunction in depression. By restoring the balance between the gas and the brakes in the brain, some of those depressive symptoms are alleviated,” she said.

Ms. Smith added her team’s research helps demystify one of the most effective yet stigmatized treatments for severe depression.

“Aperiodic activity as a physiologically interpretable EEG metric could be a really valuable new predictive indicator for treatment response,” she added.
 

Fear and Stigma

ECT is primarily used for TRD and is effective in up to 80% of patients, yet it remains one of the least prescribed treatments.

Although it’s been around for almost 90 years, fear and concern about its potential cognitive side effects have contributed to its poor uptake. It is estimated that less than 1% of patients with TRD receive ECT.

Smith noted that the 1970s movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest still contributes to ECT’s stigma. In the film, actor Jack Nicholson’s character is forced to undergo ECT as a punishment.

It’s important for clinicians to acknowledge the stigma while advising patients that “the actual treatment doesn’t look anything like what’s in the movies,” noted Ms. Smith. Patients must give informed consent for the procedure, and it’s delivered with the lowest level of effective stimulation.

“So many steps are taken to consider comfort and efficacy for patients and to minimize how scary it can be,” she said.

ECT uses an electrical current to induce a seizure that spreads to deep subcortical structures. MST, which was developed as an alternative to ECT, uses a magnetic field to induce a more focal seizure primarily confined to the cortex.

Although MST has a better side-effect profile, experts noted it has remission rates of 30%-60% compared with ECT. Even one of MST’s inventors, Harold Sackeim, PhD, professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, is skeptical about its efficacy for TRD.

“I don’t think it works,” Dr. Sackeim, founding editor of Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation, told this news organization.

In addition to being more expensive, MST produces a peak electrical intensity at one-tenth of what a typical ECT stimulus produces. “We’re limited by electrical engineering at this point with MST. That’s my view; others are more optimistic,” he said.
 

A Lifesaving Treatment

One of the reasons ECT isn’t more popular is because for many patients, it’s easier and more convenient to just take a pill, senior investigator Bradley Voytek, PhD, professor of cognitive science at UCSD, said in the release.

“However, in people for whom medications don’t work, [ECT] can be lifesaving. Understanding how it works will help us discover ways to increase the benefits while minimizing side effects,” he added.

In the first study, which included nine patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), EEG results showed an increase in aperiodic activity following ECT.

The investigators then wanted to test whether these findings could be replicated in a larger study. They retrospectively assessed two previous datasets — 1 of 22 patients with MDD who received ECT and 1 of 23 patients who received MST. After treatment, both groups showed increased aperiodic activity.

“Although not directly related to clinical efficacy in this dataset, increased aperiodic activity is linked to greater amounts of neural inhibition, which is suggestive of a potential shared neural mechanism of action across ECT and MST,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers noted that this increase in aperiodic activity is a more parsimonious explanation for observations of clinical slowing than delta band power or delta oscillations for both ECT and MST.”

So why is it important to know exactly how ECT works, and is there any clinical utility to these research findings?

“It’s important for clinicians to give a patient who has questions, a meaningful understanding of what the treatment is going to do, especially with something so scary and stigmatized. The ability to tell a patient why this treatment is working could provide a level of comfort that can assuage some of these fears,” Ms. Smith said.
 

A New Predictor of Response?

In addition, she noted that psychiatry is becoming more focused on predictive indicators for treatment.

“It’s asking: Are there any biological measures that can be used to predict whether someone is going to respond to a treatment or not?” said Ms. Smith.

“Aperiodic activity might be a valuable asset to add to that arsenal. Maybe we can better predict which patients might respond to ECT by using this as an additional biological indicator,” she added.

Smith noted that while more studies are needed, it’s exciting that some investigators are already starting to include aperiodic activity as a variable in their research analyses on a variety of topics, such as pharmacological intervention and transcranial magnetic stimulation.

“I don’t know exactly how much utility aperiodic activity is going to have in terms of being a great biological indicator, but I hope that the research will start to play out and reveal a little bit more,” she said.

Dr. Sackeim noted that ECT is one of the most misunderstood, controversial, and infrequently used treatments in psychiatry.

“But there’s also no doubt that when you look at ECT, it saves the lives of people with psychiatric illness. Period, full stop,” he said.

He added that although restarting a patient’s heart doesn’t seem to cause unease in the public, the idea of applying electricity to the brain under anesthesia in order to provoke a seizure for therapeutic purpose causes anxiety.

Still, the benefits and harms of a treatment are more important than how it looks, Sackeim said. “If it was only about how it looks, we’d never have surgery,” he added.
 

‘A Huge Success Story’

ECT was first introduced by Hungarian neuropsychiatrist László Meduna in 1935, and today clinicians “know where the current goes in the brain, at what dosage, and with what path you can get 70%, 80% fully remitted,” said Dr. Sackeim.

He noted that in a randomized study published in JAMA Psychiatry, investigators compared the outcomes of MST vs ECT for major depressive episodes in 73 patients. They reported that although depression symptom scores decreased for both treatments, there was “no significant difference” between the two in response or remission rates.

However, in an opinion letter the journal published in April, Dr. Sackeim and colleagues Mark S. George, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, and William V. McCall, MD, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, strongly questioned the findings.

At less than 30%, “the ECT remission rate after acute treatment was exceptionally low, limiting confidence in the validity and/or generalizability of the findings,” they wrote.

“It’s undoubtedly the case that either if you recruited a sample from whom the treatment may not be as efficacious or if there are issues in delivering them, then you may be finding equivalence” between ECT and MST, Dr. Sackeim said.

In addition, he noted that although there have been concerns about cognitive side effects with ECT, they have improved over the years. Sackeim reported that when he entered the field, the average time for a patient to remember their name or the day of the week was 6 hours after receiving unilateral ECT and 8 hours after bilateral ECT. “With modern methods, that’s now down to 10 minutes,” he said.

“The fundamental knowledge is that this treatment can be administered far softer than it ever was in the past. Impressions from the 50s and 60s and portrayed in movies have very little to do with modern practice and with the real effects of the treatment,” Dr. Sackeim said.

As for the new studies about aperiodic activity, the investigators are “essentially saying, ‘We have a better marker’ of the process. That way of thinking had in many ways been left behind in the run to study connectivity,” Dr. Sackeim said.

He noted that years ago, while he was with Columbia University, his team found that patients who had frontal inhibition were more likely to get well after ECT.

“And that’s essentially the same thing you’re hearing from the UCSD group. They’re saying that the aperiodic measure is hopefully of clearer physiological significance than simply delta [waves] in the EEG,” Dr. Sackeim said.

“The idea that inhibition was the key to its efficacy has been around. This is saying it’s a better measure of that, and that may be true. It’s certainly an interesting contribution,” he added.

Dr. Sackeim said the takeaway message for clinicians regarding ECT today is that it can be lifesaving but is still often only used as a last resort and reserved for those who have run out of options.

However, he said, ECT is “a huge success story: Maintaining its efficacy, reducing its side effects, getting an understanding as to what the physics of it are. We have some compelling stories about ECT, but even more so, we know what’s not true. And what’s not true are most of the assumptions people have about the treatment,” he concluded.

Ms. Smith and Dr. Voytek reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Sackeim reported holding patents in ECT technology and consulting with the MECTA Corporation and SigmaStim LLC and other neuromodulation companies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been a lifesaving treatment for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), yet exactly how it works has largely remained a mystery. Now researchers believe they have uncovered the underlying mechanisms behind its therapeutic effects — a discovery that may help clinicians better predict treatment response in individual patients and quell much of the fear and stigma associated with one of psychiatry’s most effective, yet misunderstood, treatments.

Two recent papers published in Translational Psychiatry have highlighted the significance of aperiodic neural activity. The first study showed this activity increased following ECT treatment. The second study expanded on these data by demonstrating a significant increase in aperiodic activity after patients received either ECT or magnetic seizure therapy (MST), which has a better side-effect profile than ECT but lower efficacy.

Aperiodic activity is “like the brain’s background noise, and for years scientists treated it that way and didn’t pay much attention to it,” first author Sydney E. Smith, a PhD candidate at the Voytek Lab in the Neuroscience Graduate Program at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), said in a press release.

However, aperiodic activity boosts inhibitory activity in the brain, effectively slowing it down,” the investigators noted.

In an interview with this news organization, Ms. Smith used a car analogy to explain the mechanism behind ECT. “ECT might be increasing the activity levels in the brain cells that help calm it down. It taps on the brakes that tend to malfunction in depression. By restoring the balance between the gas and the brakes in the brain, some of those depressive symptoms are alleviated,” she said.

Ms. Smith added her team’s research helps demystify one of the most effective yet stigmatized treatments for severe depression.

“Aperiodic activity as a physiologically interpretable EEG metric could be a really valuable new predictive indicator for treatment response,” she added.
 

Fear and Stigma

ECT is primarily used for TRD and is effective in up to 80% of patients, yet it remains one of the least prescribed treatments.

Although it’s been around for almost 90 years, fear and concern about its potential cognitive side effects have contributed to its poor uptake. It is estimated that less than 1% of patients with TRD receive ECT.

Smith noted that the 1970s movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest still contributes to ECT’s stigma. In the film, actor Jack Nicholson’s character is forced to undergo ECT as a punishment.

It’s important for clinicians to acknowledge the stigma while advising patients that “the actual treatment doesn’t look anything like what’s in the movies,” noted Ms. Smith. Patients must give informed consent for the procedure, and it’s delivered with the lowest level of effective stimulation.

“So many steps are taken to consider comfort and efficacy for patients and to minimize how scary it can be,” she said.

ECT uses an electrical current to induce a seizure that spreads to deep subcortical structures. MST, which was developed as an alternative to ECT, uses a magnetic field to induce a more focal seizure primarily confined to the cortex.

Although MST has a better side-effect profile, experts noted it has remission rates of 30%-60% compared with ECT. Even one of MST’s inventors, Harold Sackeim, PhD, professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, is skeptical about its efficacy for TRD.

“I don’t think it works,” Dr. Sackeim, founding editor of Brain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in Neuromodulation, told this news organization.

In addition to being more expensive, MST produces a peak electrical intensity at one-tenth of what a typical ECT stimulus produces. “We’re limited by electrical engineering at this point with MST. That’s my view; others are more optimistic,” he said.
 

A Lifesaving Treatment

One of the reasons ECT isn’t more popular is because for many patients, it’s easier and more convenient to just take a pill, senior investigator Bradley Voytek, PhD, professor of cognitive science at UCSD, said in the release.

“However, in people for whom medications don’t work, [ECT] can be lifesaving. Understanding how it works will help us discover ways to increase the benefits while minimizing side effects,” he added.

In the first study, which included nine patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), EEG results showed an increase in aperiodic activity following ECT.

The investigators then wanted to test whether these findings could be replicated in a larger study. They retrospectively assessed two previous datasets — 1 of 22 patients with MDD who received ECT and 1 of 23 patients who received MST. After treatment, both groups showed increased aperiodic activity.

“Although not directly related to clinical efficacy in this dataset, increased aperiodic activity is linked to greater amounts of neural inhibition, which is suggestive of a potential shared neural mechanism of action across ECT and MST,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers noted that this increase in aperiodic activity is a more parsimonious explanation for observations of clinical slowing than delta band power or delta oscillations for both ECT and MST.”

So why is it important to know exactly how ECT works, and is there any clinical utility to these research findings?

“It’s important for clinicians to give a patient who has questions, a meaningful understanding of what the treatment is going to do, especially with something so scary and stigmatized. The ability to tell a patient why this treatment is working could provide a level of comfort that can assuage some of these fears,” Ms. Smith said.
 

A New Predictor of Response?

In addition, she noted that psychiatry is becoming more focused on predictive indicators for treatment.

“It’s asking: Are there any biological measures that can be used to predict whether someone is going to respond to a treatment or not?” said Ms. Smith.

“Aperiodic activity might be a valuable asset to add to that arsenal. Maybe we can better predict which patients might respond to ECT by using this as an additional biological indicator,” she added.

Smith noted that while more studies are needed, it’s exciting that some investigators are already starting to include aperiodic activity as a variable in their research analyses on a variety of topics, such as pharmacological intervention and transcranial magnetic stimulation.

“I don’t know exactly how much utility aperiodic activity is going to have in terms of being a great biological indicator, but I hope that the research will start to play out and reveal a little bit more,” she said.

Dr. Sackeim noted that ECT is one of the most misunderstood, controversial, and infrequently used treatments in psychiatry.

“But there’s also no doubt that when you look at ECT, it saves the lives of people with psychiatric illness. Period, full stop,” he said.

He added that although restarting a patient’s heart doesn’t seem to cause unease in the public, the idea of applying electricity to the brain under anesthesia in order to provoke a seizure for therapeutic purpose causes anxiety.

Still, the benefits and harms of a treatment are more important than how it looks, Sackeim said. “If it was only about how it looks, we’d never have surgery,” he added.
 

‘A Huge Success Story’

ECT was first introduced by Hungarian neuropsychiatrist László Meduna in 1935, and today clinicians “know where the current goes in the brain, at what dosage, and with what path you can get 70%, 80% fully remitted,” said Dr. Sackeim.

He noted that in a randomized study published in JAMA Psychiatry, investigators compared the outcomes of MST vs ECT for major depressive episodes in 73 patients. They reported that although depression symptom scores decreased for both treatments, there was “no significant difference” between the two in response or remission rates.

However, in an opinion letter the journal published in April, Dr. Sackeim and colleagues Mark S. George, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, and William V. McCall, MD, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, strongly questioned the findings.

At less than 30%, “the ECT remission rate after acute treatment was exceptionally low, limiting confidence in the validity and/or generalizability of the findings,” they wrote.

“It’s undoubtedly the case that either if you recruited a sample from whom the treatment may not be as efficacious or if there are issues in delivering them, then you may be finding equivalence” between ECT and MST, Dr. Sackeim said.

In addition, he noted that although there have been concerns about cognitive side effects with ECT, they have improved over the years. Sackeim reported that when he entered the field, the average time for a patient to remember their name or the day of the week was 6 hours after receiving unilateral ECT and 8 hours after bilateral ECT. “With modern methods, that’s now down to 10 minutes,” he said.

“The fundamental knowledge is that this treatment can be administered far softer than it ever was in the past. Impressions from the 50s and 60s and portrayed in movies have very little to do with modern practice and with the real effects of the treatment,” Dr. Sackeim said.

As for the new studies about aperiodic activity, the investigators are “essentially saying, ‘We have a better marker’ of the process. That way of thinking had in many ways been left behind in the run to study connectivity,” Dr. Sackeim said.

He noted that years ago, while he was with Columbia University, his team found that patients who had frontal inhibition were more likely to get well after ECT.

“And that’s essentially the same thing you’re hearing from the UCSD group. They’re saying that the aperiodic measure is hopefully of clearer physiological significance than simply delta [waves] in the EEG,” Dr. Sackeim said.

“The idea that inhibition was the key to its efficacy has been around. This is saying it’s a better measure of that, and that may be true. It’s certainly an interesting contribution,” he added.

Dr. Sackeim said the takeaway message for clinicians regarding ECT today is that it can be lifesaving but is still often only used as a last resort and reserved for those who have run out of options.

However, he said, ECT is “a huge success story: Maintaining its efficacy, reducing its side effects, getting an understanding as to what the physics of it are. We have some compelling stories about ECT, but even more so, we know what’s not true. And what’s not true are most of the assumptions people have about the treatment,” he concluded.

Ms. Smith and Dr. Voytek reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Sackeim reported holding patents in ECT technology and consulting with the MECTA Corporation and SigmaStim LLC and other neuromodulation companies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Jeffrey E. Janis, MD, is on a mission. The professor of plastic surgery, surgery, neurosurgery, and neurology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, wants to convince neurologists of the safety and efficacy of nerve decompression surgery for treatment-resistant headache. However, many neurologists remain unconvinced.

“Headache surgery is a viable alternative for complex patients who have failed medical management and who could benefit from this treatment approach. There’s 24 years of evidence behind this surgical technique across hundreds of different studies with different study designs,” Dr. Janis said. 

Yet this treatment approach — surgery on peripheral nerves rather than the brain or spinal cord — hasn’t garnered much support from neurologists. A scan of the agenda of topics at the recently held 2024 annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed few if any studies or presentations on this topic. And neurologists this news organization spoke to said they believe the surgery is experimental and unproven.

Experts do agree drugs don’t work for all patients with migraines. Up to 30% of patients don’t respond to the “laundry list of medications” available to treat the condition, said Dr. Janis.

Many patients have also tried, and failed, alternative treatment approaches such as massage, acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, transdermal patches, electrical stimulation, cryoablation, neurostimulation, and radiofrequency ablation.

If nothing else works, is surgery for headaches the answer?
 

Long-Held Theory

The idea that pinched, irritated, or compressed peripheral nerves can trigger migraine attacks has been around for nearly 25 years. Studies suggest that in addition to migraine, nerve compression can lead to other headache conditions, including occipital neuralgia, supraorbital neuralgia , and post-traumatic headaches.

This has led to the development of surgical techniques to deactivate various compression trigger sites — what Dr. Janis calls “pinch points” — which could involve muscles, bone, fascia, blood vessels, or scar tissue from prior trauma or surgery.

The procedure is predominantly performed by plastic surgeons, but to a lesser degree by neurosurgeons and ear, nose, and throat specialists.

Target nerves in surgical interventions include those in the frontal region of the head above the eye, temporal region, neck region, and nasal region. Affected areas are usually identified either through patient self-reports or by using a nerve block agent such as lidocaine or Botox at specific points, Dr. Janis noted. If pain subsides after an injection, that location is marked as a target.

One of the barriers to referring complicated patients for surgery is that neurologists evaluating migraine treatments “speak a different language” than surgeons performing the procedure, said Dr. Janis.

Neurologists tend to focus on reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD), while surgeons typically use the Migraine Headache Index that incorporates the frequency, intensity, and duration of migraine attacks.

“Rather than try to convince somebody to speak a different language, we thought, why don’t we just learn their language so we can build bridges and take down barriers,” said Dr. Janis, coauthor of a systematic review and meta-analysis published online recently in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Investigators examined 19 studies in the review, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published from January 2020 to September 2023, with a total of 1603 participants who were mostly female and ranged in age from 9 to 72 years. Study follow-ups extended from 6 to 38 months. All but three studies were carried out in the United States, and six different compression sites were addressed during surgery.

Investigators found that across studies and by a number of measures, migraine frequency and severity improved after surgery.

Monthly migraine days decreased by 36%-92% and the number of overall migraine attacks per month dropped 25%-87.5%. Patients also reported decreases in attack duration of 41%-75% and intensity of 28%-82% across studies.

“Even using the neurologist-standard language of monthly migraine days, this surgery works,” said Dr. Janis. “Now this is documented both in the surgical literature and the nonsurgical literature.”

The most common complications were ecchymosis, hair loss or thinning, itching, dryness, and rhinorrhea, all of which Dr. Janis described as “fairly minor.” Major complications such as intraoperative bleeding and wound dehiscence were rare, occurring in 1% or less of participants.
 

‘One And Done?’

These surgeries are usually done on an outpatient basis and generally offer long-term results, Dr. Janis said.

“The idea is one and done,” he said. “The literature around this type of surgery says that whatever type of effect you get at 1 year is likely to be permanent.”

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons agrees. A 2018 position paper developed by experts and commissioned by the society reports that the intervention is safe and effective for appropriate patients, based on a comprehensive literature search and review of a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

“There is substantial, extensively replicated clinical data that demonstrates a significant reduction in [migraine headache] symptoms and frequency (even complete elimination of headache pain) following trigger site surgery,” the authors noted.

Pamela Blake, MD, a neurologist, board-certified headache specialist, and medical director at the Headache Center of River Oaks, Houston, is a proponent of what she said can be “lifesaving” headache surgery.

“If a doctor told you that you can either treat this problem with medications that you’ll need to take for the rest of your life or you can have a surgical procedure as an outpatient that has extremely low risk and has, in my experience, a 75% chance of reducing or eliminating your pain, you probably would be interested in surgery,” she said.
 

Continued Skepticism

However, other neurologists and clinicians appear doubtful about this intervention, including Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director, Essen Headache Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

During a debate on the topic a decade ago at the International Headache Congress, Dr. Diener argued that, as migraine is a complex multigene-related disorder of the brain, it doesn’t make sense that surgery would affect the epigenetics of 22 different genes.

Recently, he said that his views have not changed.

The topic remains controversial, and some neurologists are uncomfortable even openly discussing the procedure. Two clinicians who previously commented on this article later asked not to be included.

One neurologist, who asked to remain anonymous, said that Dr. Janis’s review article is “merely a review collecting 19 studies over the previous 10-plus years.”

Other limitations cited by this neurologist are the lack of consistency in procedures among the various studies and the inclusion of only four RCTs, the most recent of which was published 8 years ago, suggesting “the study was probably done closer to 9 or 10 years ago,” the neurologist said.

Dr. Blake suggested some neurologists’ reluctance could be due to limited background on the procedure, which she said isn’t widely discussed at headache meetings and is covered mostly in plastic surgery journals, not neurology literature. Access to surgery is further limited by a lack of specialists who perform the procedure and inconsistent insurance coverage.

A closer collaboration between neurologists and surgeons who perform the procedure could benefit patients, Dr. Blake noted.

“The headache doctor’s role is to identify who’s a candidate for surgery, who meets the criteria for nerve compression, and then follow that patient postoperatively, managing their medications, although usually we get them off their medications,” she added.

From Dr. Janis’s perspective, things are starting to change.

“I’m definitely seeing a greater comfort level among neurologists who are understanding where this sits in the algorithm for treatment, especially for complicated patients,” he said.

Dr. Janis receives royalties from Thieme and Springer Publishing. Dr. Blake reported no relevant conflicts. Dr. Diener received research support from the German Research Council; serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs; and has received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards, or oral presentations from AbbVie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Weber & Weber, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Jeffrey E. Janis, MD, is on a mission. The professor of plastic surgery, surgery, neurosurgery, and neurology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, wants to convince neurologists of the safety and efficacy of nerve decompression surgery for treatment-resistant headache. However, many neurologists remain unconvinced.

“Headache surgery is a viable alternative for complex patients who have failed medical management and who could benefit from this treatment approach. There’s 24 years of evidence behind this surgical technique across hundreds of different studies with different study designs,” Dr. Janis said. 

Yet this treatment approach — surgery on peripheral nerves rather than the brain or spinal cord — hasn’t garnered much support from neurologists. A scan of the agenda of topics at the recently held 2024 annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed few if any studies or presentations on this topic. And neurologists this news organization spoke to said they believe the surgery is experimental and unproven.

Experts do agree drugs don’t work for all patients with migraines. Up to 30% of patients don’t respond to the “laundry list of medications” available to treat the condition, said Dr. Janis.

Many patients have also tried, and failed, alternative treatment approaches such as massage, acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, transdermal patches, electrical stimulation, cryoablation, neurostimulation, and radiofrequency ablation.

If nothing else works, is surgery for headaches the answer?
 

Long-Held Theory

The idea that pinched, irritated, or compressed peripheral nerves can trigger migraine attacks has been around for nearly 25 years. Studies suggest that in addition to migraine, nerve compression can lead to other headache conditions, including occipital neuralgia, supraorbital neuralgia , and post-traumatic headaches.

This has led to the development of surgical techniques to deactivate various compression trigger sites — what Dr. Janis calls “pinch points” — which could involve muscles, bone, fascia, blood vessels, or scar tissue from prior trauma or surgery.

The procedure is predominantly performed by plastic surgeons, but to a lesser degree by neurosurgeons and ear, nose, and throat specialists.

Target nerves in surgical interventions include those in the frontal region of the head above the eye, temporal region, neck region, and nasal region. Affected areas are usually identified either through patient self-reports or by using a nerve block agent such as lidocaine or Botox at specific points, Dr. Janis noted. If pain subsides after an injection, that location is marked as a target.

One of the barriers to referring complicated patients for surgery is that neurologists evaluating migraine treatments “speak a different language” than surgeons performing the procedure, said Dr. Janis.

Neurologists tend to focus on reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD), while surgeons typically use the Migraine Headache Index that incorporates the frequency, intensity, and duration of migraine attacks.

“Rather than try to convince somebody to speak a different language, we thought, why don’t we just learn their language so we can build bridges and take down barriers,” said Dr. Janis, coauthor of a systematic review and meta-analysis published online recently in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Investigators examined 19 studies in the review, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published from January 2020 to September 2023, with a total of 1603 participants who were mostly female and ranged in age from 9 to 72 years. Study follow-ups extended from 6 to 38 months. All but three studies were carried out in the United States, and six different compression sites were addressed during surgery.

Investigators found that across studies and by a number of measures, migraine frequency and severity improved after surgery.

Monthly migraine days decreased by 36%-92% and the number of overall migraine attacks per month dropped 25%-87.5%. Patients also reported decreases in attack duration of 41%-75% and intensity of 28%-82% across studies.

“Even using the neurologist-standard language of monthly migraine days, this surgery works,” said Dr. Janis. “Now this is documented both in the surgical literature and the nonsurgical literature.”

The most common complications were ecchymosis, hair loss or thinning, itching, dryness, and rhinorrhea, all of which Dr. Janis described as “fairly minor.” Major complications such as intraoperative bleeding and wound dehiscence were rare, occurring in 1% or less of participants.
 

‘One And Done?’

These surgeries are usually done on an outpatient basis and generally offer long-term results, Dr. Janis said.

“The idea is one and done,” he said. “The literature around this type of surgery says that whatever type of effect you get at 1 year is likely to be permanent.”

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons agrees. A 2018 position paper developed by experts and commissioned by the society reports that the intervention is safe and effective for appropriate patients, based on a comprehensive literature search and review of a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

“There is substantial, extensively replicated clinical data that demonstrates a significant reduction in [migraine headache] symptoms and frequency (even complete elimination of headache pain) following trigger site surgery,” the authors noted.

Pamela Blake, MD, a neurologist, board-certified headache specialist, and medical director at the Headache Center of River Oaks, Houston, is a proponent of what she said can be “lifesaving” headache surgery.

“If a doctor told you that you can either treat this problem with medications that you’ll need to take for the rest of your life or you can have a surgical procedure as an outpatient that has extremely low risk and has, in my experience, a 75% chance of reducing or eliminating your pain, you probably would be interested in surgery,” she said.
 

Continued Skepticism

However, other neurologists and clinicians appear doubtful about this intervention, including Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director, Essen Headache Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

During a debate on the topic a decade ago at the International Headache Congress, Dr. Diener argued that, as migraine is a complex multigene-related disorder of the brain, it doesn’t make sense that surgery would affect the epigenetics of 22 different genes.

Recently, he said that his views have not changed.

The topic remains controversial, and some neurologists are uncomfortable even openly discussing the procedure. Two clinicians who previously commented on this article later asked not to be included.

One neurologist, who asked to remain anonymous, said that Dr. Janis’s review article is “merely a review collecting 19 studies over the previous 10-plus years.”

Other limitations cited by this neurologist are the lack of consistency in procedures among the various studies and the inclusion of only four RCTs, the most recent of which was published 8 years ago, suggesting “the study was probably done closer to 9 or 10 years ago,” the neurologist said.

Dr. Blake suggested some neurologists’ reluctance could be due to limited background on the procedure, which she said isn’t widely discussed at headache meetings and is covered mostly in plastic surgery journals, not neurology literature. Access to surgery is further limited by a lack of specialists who perform the procedure and inconsistent insurance coverage.

A closer collaboration between neurologists and surgeons who perform the procedure could benefit patients, Dr. Blake noted.

“The headache doctor’s role is to identify who’s a candidate for surgery, who meets the criteria for nerve compression, and then follow that patient postoperatively, managing their medications, although usually we get them off their medications,” she added.

From Dr. Janis’s perspective, things are starting to change.

“I’m definitely seeing a greater comfort level among neurologists who are understanding where this sits in the algorithm for treatment, especially for complicated patients,” he said.

Dr. Janis receives royalties from Thieme and Springer Publishing. Dr. Blake reported no relevant conflicts. Dr. Diener received research support from the German Research Council; serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs; and has received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards, or oral presentations from AbbVie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Weber & Weber, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Jeffrey E. Janis, MD, is on a mission. The professor of plastic surgery, surgery, neurosurgery, and neurology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, wants to convince neurologists of the safety and efficacy of nerve decompression surgery for treatment-resistant headache. However, many neurologists remain unconvinced.

“Headache surgery is a viable alternative for complex patients who have failed medical management and who could benefit from this treatment approach. There’s 24 years of evidence behind this surgical technique across hundreds of different studies with different study designs,” Dr. Janis said. 

Yet this treatment approach — surgery on peripheral nerves rather than the brain or spinal cord — hasn’t garnered much support from neurologists. A scan of the agenda of topics at the recently held 2024 annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed few if any studies or presentations on this topic. And neurologists this news organization spoke to said they believe the surgery is experimental and unproven.

Experts do agree drugs don’t work for all patients with migraines. Up to 30% of patients don’t respond to the “laundry list of medications” available to treat the condition, said Dr. Janis.

Many patients have also tried, and failed, alternative treatment approaches such as massage, acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, transdermal patches, electrical stimulation, cryoablation, neurostimulation, and radiofrequency ablation.

If nothing else works, is surgery for headaches the answer?
 

Long-Held Theory

The idea that pinched, irritated, or compressed peripheral nerves can trigger migraine attacks has been around for nearly 25 years. Studies suggest that in addition to migraine, nerve compression can lead to other headache conditions, including occipital neuralgia, supraorbital neuralgia , and post-traumatic headaches.

This has led to the development of surgical techniques to deactivate various compression trigger sites — what Dr. Janis calls “pinch points” — which could involve muscles, bone, fascia, blood vessels, or scar tissue from prior trauma or surgery.

The procedure is predominantly performed by plastic surgeons, but to a lesser degree by neurosurgeons and ear, nose, and throat specialists.

Target nerves in surgical interventions include those in the frontal region of the head above the eye, temporal region, neck region, and nasal region. Affected areas are usually identified either through patient self-reports or by using a nerve block agent such as lidocaine or Botox at specific points, Dr. Janis noted. If pain subsides after an injection, that location is marked as a target.

One of the barriers to referring complicated patients for surgery is that neurologists evaluating migraine treatments “speak a different language” than surgeons performing the procedure, said Dr. Janis.

Neurologists tend to focus on reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD), while surgeons typically use the Migraine Headache Index that incorporates the frequency, intensity, and duration of migraine attacks.

“Rather than try to convince somebody to speak a different language, we thought, why don’t we just learn their language so we can build bridges and take down barriers,” said Dr. Janis, coauthor of a systematic review and meta-analysis published online recently in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Investigators examined 19 studies in the review, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published from January 2020 to September 2023, with a total of 1603 participants who were mostly female and ranged in age from 9 to 72 years. Study follow-ups extended from 6 to 38 months. All but three studies were carried out in the United States, and six different compression sites were addressed during surgery.

Investigators found that across studies and by a number of measures, migraine frequency and severity improved after surgery.

Monthly migraine days decreased by 36%-92% and the number of overall migraine attacks per month dropped 25%-87.5%. Patients also reported decreases in attack duration of 41%-75% and intensity of 28%-82% across studies.

“Even using the neurologist-standard language of monthly migraine days, this surgery works,” said Dr. Janis. “Now this is documented both in the surgical literature and the nonsurgical literature.”

The most common complications were ecchymosis, hair loss or thinning, itching, dryness, and rhinorrhea, all of which Dr. Janis described as “fairly minor.” Major complications such as intraoperative bleeding and wound dehiscence were rare, occurring in 1% or less of participants.
 

‘One And Done?’

These surgeries are usually done on an outpatient basis and generally offer long-term results, Dr. Janis said.

“The idea is one and done,” he said. “The literature around this type of surgery says that whatever type of effect you get at 1 year is likely to be permanent.”

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons agrees. A 2018 position paper developed by experts and commissioned by the society reports that the intervention is safe and effective for appropriate patients, based on a comprehensive literature search and review of a large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

“There is substantial, extensively replicated clinical data that demonstrates a significant reduction in [migraine headache] symptoms and frequency (even complete elimination of headache pain) following trigger site surgery,” the authors noted.

Pamela Blake, MD, a neurologist, board-certified headache specialist, and medical director at the Headache Center of River Oaks, Houston, is a proponent of what she said can be “lifesaving” headache surgery.

“If a doctor told you that you can either treat this problem with medications that you’ll need to take for the rest of your life or you can have a surgical procedure as an outpatient that has extremely low risk and has, in my experience, a 75% chance of reducing or eliminating your pain, you probably would be interested in surgery,” she said.
 

Continued Skepticism

However, other neurologists and clinicians appear doubtful about this intervention, including Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director, Essen Headache Centre, University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

During a debate on the topic a decade ago at the International Headache Congress, Dr. Diener argued that, as migraine is a complex multigene-related disorder of the brain, it doesn’t make sense that surgery would affect the epigenetics of 22 different genes.

Recently, he said that his views have not changed.

The topic remains controversial, and some neurologists are uncomfortable even openly discussing the procedure. Two clinicians who previously commented on this article later asked not to be included.

One neurologist, who asked to remain anonymous, said that Dr. Janis’s review article is “merely a review collecting 19 studies over the previous 10-plus years.”

Other limitations cited by this neurologist are the lack of consistency in procedures among the various studies and the inclusion of only four RCTs, the most recent of which was published 8 years ago, suggesting “the study was probably done closer to 9 or 10 years ago,” the neurologist said.

Dr. Blake suggested some neurologists’ reluctance could be due to limited background on the procedure, which she said isn’t widely discussed at headache meetings and is covered mostly in plastic surgery journals, not neurology literature. Access to surgery is further limited by a lack of specialists who perform the procedure and inconsistent insurance coverage.

A closer collaboration between neurologists and surgeons who perform the procedure could benefit patients, Dr. Blake noted.

“The headache doctor’s role is to identify who’s a candidate for surgery, who meets the criteria for nerve compression, and then follow that patient postoperatively, managing their medications, although usually we get them off their medications,” she added.

From Dr. Janis’s perspective, things are starting to change.

“I’m definitely seeing a greater comfort level among neurologists who are understanding where this sits in the algorithm for treatment, especially for complicated patients,” he said.

Dr. Janis receives royalties from Thieme and Springer Publishing. Dr. Blake reported no relevant conflicts. Dr. Diener received research support from the German Research Council; serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs; and has received honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards, or oral presentations from AbbVie, Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Weber & Weber, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved vorasidenib (Voranigo, Servier) for the treatment of certain isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant diffuse gliomas, marking the first approval of a targeted therapy for these types of brain tumors.

Specifically, the oral targeted inhibitor of IDH1 and IDH2 was approved for use after surgery in adults and children aged 12 years or older who have grade 2 astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma with a susceptible IDH1 or IDH2 mutation. According to the FDA, surgery includes biopsy, subtotal resection, or gross total resection. 

Mutations in IDH1 are present in around 80% of grade 2 gliomas, whereas IDH2 mutations are more infrequent, occurring in about 4%. 

Prior to the approval, which was based on progression-free survival (PFS) and safety findings from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial, patients with this type of glioma had limited treatment options, said a Servier spokesperson.

The approval of vorasidenib marks “one of the biggest advances in low-grade glioma in more than two decades” and “will empower patients to take active control of their disease with a once-daily pill,” according to the spokesperson.

In the INDIGO trial, 331 patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of vorasidenib once daily (n = 168) or placebo (n = 163). At a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the median PFS was more than twice as long among those who received vorasidenib vs placebo: 27.7 months vs 11.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death, 0.39). The time to next intervention was also significantly longer with vorasidenib vs placebo (median not reached vs 17.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.26).

The 61% reduction in the risk for tumor progression or death observed in the trial represents “a significant sign of efficacy that has the potential to change the landscape in this disease,” first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told this news organization in 2023, when presenting the findings at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference. These findings were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Glenn Lesser, MD, a discussant at the 2023 meeting, commented on the “striking” findings. The results are “statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” said Dr. Lesser, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Vorasidenib can also potentially delay the use of toxic chemotherapies and radiation for many years in patients with these tumors, Dr. Lesser added.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 22.8% of those who received vorasidenib and in 13.5% of those in the placebo group. Increased alanine aminotransferase levels of grade 3 or higher occurred in 9.6 vs 0% of patients in the groups, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions with vorasidenib, affecting at least 15% of treated patients, include fatigue, headache, COVID-19, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and seizure. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities were increased alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase as well as decreased neutrophils. 

The recommended dose of vorasidenib for adults is 40 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. In children aged 12 or older, the recommended dose is 40 mg given orally once daily for those weighing ≥ 40 kg, and 20 mg given orally once daily for those weighing < 40 kg.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved vorasidenib (Voranigo, Servier) for the treatment of certain isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant diffuse gliomas, marking the first approval of a targeted therapy for these types of brain tumors.

Specifically, the oral targeted inhibitor of IDH1 and IDH2 was approved for use after surgery in adults and children aged 12 years or older who have grade 2 astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma with a susceptible IDH1 or IDH2 mutation. According to the FDA, surgery includes biopsy, subtotal resection, or gross total resection. 

Mutations in IDH1 are present in around 80% of grade 2 gliomas, whereas IDH2 mutations are more infrequent, occurring in about 4%. 

Prior to the approval, which was based on progression-free survival (PFS) and safety findings from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial, patients with this type of glioma had limited treatment options, said a Servier spokesperson.

The approval of vorasidenib marks “one of the biggest advances in low-grade glioma in more than two decades” and “will empower patients to take active control of their disease with a once-daily pill,” according to the spokesperson.

In the INDIGO trial, 331 patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of vorasidenib once daily (n = 168) or placebo (n = 163). At a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the median PFS was more than twice as long among those who received vorasidenib vs placebo: 27.7 months vs 11.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death, 0.39). The time to next intervention was also significantly longer with vorasidenib vs placebo (median not reached vs 17.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.26).

The 61% reduction in the risk for tumor progression or death observed in the trial represents “a significant sign of efficacy that has the potential to change the landscape in this disease,” first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told this news organization in 2023, when presenting the findings at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference. These findings were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Glenn Lesser, MD, a discussant at the 2023 meeting, commented on the “striking” findings. The results are “statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” said Dr. Lesser, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Vorasidenib can also potentially delay the use of toxic chemotherapies and radiation for many years in patients with these tumors, Dr. Lesser added.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 22.8% of those who received vorasidenib and in 13.5% of those in the placebo group. Increased alanine aminotransferase levels of grade 3 or higher occurred in 9.6 vs 0% of patients in the groups, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions with vorasidenib, affecting at least 15% of treated patients, include fatigue, headache, COVID-19, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and seizure. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities were increased alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase as well as decreased neutrophils. 

The recommended dose of vorasidenib for adults is 40 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. In children aged 12 or older, the recommended dose is 40 mg given orally once daily for those weighing ≥ 40 kg, and 20 mg given orally once daily for those weighing < 40 kg.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved vorasidenib (Voranigo, Servier) for the treatment of certain isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant diffuse gliomas, marking the first approval of a targeted therapy for these types of brain tumors.

Specifically, the oral targeted inhibitor of IDH1 and IDH2 was approved for use after surgery in adults and children aged 12 years or older who have grade 2 astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma with a susceptible IDH1 or IDH2 mutation. According to the FDA, surgery includes biopsy, subtotal resection, or gross total resection. 

Mutations in IDH1 are present in around 80% of grade 2 gliomas, whereas IDH2 mutations are more infrequent, occurring in about 4%. 

Prior to the approval, which was based on progression-free survival (PFS) and safety findings from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial, patients with this type of glioma had limited treatment options, said a Servier spokesperson.

The approval of vorasidenib marks “one of the biggest advances in low-grade glioma in more than two decades” and “will empower patients to take active control of their disease with a once-daily pill,” according to the spokesperson.

In the INDIGO trial, 331 patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of vorasidenib once daily (n = 168) or placebo (n = 163). At a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the median PFS was more than twice as long among those who received vorasidenib vs placebo: 27.7 months vs 11.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death, 0.39). The time to next intervention was also significantly longer with vorasidenib vs placebo (median not reached vs 17.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.26).

The 61% reduction in the risk for tumor progression or death observed in the trial represents “a significant sign of efficacy that has the potential to change the landscape in this disease,” first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told this news organization in 2023, when presenting the findings at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference. These findings were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Glenn Lesser, MD, a discussant at the 2023 meeting, commented on the “striking” findings. The results are “statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” said Dr. Lesser, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Vorasidenib can also potentially delay the use of toxic chemotherapies and radiation for many years in patients with these tumors, Dr. Lesser added.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 22.8% of those who received vorasidenib and in 13.5% of those in the placebo group. Increased alanine aminotransferase levels of grade 3 or higher occurred in 9.6 vs 0% of patients in the groups, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions with vorasidenib, affecting at least 15% of treated patients, include fatigue, headache, COVID-19, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and seizure. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities were increased alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase as well as decreased neutrophils. 

The recommended dose of vorasidenib for adults is 40 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. In children aged 12 or older, the recommended dose is 40 mg given orally once daily for those weighing ≥ 40 kg, and 20 mg given orally once daily for those weighing < 40 kg.

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

An estimated 25 million adult Americans experience temporary or chronic urinary incontinence.

Although urinary incontinence can occur in both women and men at any age, it is more common in women over age 50. According to Rise for Health, a national survey-based research study on bladder health, up to 40% of girls and women experience urinary problems and it may be as high as 50% or 60%.

“The main known predictors of urinary incontinence are age, obesity, diabetes, and pregnancy and childbirth,” said internist Joan M. Neuner MD, MPH, a professor of women’s health at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

courtesy Northwell Health

Other causes are urinary tract infections, pelvic surgery, and in men, of course, prostate problems. Medications such as antihypertensives and antidepressants can promote urinary incontinence. Inexplicably, smokers seem to be at higher risk. Childbearing is a prime reason women are at greater risk. “While C-section can be protective against many pelvic floor issues, vaginal delivery, particularly forceps assisted, increases the risk for urinary incontinence,” said Sarah Friedman, MD, director of the Division of Urogynecology at Staten Island University Hospital, New York City.

Urinary incontinence is underrecognized and undertreated in primary care and may not get enough emphasis in medical schools. Dr. Neuner recently coauthored a small pilot study on developing a primary care pathway to manage urinary incontinence. It suggested that a streamlined paradigm from identification and patient self-care through basic medical care and specialty referral might assist primary care providers as first-line providers in urinary incontinence.

courtesy Medical College of Wisconsin

Urinary incontinence’s impact on quality of life should not be underestimated. “It depends on severity, but people may limit their physical activities and social activities, including work, going out with friends, and sexual activity, which can in turn increase loneliness and depression,” Dr. Neuner said in an interview. “Incontinence products like pads and adult diapers are costly and often not covered by insurance.”

In fact, urinary incontinence costs US men and women more than $20 billion per year, mostly for management supplies such as pads and laundry.
 

Primary Care

While primary care practitioners are well positioned to manage urinary incontinence, the majority of patients remain untreated.

courtesy Corewell Health

The current stepwise approach should start with a knowledge of basic micturition physiology to identify the incontinence type before selecting treatment, said Khaled A. Imam, MD, CMD, a geriatrician at Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan. “More important, this working knowledge can prevent the prescription of an inappropriate treatment or drug, thus preventing many adverse effects,”

According to Dr. Imam, urinary incontinence occurs “because the outlet is open when it should be closed, the outlet is closed when it should be open, the detrusor fails to contract, or the detrusor contracts when it should not.”

There are five main types of incontinence: transient, detrusor overactivity (urge), stress, overflow, and functional. The primary care evaluation of urinary incontinence should include history taking, physical examination, post-voiding residual volume measurement, urinalysis, and urine culture, according to Dr. Imam. “The physical examination should include a urine stress test, abdominal examination, pelvic examination in female patients, rectal examination, and neurologic evaluation.”
 

Screening

“I am always careful before recommending additional screening that hasn’t been backed by a large screening study. Incontinence has not,” said Dr. Neuner. “However, at most preventive visits, PC [primary care] doctors do a review of systems that includes common symptoms. And so if a PC is currently asking a more generic question like ‘any problems with urine?’ I recommend they replace it with the more specific ‘during the last 3 months, have you leaked any urine, even a small amount?’ ”

courtesy Medical College of Wisconsin

Added Kathryn E. Flynn, PhD, a professor of medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin and Dr. Neuner’s coauthor on the primary care pilot study: “Routine screening for urinary incontinence in primary care makes a lot of sense because most older women visit a primary care provider regularly, but they often don’t want to bring the topic up to their provider. When providers routinely screen, it can reduce that barrier to disclosure.“
 

Treatment

For many women, DIY measures such as losing weight, restricting badder irritants such as caffeine or alcohol, scheduled or double voiding, and at-home Kegel exercises are not enough. Fortunately, treatment options are expanding.

“Nonpharmacologic interventions such as pelvic physical therapy can strengthen the pelvic floor muscles and improve incontinence as long as the muscle strength is maintained,” said Dr. Friedman. “Some procedural or surgical effects last long term and some are shorter acting and need to be repeated over time, but a medication’s effect on bladder function lasts only as long as you take it.”

Strengthening pelvic floor muscles. Solutions for stress incontinence – leakage during coughing, sneezing, lifting, or jumping – aim to hold the urethra closed in the face of increased pressure. “Strengthening the pelvic floor muscles can help hold the urethra closed, but many of us do not know how to contract our pelvic floor muscles correctly,” said Heidi Brown, MD, MAS, a clinician researcher at Kaiser Permanente Southern California and a urogynecologist at Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center. “Working with a pelvic floor therapist is not an option for many busy people, so devices that can be used at home to help women confirm they’re contracting their muscles correctly and remind them to do their exercises are becoming more popular.”

courtesy Kaiser Permanente Southern California

These trainers include external thigh exercisers and vaginal Kegel balls or weights. Kegel chairs that electromagnetically stimulate pelvic muscle contractions are another option, if more expensive. Some deliver pelvic therapy in clinic sessions, but there are several portable versions for home use available online.

According to Dr. Neuner, “pelvic exercises can reduce incontinence by 50% or more. “Some women stay completely dry with them but many women will need help to do these and I usually recommend a referral to a pelvic floor physical therapist or someone with extensive experience.”

Drugs. Overactive bladder, or urge urinary incontinence, leads to leakage because the bladder muscle contracts strongly at inappropriate times. Anticholinergics/antimuscarinics such as oxybutynin (Oxytrol, Ditropan) have been used for decades to control these spasms by relaxing the bladder muscle. Because of recent concerns about their association with cognitive impairment after long-term use, these agents are now being used more cautiously, said Dr. Brown. “A newer class of medication, the beta-3-adrenergic agonists, has not been shown to have that association with cognitive impairment and this class is now being used more frequently to treat overactive bladder.”

This class includes the beta-3-adrenergic agonists vibegron (Gemtesa) and mirabegron (Myrbetriq), which a recent Japanese crossover study found to be comparably effective in women with overactive bladder.

“While they have fewer safety concerns, these newer agents can be costly or may require lots of insurance paperwork, and while I hope that will improve soon, it hasn’t yet,” said Dr. Neuner.

Another pharmacologic option is botulinum A toxin (Botox). Injected into the bladder, this neurotoxin can ease urgency and frequency by relaxing the bladder muscle, added Dr. Friedman.

In some cases combination pharmacotherapy may be advisable.

Surgery. Mid-urethral slings are still considered the preferred option for stress urinary incontinence because they are minimally invasive, safe, and very effective, said Dr. Brown. “Single-incisions slings are an emerging treatment for stress incontinence, because they require one incision instead of three, but their effectiveness has not been proven as robustly as that of the traditional mid-urethral slings,” Dr. Brown said.

Urethral bulking. Bulking can reduce incontinence caused by straining as in defecation by thickening the wall of the urethra. This procedure uses a needle to inject a filler material such as collagen. “These injections are gaining more popularity as research uncovers filler materials that are more durable and with fewer potential complications,” Dr. Brown said.

Neuromodulation. This technique works to reprogram communication between the nerves and the bladder. While conventional therapy worked by relaxing the bladder muscle itself, newer approaches target the nerve that controls the muscle. This can be done at home with gentle, acupuncture-like electric stimulation of the S3 sacral nerve.

“Traditional methods of stimulating the S3 nerve involved placing a needle in the ankle and delivering electrical stimulation via that needle in the doctor’s office, or placing a wire in the nerve near the spine and implanting a pacemaker to deliver electrical stimulation,” Dr. Brown explained. “There are now emerging therapies that implant a device in the ankle to allow electrical stimulation of the S3 nerve in the home, providing a minimally invasive option that does not require weekly trips to the office.”

InterStim is a neural pacemaker that is inserted into the fat of the buttocks and patient controlled by a small handheld external device.

Biofeedback is a technique works for some. A patch applied to the skin over the bladder and urethra area and connected to an external monitor allows patients to see the bladder muscle contracting and teaches them to control spasms and prevent leaks.

Dr. Neuner advises primary care doctors to connect with a local incontinence expert and refer patients to a specialist early on if their condition isn’t improving. “There are both surgical and nonsurgical treatments that only those specialists can give and that can be more effective if given before incontinence is severe — or before the patient has been so frustrated with other treatments that she doesn’t want to try anything else.”

When discussing potential outcomes with patients, Dr. Friedman’s advice is to explain that each management option has different success rates. “Patients need to know that urinary incontinence is a very common condition, but it is not a condition you need to live with. There are many treatments available, all with the goal of improving quality of life.”

The primary care pathway pilot study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Study authors Dr. Neuner and Dr. Flynn disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman, Dr. Imam, and Dr. Brown disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

*Story was updated on August 7, 2024.

An estimated 25 million adult Americans experience temporary or chronic urinary incontinence.

Although urinary incontinence can occur in both women and men at any age, it is more common in women over age 50. According to Rise for Health, a national survey-based research study on bladder health, up to 40% of girls and women experience urinary problems and it may be as high as 50% or 60%.

“The main known predictors of urinary incontinence are age, obesity, diabetes, and pregnancy and childbirth,” said internist Joan M. Neuner MD, MPH, a professor of women’s health at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

courtesy Northwell Health

Other causes are urinary tract infections, pelvic surgery, and in men, of course, prostate problems. Medications such as antihypertensives and antidepressants can promote urinary incontinence. Inexplicably, smokers seem to be at higher risk. Childbearing is a prime reason women are at greater risk. “While C-section can be protective against many pelvic floor issues, vaginal delivery, particularly forceps assisted, increases the risk for urinary incontinence,” said Sarah Friedman, MD, director of the Division of Urogynecology at Staten Island University Hospital, New York City.

Urinary incontinence is underrecognized and undertreated in primary care and may not get enough emphasis in medical schools. Dr. Neuner recently coauthored a small pilot study on developing a primary care pathway to manage urinary incontinence. It suggested that a streamlined paradigm from identification and patient self-care through basic medical care and specialty referral might assist primary care providers as first-line providers in urinary incontinence.

courtesy Medical College of Wisconsin

Urinary incontinence’s impact on quality of life should not be underestimated. “It depends on severity, but people may limit their physical activities and social activities, including work, going out with friends, and sexual activity, which can in turn increase loneliness and depression,” Dr. Neuner said in an interview. “Incontinence products like pads and adult diapers are costly and often not covered by insurance.”

In fact, urinary incontinence costs US men and women more than $20 billion per year, mostly for management supplies such as pads and laundry.
 

Primary Care

While primary care practitioners are well positioned to manage urinary incontinence, the majority of patients remain untreated.

courtesy Corewell Health

The current stepwise approach should start with a knowledge of basic micturition physiology to identify the incontinence type before selecting treatment, said Khaled A. Imam, MD, CMD, a geriatrician at Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan. “More important, this working knowledge can prevent the prescription of an inappropriate treatment or drug, thus preventing many adverse effects,”

According to Dr. Imam, urinary incontinence occurs “because the outlet is open when it should be closed, the outlet is closed when it should be open, the detrusor fails to contract, or the detrusor contracts when it should not.”

There are five main types of incontinence: transient, detrusor overactivity (urge), stress, overflow, and functional. The primary care evaluation of urinary incontinence should include history taking, physical examination, post-voiding residual volume measurement, urinalysis, and urine culture, according to Dr. Imam. “The physical examination should include a urine stress test, abdominal examination, pelvic examination in female patients, rectal examination, and neurologic evaluation.”
 

Screening

“I am always careful before recommending additional screening that hasn’t been backed by a large screening study. Incontinence has not,” said Dr. Neuner. “However, at most preventive visits, PC [primary care] doctors do a review of systems that includes common symptoms. And so if a PC is currently asking a more generic question like ‘any problems with urine?’ I recommend they replace it with the more specific ‘during the last 3 months, have you leaked any urine, even a small amount?’ ”

courtesy Medical College of Wisconsin

Added Kathryn E. Flynn, PhD, a professor of medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin and Dr. Neuner’s coauthor on the primary care pilot study: “Routine screening for urinary incontinence in primary care makes a lot of sense because most older women visit a primary care provider regularly, but they often don’t want to bring the topic up to their provider. When providers routinely screen, it can reduce that barrier to disclosure.“
 

Treatment

For many women, DIY measures such as losing weight, restricting badder irritants such as caffeine or alcohol, scheduled or double voiding, and at-home Kegel exercises are not enough. Fortunately, treatment options are expanding.

“Nonpharmacologic interventions such as pelvic physical therapy can strengthen the pelvic floor muscles and improve incontinence as long as the muscle strength is maintained,” said Dr. Friedman. “Some procedural or surgical effects last long term and some are shorter acting and need to be repeated over time, but a medication’s effect on bladder function lasts only as long as you take it.”

Strengthening pelvic floor muscles. Solutions for stress incontinence – leakage during coughing, sneezing, lifting, or jumping – aim to hold the urethra closed in the face of increased pressure. “Strengthening the pelvic floor muscles can help hold the urethra closed, but many of us do not know how to contract our pelvic floor muscles correctly,” said Heidi Brown, MD, MAS, a clinician researcher at Kaiser Permanente Southern California and a urogynecologist at Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center. “Working with a pelvic floor therapist is not an option for many busy people, so devices that can be used at home to help women confirm they’re contracting their muscles correctly and remind them to do their exercises are becoming more popular.”

courtesy Kaiser Permanente Southern California

These trainers include external thigh exercisers and vaginal Kegel balls or weights. Kegel chairs that electromagnetically stimulate pelvic muscle contractions are another option, if more expensive. Some deliver pelvic therapy in clinic sessions, but there are several portable versions for home use available online.

According to Dr. Neuner, “pelvic exercises can reduce incontinence by 50% or more. “Some women stay completely dry with them but many women will need help to do these and I usually recommend a referral to a pelvic floor physical therapist or someone with extensive experience.”

Drugs. Overactive bladder, or urge urinary incontinence, leads to leakage because the bladder muscle contracts strongly at inappropriate times. Anticholinergics/antimuscarinics such as oxybutynin (Oxytrol, Ditropan) have been used for decades to control these spasms by relaxing the bladder muscle. Because of recent concerns about their association with cognitive impairment after long-term use, these agents are now being used more cautiously, said Dr. Brown. “A newer class of medication, the beta-3-adrenergic agonists, has not been shown to have that association with cognitive impairment and this class is now being used more frequently to treat overactive bladder.”

This class includes the beta-3-adrenergic agonists vibegron (Gemtesa) and mirabegron (Myrbetriq), which a recent Japanese crossover study found to be comparably effective in women with overactive bladder.

“While they have fewer safety concerns, these newer agents can be costly or may require lots of insurance paperwork, and while I hope that will improve soon, it hasn’t yet,” said Dr. Neuner.

Another pharmacologic option is botulinum A toxin (Botox). Injected into the bladder, this neurotoxin can ease urgency and frequency by relaxing the bladder muscle, added Dr. Friedman.

In some cases combination pharmacotherapy may be advisable.

Surgery. Mid-urethral slings are still considered the preferred option for stress urinary incontinence because they are minimally invasive, safe, and very effective, said Dr. Brown. “Single-incisions slings are an emerging treatment for stress incontinence, because they require one incision instead of three, but their effectiveness has not been proven as robustly as that of the traditional mid-urethral slings,” Dr. Brown said.

Urethral bulking. Bulking can reduce incontinence caused by straining as in defecation by thickening the wall of the urethra. This procedure uses a needle to inject a filler material such as collagen. “These injections are gaining more popularity as research uncovers filler materials that are more durable and with fewer potential complications,” Dr. Brown said.

Neuromodulation. This technique works to reprogram communication between the nerves and the bladder. While conventional therapy worked by relaxing the bladder muscle itself, newer approaches target the nerve that controls the muscle. This can be done at home with gentle, acupuncture-like electric stimulation of the S3 sacral nerve.

“Traditional methods of stimulating the S3 nerve involved placing a needle in the ankle and delivering electrical stimulation via that needle in the doctor’s office, or placing a wire in the nerve near the spine and implanting a pacemaker to deliver electrical stimulation,” Dr. Brown explained. “There are now emerging therapies that implant a device in the ankle to allow electrical stimulation of the S3 nerve in the home, providing a minimally invasive option that does not require weekly trips to the office.”

InterStim is a neural pacemaker that is inserted into the fat of the buttocks and patient controlled by a small handheld external device.

Biofeedback is a technique works for some. A patch applied to the skin over the bladder and urethra area and connected to an external monitor allows patients to see the bladder muscle contracting and teaches them to control spasms and prevent leaks.

Dr. Neuner advises primary care doctors to connect with a local incontinence expert and refer patients to a specialist early on if their condition isn’t improving. “There are both surgical and nonsurgical treatments that only those specialists can give and that can be more effective if given before incontinence is severe — or before the patient has been so frustrated with other treatments that she doesn’t want to try anything else.”

When discussing potential outcomes with patients, Dr. Friedman’s advice is to explain that each management option has different success rates. “Patients need to know that urinary incontinence is a very common condition, but it is not a condition you need to live with. There are many treatments available, all with the goal of improving quality of life.”

The primary care pathway pilot study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Study authors Dr. Neuner and Dr. Flynn disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman, Dr. Imam, and Dr. Brown disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

*Story was updated on August 7, 2024.

An estimated 25 million adult Americans experience temporary or chronic urinary incontinence.

Although urinary incontinence can occur in both women and men at any age, it is more common in women over age 50. According to Rise for Health, a national survey-based research study on bladder health, up to 40% of girls and women experience urinary problems and it may be as high as 50% or 60%.

“The main known predictors of urinary incontinence are age, obesity, diabetes, and pregnancy and childbirth,” said internist Joan M. Neuner MD, MPH, a professor of women’s health at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

courtesy Northwell Health

Other causes are urinary tract infections, pelvic surgery, and in men, of course, prostate problems. Medications such as antihypertensives and antidepressants can promote urinary incontinence. Inexplicably, smokers seem to be at higher risk. Childbearing is a prime reason women are at greater risk. “While C-section can be protective against many pelvic floor issues, vaginal delivery, particularly forceps assisted, increases the risk for urinary incontinence,” said Sarah Friedman, MD, director of the Division of Urogynecology at Staten Island University Hospital, New York City.

Urinary incontinence is underrecognized and undertreated in primary care and may not get enough emphasis in medical schools. Dr. Neuner recently coauthored a small pilot study on developing a primary care pathway to manage urinary incontinence. It suggested that a streamlined paradigm from identification and patient self-care through basic medical care and specialty referral might assist primary care providers as first-line providers in urinary incontinence.

courtesy Medical College of Wisconsin

Urinary incontinence’s impact on quality of life should not be underestimated. “It depends on severity, but people may limit their physical activities and social activities, including work, going out with friends, and sexual activity, which can in turn increase loneliness and depression,” Dr. Neuner said in an interview. “Incontinence products like pads and adult diapers are costly and often not covered by insurance.”

In fact, urinary incontinence costs US men and women more than $20 billion per year, mostly for management supplies such as pads and laundry.
 

Primary Care

While primary care practitioners are well positioned to manage urinary incontinence, the majority of patients remain untreated.

courtesy Corewell Health

The current stepwise approach should start with a knowledge of basic micturition physiology to identify the incontinence type before selecting treatment, said Khaled A. Imam, MD, CMD, a geriatrician at Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan. “More important, this working knowledge can prevent the prescription of an inappropriate treatment or drug, thus preventing many adverse effects,”

According to Dr. Imam, urinary incontinence occurs “because the outlet is open when it should be closed, the outlet is closed when it should be open, the detrusor fails to contract, or the detrusor contracts when it should not.”

There are five main types of incontinence: transient, detrusor overactivity (urge), stress, overflow, and functional. The primary care evaluation of urinary incontinence should include history taking, physical examination, post-voiding residual volume measurement, urinalysis, and urine culture, according to Dr. Imam. “The physical examination should include a urine stress test, abdominal examination, pelvic examination in female patients, rectal examination, and neurologic evaluation.”
 

Screening

“I am always careful before recommending additional screening that hasn’t been backed by a large screening study. Incontinence has not,” said Dr. Neuner. “However, at most preventive visits, PC [primary care] doctors do a review of systems that includes common symptoms. And so if a PC is currently asking a more generic question like ‘any problems with urine?’ I recommend they replace it with the more specific ‘during the last 3 months, have you leaked any urine, even a small amount?’ ”

courtesy Medical College of Wisconsin

Added Kathryn E. Flynn, PhD, a professor of medicine at Medical College of Wisconsin and Dr. Neuner’s coauthor on the primary care pilot study: “Routine screening for urinary incontinence in primary care makes a lot of sense because most older women visit a primary care provider regularly, but they often don’t want to bring the topic up to their provider. When providers routinely screen, it can reduce that barrier to disclosure.“
 

Treatment

For many women, DIY measures such as losing weight, restricting badder irritants such as caffeine or alcohol, scheduled or double voiding, and at-home Kegel exercises are not enough. Fortunately, treatment options are expanding.

“Nonpharmacologic interventions such as pelvic physical therapy can strengthen the pelvic floor muscles and improve incontinence as long as the muscle strength is maintained,” said Dr. Friedman. “Some procedural or surgical effects last long term and some are shorter acting and need to be repeated over time, but a medication’s effect on bladder function lasts only as long as you take it.”

Strengthening pelvic floor muscles. Solutions for stress incontinence – leakage during coughing, sneezing, lifting, or jumping – aim to hold the urethra closed in the face of increased pressure. “Strengthening the pelvic floor muscles can help hold the urethra closed, but many of us do not know how to contract our pelvic floor muscles correctly,” said Heidi Brown, MD, MAS, a clinician researcher at Kaiser Permanente Southern California and a urogynecologist at Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center. “Working with a pelvic floor therapist is not an option for many busy people, so devices that can be used at home to help women confirm they’re contracting their muscles correctly and remind them to do their exercises are becoming more popular.”

courtesy Kaiser Permanente Southern California

These trainers include external thigh exercisers and vaginal Kegel balls or weights. Kegel chairs that electromagnetically stimulate pelvic muscle contractions are another option, if more expensive. Some deliver pelvic therapy in clinic sessions, but there are several portable versions for home use available online.

According to Dr. Neuner, “pelvic exercises can reduce incontinence by 50% or more. “Some women stay completely dry with them but many women will need help to do these and I usually recommend a referral to a pelvic floor physical therapist or someone with extensive experience.”

Drugs. Overactive bladder, or urge urinary incontinence, leads to leakage because the bladder muscle contracts strongly at inappropriate times. Anticholinergics/antimuscarinics such as oxybutynin (Oxytrol, Ditropan) have been used for decades to control these spasms by relaxing the bladder muscle. Because of recent concerns about their association with cognitive impairment after long-term use, these agents are now being used more cautiously, said Dr. Brown. “A newer class of medication, the beta-3-adrenergic agonists, has not been shown to have that association with cognitive impairment and this class is now being used more frequently to treat overactive bladder.”

This class includes the beta-3-adrenergic agonists vibegron (Gemtesa) and mirabegron (Myrbetriq), which a recent Japanese crossover study found to be comparably effective in women with overactive bladder.

“While they have fewer safety concerns, these newer agents can be costly or may require lots of insurance paperwork, and while I hope that will improve soon, it hasn’t yet,” said Dr. Neuner.

Another pharmacologic option is botulinum A toxin (Botox). Injected into the bladder, this neurotoxin can ease urgency and frequency by relaxing the bladder muscle, added Dr. Friedman.

In some cases combination pharmacotherapy may be advisable.

Surgery. Mid-urethral slings are still considered the preferred option for stress urinary incontinence because they are minimally invasive, safe, and very effective, said Dr. Brown. “Single-incisions slings are an emerging treatment for stress incontinence, because they require one incision instead of three, but their effectiveness has not been proven as robustly as that of the traditional mid-urethral slings,” Dr. Brown said.

Urethral bulking. Bulking can reduce incontinence caused by straining as in defecation by thickening the wall of the urethra. This procedure uses a needle to inject a filler material such as collagen. “These injections are gaining more popularity as research uncovers filler materials that are more durable and with fewer potential complications,” Dr. Brown said.

Neuromodulation. This technique works to reprogram communication between the nerves and the bladder. While conventional therapy worked by relaxing the bladder muscle itself, newer approaches target the nerve that controls the muscle. This can be done at home with gentle, acupuncture-like electric stimulation of the S3 sacral nerve.

“Traditional methods of stimulating the S3 nerve involved placing a needle in the ankle and delivering electrical stimulation via that needle in the doctor’s office, or placing a wire in the nerve near the spine and implanting a pacemaker to deliver electrical stimulation,” Dr. Brown explained. “There are now emerging therapies that implant a device in the ankle to allow electrical stimulation of the S3 nerve in the home, providing a minimally invasive option that does not require weekly trips to the office.”

InterStim is a neural pacemaker that is inserted into the fat of the buttocks and patient controlled by a small handheld external device.

Biofeedback is a technique works for some. A patch applied to the skin over the bladder and urethra area and connected to an external monitor allows patients to see the bladder muscle contracting and teaches them to control spasms and prevent leaks.

Dr. Neuner advises primary care doctors to connect with a local incontinence expert and refer patients to a specialist early on if their condition isn’t improving. “There are both surgical and nonsurgical treatments that only those specialists can give and that can be more effective if given before incontinence is severe — or before the patient has been so frustrated with other treatments that she doesn’t want to try anything else.”

When discussing potential outcomes with patients, Dr. Friedman’s advice is to explain that each management option has different success rates. “Patients need to know that urinary incontinence is a very common condition, but it is not a condition you need to live with. There are many treatments available, all with the goal of improving quality of life.”

The primary care pathway pilot study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Study authors Dr. Neuner and Dr. Flynn disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman, Dr. Imam, and Dr. Brown disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

*Story was updated on August 7, 2024.

VIENNA — Nipocalimab, iscalimab, and tibulizumab, but not lusvertikimab, appear to be promising new agents for Sjögren disease that warrant further investigation, suggest the results of four separate early clinical trials reported at the recent annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR).

This is potentially good news for patients, as discovering new treatments that work for managing the various symptoms of Sjögren disease is a high priority, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD, said when he presented the results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of nipocalimab during a late-breaking abstract session.

“All patients suffer from high burden of symptoms — pain, fatigue, and dryness; nearly 50% of patients have systemic complications; mortality is increased, so there is a high unmet need since no specific drug has been accepted so far,” said Dr. Gottenberg, who works at Strasbourg University Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

“The pathogenesis of the disease involves high B-cell activation, resulting in high IgG levels, and secretion of autoantibodies,” such as anti-Ro, anti-La, anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type A (anti-SSA), and anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type B antibodies, Dr. Gottenberg said.

Thus, one approach to reducing the disease burden is to try to lower circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and IgG-associated autoantibodies, which is how the monoclonal antibody nipocalimab works. Nipocalimab essentially blocks the interaction of IgG with the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor and has already been shown to have efficacy in other autoimmune conditions such as myasthenia gravis and fetal and neonatal hemolytic disease, although not as hoped in rheumatoid arthritis.
 

The DAHLIAS Phase 2 Study

Now, results from the DAHLIAS study show that nipocalimab may also work in Sjögren disease, with significant improvement vs placebo seen in the primary endpoint of the total EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (clinESSDAI) at 24 weeks for one of the two doses of the drug that were tested.

The multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted in 163 patients with moderate to severely active primary Sjögren disease. The latter was determined by having a clinESSDAI of 6 or higher and seropositivity for anti-Ro60, anti-Ro52, or both autoantibodies.

Dr. Gottenberg reported that the mean age of patients was 48 years; the majority (92.6%) were women and of White ethnicity (90.8%). The baseline clinESSDAI was a mean of 9.9; 98.1% had anti-Ro60, 80.6% had anti-Ro52, and 71.9% had anti-La antibodies.

In addition to standard of care, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous treatment every 2 weeks with nipocalimab 5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg, or placebo.

At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) change in clinESSDAI from baseline was −3.74 for placebo, −4.08 for nipocalimab 5 mg/kg (P = not significant vs placebo), and −6.40 for nipocalimab 15 mg/kg (P = .02 vs placebo).

Nipocalimab 15 mg/kg also “demonstrated similar and consistent trends in other key efficacy endpoints,” Dr. Gottenberg said. This included improvements in the ESSDAI and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and composite measures such as the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR), Composite of Relevant Endpoints for Sjögren’s Syndrome (CRESS), and the Disease Activity Level. There were also improvements in the unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Safety findings showed no new concerns, with adverse events reported in 62.5% of placebo-treated patients and by 79.2% and 79.6% of patients receiving nipocalimab 5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in a respective 5.4%, 7.5%, and 7.4%, including severe infections or infections requiring intravenous anti-infectives in 1.8%, 3.8%, and 1.9% of participants, although none was thought to be related to the study treatment. No opportunistic infections or any deaths were reported.

Thomas Schindler, PhD, senior clinical scientist at F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., in Basel, Switzerland, commented from the audience: “This was a very impressive set of results, and I’m very surprised that its safety profile is so benign.”

Dr. Schindler wanted to know if there were any changes in the serum albumin level and if this manifested as any laboratory abnormalities, but there were no reported cases of severe hypoalbuminemia in the study.
 

The TWINSS Phase 2 Study

Similarly hopeful results were reported for iscalimab, a fully human IgG1 anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody that is given by subcutaneous injection, during a clinical abstracts session. Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, head of the Rheumatology Department at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University in Paris, France, reported updated results of the phase 2b dose-ranging TWINSS study, showing sustained benefits at 48 weeks. The primary endpoint results at 24 weeks were recently published in The Lancet.

TWINSS was set up to assess the safety and efficacy of iscalimab given every 2 weeks vs placebo in two distinct cohorts of patients with Sjögren disease — one with moderate to severe disease with both systemic and symptomatic involvement and the other with low systemic involvement but high symptom burden.

Whereas patients in the first cohort who had moderate to severe disease (n = 173) were randomly allocated to one of three doses (150, 300, and 600 mg) of iscalimab or placebo for the initial 24 weeks, those in the second cohort (n = 100) were randomly allocated to a 600-mg dose or placebo. After the double-blind period ended, patients taking iscalimab continued on the dose they were taking for another 24 weeks, with those in the placebo arms switching to the 600-mg dose in cohort 1 and the 300-mg dose in cohort 2.

Topline results for those in cohort 1 with moderate to severe Sjögren disease were that the significant improvements in ESSDAI that had been seen at week 24 were maintained in those who continued iscalimab and improved in those who had switched from placebo.

LSM change from baseline in ESSDAI vs placebo at week 24 had been −3.0, −1.4, and −2.9 for the 150-, 300-, and 600-mg doses of iscalimab, respectively. Results at week 48 were a respective −7.6, −5.7, and −7.9. The LSM change for the placebo-treated patients who had switched to the 600-mg dose was −6.7.

Dr. Mariette reported “consistent improvement” in patient-reported outcomes, including ESSPRI, the Sjögren’s Syndrome Symptom Diary, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue measure, and the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life instrument. There was also a significant improvement in stimulated salivary flow rates.

Similar benefits were seen in the second cohort of patients who did not have systemic involvement but had a high burden of symptoms, with improved ESSPRI scores of a LSM change from baseline vs placebo of −2.29 for patients continuing iscalimab 600 mg treatment and −1.14 for those taking the 300-mg dose after being treated with placebo. Improvements were also seen in the other patient-reported outcomes used.

Regarding safety, Dr. Mariette reported that there were “no specific issues” seen in the patients who switched from placebo to iscalimab, either at the 300-mg or 600-mg dose. Any adverse event occurred in around 80% of placebo-treated patients and roughly 90% of those given iscalimab, and serious adverse events occurred in 11.4%, 14.3%, and 11.4% pf patients treated with iscalimab 150, 300, and 600 mg, and 4.9% of those given placebo and then 600 mg iscalimab.

“The safety seems equivalent to patients having received iscalimab from the beginning of the trial,” Dr. Mariette said, adding “the risk-benefit [analysis] seems positive in patients up to week 48.”
 

Phase 1 Trial of Tibulizumab

Further positive early trial results were reported by Michael Howell, PhD, chief scientific officer for Zura Bio, a biotech company based in Henderson, Nevada. During a poster tour at EULAR 2024, Dr. Howell presented some preliminary findings from a phase 1 trial of tibulizumab, a dual antagonist of interleukin (IL)-17A and the B-cell–activating factor (BAFF) engineered by fusing elements of ixekizumab (Taltz) and tabalumab together.

“The headline result for me is that the molecule does what it’s supposed to,” Dr. Howell told this news organization. “We have potent engagement of the IL-17 and BAFF pathways, and this sets the tone for additional exploration in rheumatologic diseases where there’s known activation of those two pathways,” he said.

Dr. Howell reported that total B-cell counts and lower levels of type 1 T helper cells were seen during the trial.

Over the years, Dr. Howell, an immunologist, has been involved in the development of many therapeutics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi) and spesolimab (Spevigo).

“When I look at the molecules and the opportunity we have to do broader antagonism of pathways in a safe aspect, this is probably one of the most exciting,” he said.

The trial he presented included 25 people with a confirmed diagnosis of Sjögren disease and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies. Patients received tibulizumab or a placebo for a total of 12 weeks via a subcutaneous injection. Various doses were tested: 30 mg, 100 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 300 mg every 2 weeks.

Serum levels of both BAFF and IL-17A increased as expected in the tibulizumab-treated patients, and Dr. Howell reported that “it’s well tolerated. There’s no adverse event profile that caused any concern.”

As a phase 1 study, it was not powered to look at efficacy, but there were positive signals, Dr. Howell said, meaning that the drug is likely to be tested further in a phase 2 trial.
 

Lusvertikimab Phase 2 Trial

During the same poster tour, the null findings of a phase 2 trial of the anti-IL-7 monoclonal antibody lusvertikimab were presented by Benjamin Fisher, MD, professor of rheumatology at Birmingham University in Birmingham, England.

Dr. Fisher told this news organization: “It’s a negative study, at least over the 3-month period that we’ve studied it.” Whether longer durations of treatment may be needed is a question that currently cannot be answered, he added.

A total of 48 patients with Sjögren disease had been included in the trial from 19 different centers in Europe, the United States, and Australia. The mean age of the participants was 53.7 years, 87% were women, and the mean duration of disease was 5.0 years. Baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI were 12.1 and 7.0, respectively. Half were receiving other background treatment, and 72.9% were anti-Ro or anti-SSA positive.

Lusvertikimab 750 mg or a matching placebo was given via intravenous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10.

The primary endpoint was the mean change in ESSDAI from baseline to week 13, which was the same, at −3.9, in both groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in any of the other secondary endpoints that were used, including ESSPRI, Schirmer’s test, the ocular staining score, salivary flow rate, physician and patient global assessment, assessment of fatigue, quality of life, or the composite measures STAR and CRESS.

“This isn’t going anywhere,” said Dr. Fisher, asking what was going to happen next and if this meant the end of IL-7-focused therapy.

“For years, there’s been quite a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Fisher said. Sjögren disease is characterized by a sort of focal inflammation of the saliva glands, which is composed of both T and B cells in the early stages, probably a T-cell component and a B-cell component, he explained.

“IL-7 is thought to be an important cytokine for homeostasis of the T-cell compartment, so for maintenance of T central memory and effector memory cells,” he said. “So, the idea is that, if you block IL-7, you switch off T cells, and you may rebalance the immune system towards a more regulatory phenotype. Just that it didn’t work,” Dr. Fisher said.

“There’s large unmet need,” he said. “Sjögren’s is associated with poor health-related quality of life, [and] a large part that is symptom-driven — dryness and fatigue — which we have no real interventions yet for patients; there’s no licensed therapeutics for it.”

Dr. Fisher cited ianalumab as one of the front-runners for becoming the first licensed treatment for Sjögren disease. The novel BAFF-targeting antibody is already in phase 3 trials and is also showing promise for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Then there are CD40-targeting drugs; the ones most advanced are dazodalibep and iscalimab.” Commenting on the potential of iscalimab, Dr. Fisher said that it “seems to work — it improves systemic disease activity; it also leads to some symptomatic improvement, which has been difficult to demonstrate in Sjögren’s.”

Dr. Fisher added that “the nipocalimab data looks interesting, as do data on TYK2 inhibition.”

The DAHLIAS study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gottenberg has consulted for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. The TWINSS study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mariette has consulted for BMS, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. The tibulizumab phase 1 study was funded by Eli Lilly & Company. Dr. Howell is an employee of the developer, Zura Bio. The Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier sponsored the lusvertikimab trial. Dr. Fisher has consulted for Novartis, Roche, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Servier, UCB, and Sanofi and received funding to his institution for collaborative research from Janssen, Celgene, Galapagos, and Servier.
 

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

VIENNA — Nipocalimab, iscalimab, and tibulizumab, but not lusvertikimab, appear to be promising new agents for Sjögren disease that warrant further investigation, suggest the results of four separate early clinical trials reported at the recent annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR).

This is potentially good news for patients, as discovering new treatments that work for managing the various symptoms of Sjögren disease is a high priority, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD, said when he presented the results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of nipocalimab during a late-breaking abstract session.

“All patients suffer from high burden of symptoms — pain, fatigue, and dryness; nearly 50% of patients have systemic complications; mortality is increased, so there is a high unmet need since no specific drug has been accepted so far,” said Dr. Gottenberg, who works at Strasbourg University Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

“The pathogenesis of the disease involves high B-cell activation, resulting in high IgG levels, and secretion of autoantibodies,” such as anti-Ro, anti-La, anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type A (anti-SSA), and anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type B antibodies, Dr. Gottenberg said.

Thus, one approach to reducing the disease burden is to try to lower circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and IgG-associated autoantibodies, which is how the monoclonal antibody nipocalimab works. Nipocalimab essentially blocks the interaction of IgG with the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor and has already been shown to have efficacy in other autoimmune conditions such as myasthenia gravis and fetal and neonatal hemolytic disease, although not as hoped in rheumatoid arthritis.
 

The DAHLIAS Phase 2 Study

Now, results from the DAHLIAS study show that nipocalimab may also work in Sjögren disease, with significant improvement vs placebo seen in the primary endpoint of the total EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (clinESSDAI) at 24 weeks for one of the two doses of the drug that were tested.

The multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted in 163 patients with moderate to severely active primary Sjögren disease. The latter was determined by having a clinESSDAI of 6 or higher and seropositivity for anti-Ro60, anti-Ro52, or both autoantibodies.

Dr. Gottenberg reported that the mean age of patients was 48 years; the majority (92.6%) were women and of White ethnicity (90.8%). The baseline clinESSDAI was a mean of 9.9; 98.1% had anti-Ro60, 80.6% had anti-Ro52, and 71.9% had anti-La antibodies.

In addition to standard of care, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous treatment every 2 weeks with nipocalimab 5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg, or placebo.

At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) change in clinESSDAI from baseline was −3.74 for placebo, −4.08 for nipocalimab 5 mg/kg (P = not significant vs placebo), and −6.40 for nipocalimab 15 mg/kg (P = .02 vs placebo).

Nipocalimab 15 mg/kg also “demonstrated similar and consistent trends in other key efficacy endpoints,” Dr. Gottenberg said. This included improvements in the ESSDAI and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and composite measures such as the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR), Composite of Relevant Endpoints for Sjögren’s Syndrome (CRESS), and the Disease Activity Level. There were also improvements in the unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Safety findings showed no new concerns, with adverse events reported in 62.5% of placebo-treated patients and by 79.2% and 79.6% of patients receiving nipocalimab 5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in a respective 5.4%, 7.5%, and 7.4%, including severe infections or infections requiring intravenous anti-infectives in 1.8%, 3.8%, and 1.9% of participants, although none was thought to be related to the study treatment. No opportunistic infections or any deaths were reported.

Thomas Schindler, PhD, senior clinical scientist at F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., in Basel, Switzerland, commented from the audience: “This was a very impressive set of results, and I’m very surprised that its safety profile is so benign.”

Dr. Schindler wanted to know if there were any changes in the serum albumin level and if this manifested as any laboratory abnormalities, but there were no reported cases of severe hypoalbuminemia in the study.
 

The TWINSS Phase 2 Study

Similarly hopeful results were reported for iscalimab, a fully human IgG1 anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody that is given by subcutaneous injection, during a clinical abstracts session. Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, head of the Rheumatology Department at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University in Paris, France, reported updated results of the phase 2b dose-ranging TWINSS study, showing sustained benefits at 48 weeks. The primary endpoint results at 24 weeks were recently published in The Lancet.

TWINSS was set up to assess the safety and efficacy of iscalimab given every 2 weeks vs placebo in two distinct cohorts of patients with Sjögren disease — one with moderate to severe disease with both systemic and symptomatic involvement and the other with low systemic involvement but high symptom burden.

Whereas patients in the first cohort who had moderate to severe disease (n = 173) were randomly allocated to one of three doses (150, 300, and 600 mg) of iscalimab or placebo for the initial 24 weeks, those in the second cohort (n = 100) were randomly allocated to a 600-mg dose or placebo. After the double-blind period ended, patients taking iscalimab continued on the dose they were taking for another 24 weeks, with those in the placebo arms switching to the 600-mg dose in cohort 1 and the 300-mg dose in cohort 2.

Topline results for those in cohort 1 with moderate to severe Sjögren disease were that the significant improvements in ESSDAI that had been seen at week 24 were maintained in those who continued iscalimab and improved in those who had switched from placebo.

LSM change from baseline in ESSDAI vs placebo at week 24 had been −3.0, −1.4, and −2.9 for the 150-, 300-, and 600-mg doses of iscalimab, respectively. Results at week 48 were a respective −7.6, −5.7, and −7.9. The LSM change for the placebo-treated patients who had switched to the 600-mg dose was −6.7.

Dr. Mariette reported “consistent improvement” in patient-reported outcomes, including ESSPRI, the Sjögren’s Syndrome Symptom Diary, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue measure, and the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life instrument. There was also a significant improvement in stimulated salivary flow rates.

Similar benefits were seen in the second cohort of patients who did not have systemic involvement but had a high burden of symptoms, with improved ESSPRI scores of a LSM change from baseline vs placebo of −2.29 for patients continuing iscalimab 600 mg treatment and −1.14 for those taking the 300-mg dose after being treated with placebo. Improvements were also seen in the other patient-reported outcomes used.

Regarding safety, Dr. Mariette reported that there were “no specific issues” seen in the patients who switched from placebo to iscalimab, either at the 300-mg or 600-mg dose. Any adverse event occurred in around 80% of placebo-treated patients and roughly 90% of those given iscalimab, and serious adverse events occurred in 11.4%, 14.3%, and 11.4% pf patients treated with iscalimab 150, 300, and 600 mg, and 4.9% of those given placebo and then 600 mg iscalimab.

“The safety seems equivalent to patients having received iscalimab from the beginning of the trial,” Dr. Mariette said, adding “the risk-benefit [analysis] seems positive in patients up to week 48.”
 

Phase 1 Trial of Tibulizumab

Further positive early trial results were reported by Michael Howell, PhD, chief scientific officer for Zura Bio, a biotech company based in Henderson, Nevada. During a poster tour at EULAR 2024, Dr. Howell presented some preliminary findings from a phase 1 trial of tibulizumab, a dual antagonist of interleukin (IL)-17A and the B-cell–activating factor (BAFF) engineered by fusing elements of ixekizumab (Taltz) and tabalumab together.

“The headline result for me is that the molecule does what it’s supposed to,” Dr. Howell told this news organization. “We have potent engagement of the IL-17 and BAFF pathways, and this sets the tone for additional exploration in rheumatologic diseases where there’s known activation of those two pathways,” he said.

Dr. Howell reported that total B-cell counts and lower levels of type 1 T helper cells were seen during the trial.

Over the years, Dr. Howell, an immunologist, has been involved in the development of many therapeutics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi) and spesolimab (Spevigo).

“When I look at the molecules and the opportunity we have to do broader antagonism of pathways in a safe aspect, this is probably one of the most exciting,” he said.

The trial he presented included 25 people with a confirmed diagnosis of Sjögren disease and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies. Patients received tibulizumab or a placebo for a total of 12 weeks via a subcutaneous injection. Various doses were tested: 30 mg, 100 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 300 mg every 2 weeks.

Serum levels of both BAFF and IL-17A increased as expected in the tibulizumab-treated patients, and Dr. Howell reported that “it’s well tolerated. There’s no adverse event profile that caused any concern.”

As a phase 1 study, it was not powered to look at efficacy, but there were positive signals, Dr. Howell said, meaning that the drug is likely to be tested further in a phase 2 trial.
 

Lusvertikimab Phase 2 Trial

During the same poster tour, the null findings of a phase 2 trial of the anti-IL-7 monoclonal antibody lusvertikimab were presented by Benjamin Fisher, MD, professor of rheumatology at Birmingham University in Birmingham, England.

Dr. Fisher told this news organization: “It’s a negative study, at least over the 3-month period that we’ve studied it.” Whether longer durations of treatment may be needed is a question that currently cannot be answered, he added.

A total of 48 patients with Sjögren disease had been included in the trial from 19 different centers in Europe, the United States, and Australia. The mean age of the participants was 53.7 years, 87% were women, and the mean duration of disease was 5.0 years. Baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI were 12.1 and 7.0, respectively. Half were receiving other background treatment, and 72.9% were anti-Ro or anti-SSA positive.

Lusvertikimab 750 mg or a matching placebo was given via intravenous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10.

The primary endpoint was the mean change in ESSDAI from baseline to week 13, which was the same, at −3.9, in both groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in any of the other secondary endpoints that were used, including ESSPRI, Schirmer’s test, the ocular staining score, salivary flow rate, physician and patient global assessment, assessment of fatigue, quality of life, or the composite measures STAR and CRESS.

“This isn’t going anywhere,” said Dr. Fisher, asking what was going to happen next and if this meant the end of IL-7-focused therapy.

“For years, there’s been quite a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Fisher said. Sjögren disease is characterized by a sort of focal inflammation of the saliva glands, which is composed of both T and B cells in the early stages, probably a T-cell component and a B-cell component, he explained.

“IL-7 is thought to be an important cytokine for homeostasis of the T-cell compartment, so for maintenance of T central memory and effector memory cells,” he said. “So, the idea is that, if you block IL-7, you switch off T cells, and you may rebalance the immune system towards a more regulatory phenotype. Just that it didn’t work,” Dr. Fisher said.

“There’s large unmet need,” he said. “Sjögren’s is associated with poor health-related quality of life, [and] a large part that is symptom-driven — dryness and fatigue — which we have no real interventions yet for patients; there’s no licensed therapeutics for it.”

Dr. Fisher cited ianalumab as one of the front-runners for becoming the first licensed treatment for Sjögren disease. The novel BAFF-targeting antibody is already in phase 3 trials and is also showing promise for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Then there are CD40-targeting drugs; the ones most advanced are dazodalibep and iscalimab.” Commenting on the potential of iscalimab, Dr. Fisher said that it “seems to work — it improves systemic disease activity; it also leads to some symptomatic improvement, which has been difficult to demonstrate in Sjögren’s.”

Dr. Fisher added that “the nipocalimab data looks interesting, as do data on TYK2 inhibition.”

The DAHLIAS study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gottenberg has consulted for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. The TWINSS study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mariette has consulted for BMS, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. The tibulizumab phase 1 study was funded by Eli Lilly & Company. Dr. Howell is an employee of the developer, Zura Bio. The Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier sponsored the lusvertikimab trial. Dr. Fisher has consulted for Novartis, Roche, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Servier, UCB, and Sanofi and received funding to his institution for collaborative research from Janssen, Celgene, Galapagos, and Servier.
 

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

VIENNA — Nipocalimab, iscalimab, and tibulizumab, but not lusvertikimab, appear to be promising new agents for Sjögren disease that warrant further investigation, suggest the results of four separate early clinical trials reported at the recent annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR).

This is potentially good news for patients, as discovering new treatments that work for managing the various symptoms of Sjögren disease is a high priority, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD, said when he presented the results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of nipocalimab during a late-breaking abstract session.

“All patients suffer from high burden of symptoms — pain, fatigue, and dryness; nearly 50% of patients have systemic complications; mortality is increased, so there is a high unmet need since no specific drug has been accepted so far,” said Dr. Gottenberg, who works at Strasbourg University Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

“The pathogenesis of the disease involves high B-cell activation, resulting in high IgG levels, and secretion of autoantibodies,” such as anti-Ro, anti-La, anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type A (anti-SSA), and anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type B antibodies, Dr. Gottenberg said.

Thus, one approach to reducing the disease burden is to try to lower circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and IgG-associated autoantibodies, which is how the monoclonal antibody nipocalimab works. Nipocalimab essentially blocks the interaction of IgG with the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor and has already been shown to have efficacy in other autoimmune conditions such as myasthenia gravis and fetal and neonatal hemolytic disease, although not as hoped in rheumatoid arthritis.
 

The DAHLIAS Phase 2 Study

Now, results from the DAHLIAS study show that nipocalimab may also work in Sjögren disease, with significant improvement vs placebo seen in the primary endpoint of the total EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (clinESSDAI) at 24 weeks for one of the two doses of the drug that were tested.

The multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted in 163 patients with moderate to severely active primary Sjögren disease. The latter was determined by having a clinESSDAI of 6 or higher and seropositivity for anti-Ro60, anti-Ro52, or both autoantibodies.

Dr. Gottenberg reported that the mean age of patients was 48 years; the majority (92.6%) were women and of White ethnicity (90.8%). The baseline clinESSDAI was a mean of 9.9; 98.1% had anti-Ro60, 80.6% had anti-Ro52, and 71.9% had anti-La antibodies.

In addition to standard of care, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous treatment every 2 weeks with nipocalimab 5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg, or placebo.

At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) change in clinESSDAI from baseline was −3.74 for placebo, −4.08 for nipocalimab 5 mg/kg (P = not significant vs placebo), and −6.40 for nipocalimab 15 mg/kg (P = .02 vs placebo).

Nipocalimab 15 mg/kg also “demonstrated similar and consistent trends in other key efficacy endpoints,” Dr. Gottenberg said. This included improvements in the ESSDAI and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and composite measures such as the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR), Composite of Relevant Endpoints for Sjögren’s Syndrome (CRESS), and the Disease Activity Level. There were also improvements in the unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Safety findings showed no new concerns, with adverse events reported in 62.5% of placebo-treated patients and by 79.2% and 79.6% of patients receiving nipocalimab 5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in a respective 5.4%, 7.5%, and 7.4%, including severe infections or infections requiring intravenous anti-infectives in 1.8%, 3.8%, and 1.9% of participants, although none was thought to be related to the study treatment. No opportunistic infections or any deaths were reported.

Thomas Schindler, PhD, senior clinical scientist at F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., in Basel, Switzerland, commented from the audience: “This was a very impressive set of results, and I’m very surprised that its safety profile is so benign.”

Dr. Schindler wanted to know if there were any changes in the serum albumin level and if this manifested as any laboratory abnormalities, but there were no reported cases of severe hypoalbuminemia in the study.
 

The TWINSS Phase 2 Study

Similarly hopeful results were reported for iscalimab, a fully human IgG1 anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody that is given by subcutaneous injection, during a clinical abstracts session. Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, head of the Rheumatology Department at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University in Paris, France, reported updated results of the phase 2b dose-ranging TWINSS study, showing sustained benefits at 48 weeks. The primary endpoint results at 24 weeks were recently published in The Lancet.

TWINSS was set up to assess the safety and efficacy of iscalimab given every 2 weeks vs placebo in two distinct cohorts of patients with Sjögren disease — one with moderate to severe disease with both systemic and symptomatic involvement and the other with low systemic involvement but high symptom burden.

Whereas patients in the first cohort who had moderate to severe disease (n = 173) were randomly allocated to one of three doses (150, 300, and 600 mg) of iscalimab or placebo for the initial 24 weeks, those in the second cohort (n = 100) were randomly allocated to a 600-mg dose or placebo. After the double-blind period ended, patients taking iscalimab continued on the dose they were taking for another 24 weeks, with those in the placebo arms switching to the 600-mg dose in cohort 1 and the 300-mg dose in cohort 2.

Topline results for those in cohort 1 with moderate to severe Sjögren disease were that the significant improvements in ESSDAI that had been seen at week 24 were maintained in those who continued iscalimab and improved in those who had switched from placebo.

LSM change from baseline in ESSDAI vs placebo at week 24 had been −3.0, −1.4, and −2.9 for the 150-, 300-, and 600-mg doses of iscalimab, respectively. Results at week 48 were a respective −7.6, −5.7, and −7.9. The LSM change for the placebo-treated patients who had switched to the 600-mg dose was −6.7.

Dr. Mariette reported “consistent improvement” in patient-reported outcomes, including ESSPRI, the Sjögren’s Syndrome Symptom Diary, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue measure, and the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life instrument. There was also a significant improvement in stimulated salivary flow rates.

Similar benefits were seen in the second cohort of patients who did not have systemic involvement but had a high burden of symptoms, with improved ESSPRI scores of a LSM change from baseline vs placebo of −2.29 for patients continuing iscalimab 600 mg treatment and −1.14 for those taking the 300-mg dose after being treated with placebo. Improvements were also seen in the other patient-reported outcomes used.

Regarding safety, Dr. Mariette reported that there were “no specific issues” seen in the patients who switched from placebo to iscalimab, either at the 300-mg or 600-mg dose. Any adverse event occurred in around 80% of placebo-treated patients and roughly 90% of those given iscalimab, and serious adverse events occurred in 11.4%, 14.3%, and 11.4% pf patients treated with iscalimab 150, 300, and 600 mg, and 4.9% of those given placebo and then 600 mg iscalimab.

“The safety seems equivalent to patients having received iscalimab from the beginning of the trial,” Dr. Mariette said, adding “the risk-benefit [analysis] seems positive in patients up to week 48.”
 

Phase 1 Trial of Tibulizumab

Further positive early trial results were reported by Michael Howell, PhD, chief scientific officer for Zura Bio, a biotech company based in Henderson, Nevada. During a poster tour at EULAR 2024, Dr. Howell presented some preliminary findings from a phase 1 trial of tibulizumab, a dual antagonist of interleukin (IL)-17A and the B-cell–activating factor (BAFF) engineered by fusing elements of ixekizumab (Taltz) and tabalumab together.

“The headline result for me is that the molecule does what it’s supposed to,” Dr. Howell told this news organization. “We have potent engagement of the IL-17 and BAFF pathways, and this sets the tone for additional exploration in rheumatologic diseases where there’s known activation of those two pathways,” he said.

Dr. Howell reported that total B-cell counts and lower levels of type 1 T helper cells were seen during the trial.

Over the years, Dr. Howell, an immunologist, has been involved in the development of many therapeutics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi) and spesolimab (Spevigo).

“When I look at the molecules and the opportunity we have to do broader antagonism of pathways in a safe aspect, this is probably one of the most exciting,” he said.

The trial he presented included 25 people with a confirmed diagnosis of Sjögren disease and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies. Patients received tibulizumab or a placebo for a total of 12 weeks via a subcutaneous injection. Various doses were tested: 30 mg, 100 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 300 mg every 2 weeks.

Serum levels of both BAFF and IL-17A increased as expected in the tibulizumab-treated patients, and Dr. Howell reported that “it’s well tolerated. There’s no adverse event profile that caused any concern.”

As a phase 1 study, it was not powered to look at efficacy, but there were positive signals, Dr. Howell said, meaning that the drug is likely to be tested further in a phase 2 trial.
 

Lusvertikimab Phase 2 Trial

During the same poster tour, the null findings of a phase 2 trial of the anti-IL-7 monoclonal antibody lusvertikimab were presented by Benjamin Fisher, MD, professor of rheumatology at Birmingham University in Birmingham, England.

Dr. Fisher told this news organization: “It’s a negative study, at least over the 3-month period that we’ve studied it.” Whether longer durations of treatment may be needed is a question that currently cannot be answered, he added.

A total of 48 patients with Sjögren disease had been included in the trial from 19 different centers in Europe, the United States, and Australia. The mean age of the participants was 53.7 years, 87% were women, and the mean duration of disease was 5.0 years. Baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI were 12.1 and 7.0, respectively. Half were receiving other background treatment, and 72.9% were anti-Ro or anti-SSA positive.

Lusvertikimab 750 mg or a matching placebo was given via intravenous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10.

The primary endpoint was the mean change in ESSDAI from baseline to week 13, which was the same, at −3.9, in both groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in any of the other secondary endpoints that were used, including ESSPRI, Schirmer’s test, the ocular staining score, salivary flow rate, physician and patient global assessment, assessment of fatigue, quality of life, or the composite measures STAR and CRESS.

“This isn’t going anywhere,” said Dr. Fisher, asking what was going to happen next and if this meant the end of IL-7-focused therapy.

“For years, there’s been quite a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Fisher said. Sjögren disease is characterized by a sort of focal inflammation of the saliva glands, which is composed of both T and B cells in the early stages, probably a T-cell component and a B-cell component, he explained.

“IL-7 is thought to be an important cytokine for homeostasis of the T-cell compartment, so for maintenance of T central memory and effector memory cells,” he said. “So, the idea is that, if you block IL-7, you switch off T cells, and you may rebalance the immune system towards a more regulatory phenotype. Just that it didn’t work,” Dr. Fisher said.

“There’s large unmet need,” he said. “Sjögren’s is associated with poor health-related quality of life, [and] a large part that is symptom-driven — dryness and fatigue — which we have no real interventions yet for patients; there’s no licensed therapeutics for it.”

Dr. Fisher cited ianalumab as one of the front-runners for becoming the first licensed treatment for Sjögren disease. The novel BAFF-targeting antibody is already in phase 3 trials and is also showing promise for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Then there are CD40-targeting drugs; the ones most advanced are dazodalibep and iscalimab.” Commenting on the potential of iscalimab, Dr. Fisher said that it “seems to work — it improves systemic disease activity; it also leads to some symptomatic improvement, which has been difficult to demonstrate in Sjögren’s.”

Dr. Fisher added that “the nipocalimab data looks interesting, as do data on TYK2 inhibition.”

The DAHLIAS study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gottenberg has consulted for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. The TWINSS study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mariette has consulted for BMS, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. The tibulizumab phase 1 study was funded by Eli Lilly & Company. Dr. Howell is an employee of the developer, Zura Bio. The Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier sponsored the lusvertikimab trial. Dr. Fisher has consulted for Novartis, Roche, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Servier, UCB, and Sanofi and received funding to his institution for collaborative research from Janssen, Celgene, Galapagos, and Servier.
 

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

Strapped for cash and searching for new profits, Tennessee-based Erlanger Health System illegally paid excessive salaries to physicians in exchange for patient referrals, the US government alleged in a federal lawsuit.

Erlanger changed its compensation model to entice revenue-generating doctors, paying some two to three times the median salary for their specialty, according to the complaint. 

The physicians in turn referred numerous patients to Erlanger, and the health system submitted claims to Medicare for the referred services in violation of the Stark Law, according to the suit, filed in US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. 

The government’s complaint “serves as a warning” to healthcare providers who try to boost profits through improper financial arrangements with referring physicians, said Tamala E. Miles, Special Agent in Charge for the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

In a statement provided to this news organization, Erlanger denied the allegations and said it would “vigorously” defend the lawsuit. 

“Erlanger paid physicians based on amounts that outside experts advised was fair market value,” Erlanger officials said in the statement. “Erlanger did not pay for referrals. A complete picture of the facts will demonstrate that the allegations lack merit and tell a very different story than what the government now claims.”

The Erlanger case is a reminder to physicians to consult their own knowledgeable advisors when considering financial arrangements with hospitals, said William Sarraille, JD, adjunct professor for the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in Baltimore and a regulatory consultant. 

“There is a tendency by physicians when contracting ... to rely on [hospitals’] perceived compliance and legal expertise,” Mr. Sarraille told this news organization. “This case illustrates the risks in doing so. Sometimes bigger doesn’t translate into more sophisticated or more effective from a compliance perspective.” 
 

Stark Law Prohibits Kickbacks

The Stark Law prohibits hospitals from billing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for services referred by a physician with whom the hospital has an improper financial relationship.

CMS paid Erlanger about $27.8 million for claims stemming from the improper financial arrangements, the government contends. 

“HHS-OIG will continue to investigate such deals to prevent financial arrangements that could compromise impartial medical judgment, increase healthcare costs, and erode public trust in the healthcare system,” Ms. Miles said in a statement. 
 

Suit: Health System’s Money Woes Led to Illegal Arrangements

Erlanger’s financial troubles allegedly started after a previous run-in with the US government over false claims. 

In 2005, Erlanger Health System agreed to pay the government $40 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare, according to the government’s complaint. At the time, Erlanger entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the OIG that required Erlanger to put controls in place to ensure its financial relationships did not violate the Stark Law. 

Erlanger’s agreement with OIG ended in 2010. Over the next 3 years, the health system lost nearly $32 million and in fiscal year 2013, had only 65 days of cash on hand, according to the government’s lawsuit. 

Beginning in 2013, Erlanger allegedly implemented a strategy to increase profits by employing more physicians, particularly specialists from competing hospitals whose patients would need costly hospital stays, according to the complaint. 

Once hired, Erlanger’s physicians were expected to treat patients at Erlanger’s hospitals and refer them to other providers within the health system, the suit claims. Erlanger also relaxed or eliminated the oversight and controls on physician compensation put in place under the CIA. For example, Erlanger’s CEO signed some compensation contracts before its chief compliance officer could review them and no longer allowed the compliance officer to vote on whether to approve compensation arrangements, according to the complaint. 

Erlanger also changed its compensation model to include large salaries for medical director and academic positions and allegedly paid such salaries to physicians without ensuring the required work was performed. As a result, Erlanger physicians with profitable referrals were among the highest paid in the nation for their specialties, the government claims. For example, according to the complaint:

• Erlanger paid an electrophysiologist an annual clinical salary of $816,701, a medical director salary of $101,080, an academic salary of $59,322, and a productivity incentive based on work relative value units (wRVUs). The medical director and academic salaries paid were near the 90th percentile of comparable salaries in the specialty.
• The health system paid a neurosurgeon a base salary of $654,735, a productivity incentive based on wRVUs, and payments for excess call coverage ranging from $400 to $1000 per 24-hour shift. In 2016, the neurosurgeon made $500,000 in excess call payments.
• Erlanger paid a cardiothoracic surgeon a base clinical salary of $1,070,000, a sign-on bonus of $150,000, a retention bonus of $100,000 (payable in the 4th year of the contract), and a program incentive of up to $150,000 per year.

In addition, Erlanger ignored patient safety concerns about some of its high revenue-generating physicians, the government claims. 

For instance, Erlanger received multiple complaints that a cardiothoracic surgeon was misusing an expensive form of life support in which pumps and oxygenators take over heart and lung function. Overuse of the equipment prolonged patients’ hospital stays and increased the hospital fees generated by the surgeon, according to the complaint. Staff also raised concerns about the cardiothoracic surgeon’s patient outcomes. 

But Erlanger disregarded the concerns and in 2018, increased the cardiothoracic surgeon’s retention bonus from $100,000 to $250,000, the suit alleges. A year later, the health system increased his base salary from $1,070,000 to $1,195,000.

Health care compensation and billing consultants alerted Erlanger that it was overpaying salaries and handing out bonuses based on measures that overstated the work physicians were performing, but Erlanger ignored the warnings, according to the complaint. 

Administrators allegedly resisted efforts by the chief compliance officer to hire an outside consultant to review its compensation models. Erlanger fired the compliance officer in 2019. 

The former chief compliance officer and another administrator filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Erlanger in 2021. The two administrators are relators in the government’s July 2024 lawsuit. 
 

How to Protect Yourself From Illegal Hospital Deals

The Erlanger case is the latest in a series of recent complaints by the federal government involving financial arrangements between hospitals and physicians.

In December 2023, Indianapolis-based Community Health Network Inc. agreed to pay the government $345 million to resolve claims that it paid physicians above fair market value and awarded bonuses tied to referrals in violation of the Stark Law. 

Also in 2023, Saginaw, Michigan–based Covenant HealthCare and two physicians paid the government $69 million to settle allegations that administrators engaged in improper financial arrangements with referring physicians and a physician-owned investment group. In another 2023 case, Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston agreed to pay $5.7 million to resolve claims that some of its physician compensation plans violated the Stark Law. 

Before you enter into a financial arrangement with a hospital, it’s also important to examine what percentile the aggregate compensation would reflect, law professor Mr. Sarraille said. The Erlanger case highlights federal officials’ suspicion of compensation, in aggregate, that exceeds the 90th percentile and increased attention to compensation that exceeds the 75th percentile, he said. 

To research compensation levels, doctors can review the Medical Group Management Association’s annual compensation report or search its compensation data. 

Before signing any contracts, Mr. Sarraille suggests, physicians should also consider whether the hospital shares the same values. Ask physicians at the hospital what they have to say about the hospital’s culture, vision, and values. Have physicians left the hospital after their practices were acquired? Consider speaking with them to learn why. 

Keep in mind that a doctor’s reputation could be impacted by a compliance complaint, regardless of whether it’s directed at the hospital and not the employed physician, Mr. Sarraille said. 

“The [Erlanger] complaint focuses on the compensation of specific, named physicians saying they were wildly overcompensated,” he said. “The implication is that they sold their referral power in exchange for a pay day. It’s a bad look, no matter how the case evolves from here.” 

Physicians could also face their own liability risk under the Stark Law and False Claims Act, depending on the circumstances. In the event of related quality-of-care issues, medical liability could come into play, Mr. Sarraille noted. In such cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys may see an opportunity to boost their claims with allegations that the patient harm was a function of “chasing compensation dollars,” Mr. Sarraille said. 

“Where that happens, plaintiff lawyers see the potential for crippling punitive damages, which might not be covered by an insurer,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Strapped for cash and searching for new profits, Tennessee-based Erlanger Health System illegally paid excessive salaries to physicians in exchange for patient referrals, the US government alleged in a federal lawsuit.

Erlanger changed its compensation model to entice revenue-generating doctors, paying some two to three times the median salary for their specialty, according to the complaint. 

The physicians in turn referred numerous patients to Erlanger, and the health system submitted claims to Medicare for the referred services in violation of the Stark Law, according to the suit, filed in US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. 

The government’s complaint “serves as a warning” to healthcare providers who try to boost profits through improper financial arrangements with referring physicians, said Tamala E. Miles, Special Agent in Charge for the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

In a statement provided to this news organization, Erlanger denied the allegations and said it would “vigorously” defend the lawsuit. 

“Erlanger paid physicians based on amounts that outside experts advised was fair market value,” Erlanger officials said in the statement. “Erlanger did not pay for referrals. A complete picture of the facts will demonstrate that the allegations lack merit and tell a very different story than what the government now claims.”

The Erlanger case is a reminder to physicians to consult their own knowledgeable advisors when considering financial arrangements with hospitals, said William Sarraille, JD, adjunct professor for the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in Baltimore and a regulatory consultant. 

“There is a tendency by physicians when contracting ... to rely on [hospitals’] perceived compliance and legal expertise,” Mr. Sarraille told this news organization. “This case illustrates the risks in doing so. Sometimes bigger doesn’t translate into more sophisticated or more effective from a compliance perspective.” 
 

Stark Law Prohibits Kickbacks

The Stark Law prohibits hospitals from billing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for services referred by a physician with whom the hospital has an improper financial relationship.

CMS paid Erlanger about $27.8 million for claims stemming from the improper financial arrangements, the government contends. 

“HHS-OIG will continue to investigate such deals to prevent financial arrangements that could compromise impartial medical judgment, increase healthcare costs, and erode public trust in the healthcare system,” Ms. Miles said in a statement. 
 

Suit: Health System’s Money Woes Led to Illegal Arrangements

Erlanger’s financial troubles allegedly started after a previous run-in with the US government over false claims. 

In 2005, Erlanger Health System agreed to pay the government $40 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare, according to the government’s complaint. At the time, Erlanger entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the OIG that required Erlanger to put controls in place to ensure its financial relationships did not violate the Stark Law. 

Erlanger’s agreement with OIG ended in 2010. Over the next 3 years, the health system lost nearly $32 million and in fiscal year 2013, had only 65 days of cash on hand, according to the government’s lawsuit. 

Beginning in 2013, Erlanger allegedly implemented a strategy to increase profits by employing more physicians, particularly specialists from competing hospitals whose patients would need costly hospital stays, according to the complaint. 

Once hired, Erlanger’s physicians were expected to treat patients at Erlanger’s hospitals and refer them to other providers within the health system, the suit claims. Erlanger also relaxed or eliminated the oversight and controls on physician compensation put in place under the CIA. For example, Erlanger’s CEO signed some compensation contracts before its chief compliance officer could review them and no longer allowed the compliance officer to vote on whether to approve compensation arrangements, according to the complaint. 

Erlanger also changed its compensation model to include large salaries for medical director and academic positions and allegedly paid such salaries to physicians without ensuring the required work was performed. As a result, Erlanger physicians with profitable referrals were among the highest paid in the nation for their specialties, the government claims. For example, according to the complaint:

• Erlanger paid an electrophysiologist an annual clinical salary of $816,701, a medical director salary of $101,080, an academic salary of $59,322, and a productivity incentive based on work relative value units (wRVUs). The medical director and academic salaries paid were near the 90th percentile of comparable salaries in the specialty.
• The health system paid a neurosurgeon a base salary of $654,735, a productivity incentive based on wRVUs, and payments for excess call coverage ranging from $400 to $1000 per 24-hour shift. In 2016, the neurosurgeon made $500,000 in excess call payments.
• Erlanger paid a cardiothoracic surgeon a base clinical salary of $1,070,000, a sign-on bonus of $150,000, a retention bonus of $100,000 (payable in the 4th year of the contract), and a program incentive of up to $150,000 per year.

In addition, Erlanger ignored patient safety concerns about some of its high revenue-generating physicians, the government claims. 

For instance, Erlanger received multiple complaints that a cardiothoracic surgeon was misusing an expensive form of life support in which pumps and oxygenators take over heart and lung function. Overuse of the equipment prolonged patients’ hospital stays and increased the hospital fees generated by the surgeon, according to the complaint. Staff also raised concerns about the cardiothoracic surgeon’s patient outcomes. 

But Erlanger disregarded the concerns and in 2018, increased the cardiothoracic surgeon’s retention bonus from $100,000 to $250,000, the suit alleges. A year later, the health system increased his base salary from $1,070,000 to $1,195,000.

Health care compensation and billing consultants alerted Erlanger that it was overpaying salaries and handing out bonuses based on measures that overstated the work physicians were performing, but Erlanger ignored the warnings, according to the complaint. 

Administrators allegedly resisted efforts by the chief compliance officer to hire an outside consultant to review its compensation models. Erlanger fired the compliance officer in 2019. 

The former chief compliance officer and another administrator filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Erlanger in 2021. The two administrators are relators in the government’s July 2024 lawsuit. 
 

How to Protect Yourself From Illegal Hospital Deals

The Erlanger case is the latest in a series of recent complaints by the federal government involving financial arrangements between hospitals and physicians.

In December 2023, Indianapolis-based Community Health Network Inc. agreed to pay the government $345 million to resolve claims that it paid physicians above fair market value and awarded bonuses tied to referrals in violation of the Stark Law. 

Also in 2023, Saginaw, Michigan–based Covenant HealthCare and two physicians paid the government $69 million to settle allegations that administrators engaged in improper financial arrangements with referring physicians and a physician-owned investment group. In another 2023 case, Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston agreed to pay $5.7 million to resolve claims that some of its physician compensation plans violated the Stark Law. 

Before you enter into a financial arrangement with a hospital, it’s also important to examine what percentile the aggregate compensation would reflect, law professor Mr. Sarraille said. The Erlanger case highlights federal officials’ suspicion of compensation, in aggregate, that exceeds the 90th percentile and increased attention to compensation that exceeds the 75th percentile, he said. 

To research compensation levels, doctors can review the Medical Group Management Association’s annual compensation report or search its compensation data. 

Before signing any contracts, Mr. Sarraille suggests, physicians should also consider whether the hospital shares the same values. Ask physicians at the hospital what they have to say about the hospital’s culture, vision, and values. Have physicians left the hospital after their practices were acquired? Consider speaking with them to learn why. 

Keep in mind that a doctor’s reputation could be impacted by a compliance complaint, regardless of whether it’s directed at the hospital and not the employed physician, Mr. Sarraille said. 

“The [Erlanger] complaint focuses on the compensation of specific, named physicians saying they were wildly overcompensated,” he said. “The implication is that they sold their referral power in exchange for a pay day. It’s a bad look, no matter how the case evolves from here.” 

Physicians could also face their own liability risk under the Stark Law and False Claims Act, depending on the circumstances. In the event of related quality-of-care issues, medical liability could come into play, Mr. Sarraille noted. In such cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys may see an opportunity to boost their claims with allegations that the patient harm was a function of “chasing compensation dollars,” Mr. Sarraille said. 

“Where that happens, plaintiff lawyers see the potential for crippling punitive damages, which might not be covered by an insurer,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Strapped for cash and searching for new profits, Tennessee-based Erlanger Health System illegally paid excessive salaries to physicians in exchange for patient referrals, the US government alleged in a federal lawsuit.

Erlanger changed its compensation model to entice revenue-generating doctors, paying some two to three times the median salary for their specialty, according to the complaint. 

The physicians in turn referred numerous patients to Erlanger, and the health system submitted claims to Medicare for the referred services in violation of the Stark Law, according to the suit, filed in US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. 

The government’s complaint “serves as a warning” to healthcare providers who try to boost profits through improper financial arrangements with referring physicians, said Tamala E. Miles, Special Agent in Charge for the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG).

In a statement provided to this news organization, Erlanger denied the allegations and said it would “vigorously” defend the lawsuit. 

“Erlanger paid physicians based on amounts that outside experts advised was fair market value,” Erlanger officials said in the statement. “Erlanger did not pay for referrals. A complete picture of the facts will demonstrate that the allegations lack merit and tell a very different story than what the government now claims.”

The Erlanger case is a reminder to physicians to consult their own knowledgeable advisors when considering financial arrangements with hospitals, said William Sarraille, JD, adjunct professor for the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in Baltimore and a regulatory consultant. 

“There is a tendency by physicians when contracting ... to rely on [hospitals’] perceived compliance and legal expertise,” Mr. Sarraille told this news organization. “This case illustrates the risks in doing so. Sometimes bigger doesn’t translate into more sophisticated or more effective from a compliance perspective.” 
 

Stark Law Prohibits Kickbacks

The Stark Law prohibits hospitals from billing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for services referred by a physician with whom the hospital has an improper financial relationship.

CMS paid Erlanger about $27.8 million for claims stemming from the improper financial arrangements, the government contends. 

“HHS-OIG will continue to investigate such deals to prevent financial arrangements that could compromise impartial medical judgment, increase healthcare costs, and erode public trust in the healthcare system,” Ms. Miles said in a statement. 
 

Suit: Health System’s Money Woes Led to Illegal Arrangements

Erlanger’s financial troubles allegedly started after a previous run-in with the US government over false claims. 

In 2005, Erlanger Health System agreed to pay the government $40 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare, according to the government’s complaint. At the time, Erlanger entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the OIG that required Erlanger to put controls in place to ensure its financial relationships did not violate the Stark Law. 

Erlanger’s agreement with OIG ended in 2010. Over the next 3 years, the health system lost nearly $32 million and in fiscal year 2013, had only 65 days of cash on hand, according to the government’s lawsuit. 

Beginning in 2013, Erlanger allegedly implemented a strategy to increase profits by employing more physicians, particularly specialists from competing hospitals whose patients would need costly hospital stays, according to the complaint. 

Once hired, Erlanger’s physicians were expected to treat patients at Erlanger’s hospitals and refer them to other providers within the health system, the suit claims. Erlanger also relaxed or eliminated the oversight and controls on physician compensation put in place under the CIA. For example, Erlanger’s CEO signed some compensation contracts before its chief compliance officer could review them and no longer allowed the compliance officer to vote on whether to approve compensation arrangements, according to the complaint. 

Erlanger also changed its compensation model to include large salaries for medical director and academic positions and allegedly paid such salaries to physicians without ensuring the required work was performed. As a result, Erlanger physicians with profitable referrals were among the highest paid in the nation for their specialties, the government claims. For example, according to the complaint:

• Erlanger paid an electrophysiologist an annual clinical salary of $816,701, a medical director salary of $101,080, an academic salary of $59,322, and a productivity incentive based on work relative value units (wRVUs). The medical director and academic salaries paid were near the 90th percentile of comparable salaries in the specialty.
• The health system paid a neurosurgeon a base salary of $654,735, a productivity incentive based on wRVUs, and payments for excess call coverage ranging from $400 to $1000 per 24-hour shift. In 2016, the neurosurgeon made $500,000 in excess call payments.
• Erlanger paid a cardiothoracic surgeon a base clinical salary of $1,070,000, a sign-on bonus of $150,000, a retention bonus of $100,000 (payable in the 4th year of the contract), and a program incentive of up to $150,000 per year.

In addition, Erlanger ignored patient safety concerns about some of its high revenue-generating physicians, the government claims. 

For instance, Erlanger received multiple complaints that a cardiothoracic surgeon was misusing an expensive form of life support in which pumps and oxygenators take over heart and lung function. Overuse of the equipment prolonged patients’ hospital stays and increased the hospital fees generated by the surgeon, according to the complaint. Staff also raised concerns about the cardiothoracic surgeon’s patient outcomes. 

But Erlanger disregarded the concerns and in 2018, increased the cardiothoracic surgeon’s retention bonus from $100,000 to $250,000, the suit alleges. A year later, the health system increased his base salary from $1,070,000 to $1,195,000.

Health care compensation and billing consultants alerted Erlanger that it was overpaying salaries and handing out bonuses based on measures that overstated the work physicians were performing, but Erlanger ignored the warnings, according to the complaint. 

Administrators allegedly resisted efforts by the chief compliance officer to hire an outside consultant to review its compensation models. Erlanger fired the compliance officer in 2019. 

The former chief compliance officer and another administrator filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Erlanger in 2021. The two administrators are relators in the government’s July 2024 lawsuit. 
 

How to Protect Yourself From Illegal Hospital Deals

The Erlanger case is the latest in a series of recent complaints by the federal government involving financial arrangements between hospitals and physicians.

In December 2023, Indianapolis-based Community Health Network Inc. agreed to pay the government $345 million to resolve claims that it paid physicians above fair market value and awarded bonuses tied to referrals in violation of the Stark Law. 

Also in 2023, Saginaw, Michigan–based Covenant HealthCare and two physicians paid the government $69 million to settle allegations that administrators engaged in improper financial arrangements with referring physicians and a physician-owned investment group. In another 2023 case, Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston agreed to pay $5.7 million to resolve claims that some of its physician compensation plans violated the Stark Law. 

Before you enter into a financial arrangement with a hospital, it’s also important to examine what percentile the aggregate compensation would reflect, law professor Mr. Sarraille said. The Erlanger case highlights federal officials’ suspicion of compensation, in aggregate, that exceeds the 90th percentile and increased attention to compensation that exceeds the 75th percentile, he said. 

To research compensation levels, doctors can review the Medical Group Management Association’s annual compensation report or search its compensation data. 

Before signing any contracts, Mr. Sarraille suggests, physicians should also consider whether the hospital shares the same values. Ask physicians at the hospital what they have to say about the hospital’s culture, vision, and values. Have physicians left the hospital after their practices were acquired? Consider speaking with them to learn why. 

Keep in mind that a doctor’s reputation could be impacted by a compliance complaint, regardless of whether it’s directed at the hospital and not the employed physician, Mr. Sarraille said. 

“The [Erlanger] complaint focuses on the compensation of specific, named physicians saying they were wildly overcompensated,” he said. “The implication is that they sold their referral power in exchange for a pay day. It’s a bad look, no matter how the case evolves from here.” 

Physicians could also face their own liability risk under the Stark Law and False Claims Act, depending on the circumstances. In the event of related quality-of-care issues, medical liability could come into play, Mr. Sarraille noted. In such cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys may see an opportunity to boost their claims with allegations that the patient harm was a function of “chasing compensation dollars,” Mr. Sarraille said. 

“Where that happens, plaintiff lawyers see the potential for crippling punitive damages, which might not be covered by an insurer,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.