Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Among patients with ovarian cancer who have achieved remission, routine surveillance with virtual appointments, along with tumor marker monitoring and imaging, may offer an alternative to the currently mandated frequent in-person visits.

The suggestion comes from Jacqueline Feinberg, MD, gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues, who conducted a retrospective study of 147 patients who experienced ovarian cancer recurrence within 2 years of their first clinical remission, and found that none of these recurrences were detected by physical examination alone.

About one third of these patients had a recurrence that was first detected by tumor marker, over half by imaging, and the rest by the presentation of new symptoms and biopsies taken during nononcologic surgery.

“This finding suggests that virtual visits, which have quickly gained acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with a surveillance protocol for tumor marker testing and imaging, may be sufficient to identify ovarian cancer recurrence,” the team concluded. The study was published in the International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the use of telemedicine, with new international guidelines recommending minimizing in-person contact, noted the authors.

They wondered how this would work in patients who have achieved remission from ovarian cancer.

At MSKCC, the usual surveillance protocol for the first 2 years after ovarian cancer remission includes an in-person physical examination every 3 months, along with CA-125 testing and imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. For year 3, the time between surveillance testing is extended to every 3-6 months, for the fourth and fifth year, to every 6 months. Beyond 5 years, physical examination and testing for the protein CA-125 are performed annually, and imaging is optional.

However, there is no strong evidence to support this current surveillance regimen, the authors pointed out. They sought to determine if it was possible to do virtual visits instead, along with tumor marker monitoring and imaging.
 

Evidence for virtual exams

To answer that question, Dr. Feinberg and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included patients who were initially seen from January 2015 to December 2017, and who had achieved clinical remission and then experienced ovarian cancer recurrence with 2 years of remission.

A total of 147 patients were included in the final analysis. None of these patients had their recurrence detected on routine physical exam, including pelvic exam, as the primary method of detection. More than half of patients (n = 81; 55%) had their recurrence detected on radiographic scan, whereas for 46 patients (31%), it was by tumor marker. Among the remaining patients, 17 (12%) experienced new symptoms and for 3 (2%), it was by biopsy during a nononcologic surgery.

By the time treatment was initiated for recurrence, 111 patients (75%) had multiple positive findings; 48 (33%) had symptoms, 21 (14%) had physical exam findings, 106 (72%) had increases in their tumor markers, and 141 (96%) had changes on their imaging.

In addition, 131 (89%) had baseline increases in CA-125, and of 16 remaining patients, 12 experienced a CA-125 increase during recurrence.

There were 21 patients who had positive physical exam findings following their recurrence, which had already been detected. Within this subset, 19 had concurrent symptoms, and for 6 of them, symptom onset had been the primary method of detection. For the 2 patients without symptoms, recurrence was initially detected by a rise in CA-125 on routine check in one patient, by surveillance imaging in the other.

The authors are now planning a pilot virtual intensive surveillance program, where they will evaluate patient-reported outcomes

The study was funded in part through the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. Study author Dennis Chi, MD, reports personal fees from Bovie Medical (now Apyx Medical), Verthermia, C Surgeries, and Biom’Up, and is also a former stockholder of Intuitive Surgical and TransEnterix. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among patients with ovarian cancer who have achieved remission, routine surveillance with virtual appointments, along with tumor marker monitoring and imaging, may offer an alternative to the currently mandated frequent in-person visits.

The suggestion comes from Jacqueline Feinberg, MD, gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues, who conducted a retrospective study of 147 patients who experienced ovarian cancer recurrence within 2 years of their first clinical remission, and found that none of these recurrences were detected by physical examination alone.

About one third of these patients had a recurrence that was first detected by tumor marker, over half by imaging, and the rest by the presentation of new symptoms and biopsies taken during nononcologic surgery.

“This finding suggests that virtual visits, which have quickly gained acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with a surveillance protocol for tumor marker testing and imaging, may be sufficient to identify ovarian cancer recurrence,” the team concluded. The study was published in the International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the use of telemedicine, with new international guidelines recommending minimizing in-person contact, noted the authors.

They wondered how this would work in patients who have achieved remission from ovarian cancer.

At MSKCC, the usual surveillance protocol for the first 2 years after ovarian cancer remission includes an in-person physical examination every 3 months, along with CA-125 testing and imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. For year 3, the time between surveillance testing is extended to every 3-6 months, for the fourth and fifth year, to every 6 months. Beyond 5 years, physical examination and testing for the protein CA-125 are performed annually, and imaging is optional.

However, there is no strong evidence to support this current surveillance regimen, the authors pointed out. They sought to determine if it was possible to do virtual visits instead, along with tumor marker monitoring and imaging.
 

Evidence for virtual exams

To answer that question, Dr. Feinberg and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included patients who were initially seen from January 2015 to December 2017, and who had achieved clinical remission and then experienced ovarian cancer recurrence with 2 years of remission.

A total of 147 patients were included in the final analysis. None of these patients had their recurrence detected on routine physical exam, including pelvic exam, as the primary method of detection. More than half of patients (n = 81; 55%) had their recurrence detected on radiographic scan, whereas for 46 patients (31%), it was by tumor marker. Among the remaining patients, 17 (12%) experienced new symptoms and for 3 (2%), it was by biopsy during a nononcologic surgery.

By the time treatment was initiated for recurrence, 111 patients (75%) had multiple positive findings; 48 (33%) had symptoms, 21 (14%) had physical exam findings, 106 (72%) had increases in their tumor markers, and 141 (96%) had changes on their imaging.

In addition, 131 (89%) had baseline increases in CA-125, and of 16 remaining patients, 12 experienced a CA-125 increase during recurrence.

There were 21 patients who had positive physical exam findings following their recurrence, which had already been detected. Within this subset, 19 had concurrent symptoms, and for 6 of them, symptom onset had been the primary method of detection. For the 2 patients without symptoms, recurrence was initially detected by a rise in CA-125 on routine check in one patient, by surveillance imaging in the other.

The authors are now planning a pilot virtual intensive surveillance program, where they will evaluate patient-reported outcomes

The study was funded in part through the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. Study author Dennis Chi, MD, reports personal fees from Bovie Medical (now Apyx Medical), Verthermia, C Surgeries, and Biom’Up, and is also a former stockholder of Intuitive Surgical and TransEnterix. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among patients with ovarian cancer who have achieved remission, routine surveillance with virtual appointments, along with tumor marker monitoring and imaging, may offer an alternative to the currently mandated frequent in-person visits.

The suggestion comes from Jacqueline Feinberg, MD, gynecologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues, who conducted a retrospective study of 147 patients who experienced ovarian cancer recurrence within 2 years of their first clinical remission, and found that none of these recurrences were detected by physical examination alone.

About one third of these patients had a recurrence that was first detected by tumor marker, over half by imaging, and the rest by the presentation of new symptoms and biopsies taken during nononcologic surgery.

“This finding suggests that virtual visits, which have quickly gained acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with a surveillance protocol for tumor marker testing and imaging, may be sufficient to identify ovarian cancer recurrence,” the team concluded. The study was published in the International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the use of telemedicine, with new international guidelines recommending minimizing in-person contact, noted the authors.

They wondered how this would work in patients who have achieved remission from ovarian cancer.

At MSKCC, the usual surveillance protocol for the first 2 years after ovarian cancer remission includes an in-person physical examination every 3 months, along with CA-125 testing and imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. For year 3, the time between surveillance testing is extended to every 3-6 months, for the fourth and fifth year, to every 6 months. Beyond 5 years, physical examination and testing for the protein CA-125 are performed annually, and imaging is optional.

However, there is no strong evidence to support this current surveillance regimen, the authors pointed out. They sought to determine if it was possible to do virtual visits instead, along with tumor marker monitoring and imaging.
 

Evidence for virtual exams

To answer that question, Dr. Feinberg and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included patients who were initially seen from January 2015 to December 2017, and who had achieved clinical remission and then experienced ovarian cancer recurrence with 2 years of remission.

A total of 147 patients were included in the final analysis. None of these patients had their recurrence detected on routine physical exam, including pelvic exam, as the primary method of detection. More than half of patients (n = 81; 55%) had their recurrence detected on radiographic scan, whereas for 46 patients (31%), it was by tumor marker. Among the remaining patients, 17 (12%) experienced new symptoms and for 3 (2%), it was by biopsy during a nononcologic surgery.

By the time treatment was initiated for recurrence, 111 patients (75%) had multiple positive findings; 48 (33%) had symptoms, 21 (14%) had physical exam findings, 106 (72%) had increases in their tumor markers, and 141 (96%) had changes on their imaging.

In addition, 131 (89%) had baseline increases in CA-125, and of 16 remaining patients, 12 experienced a CA-125 increase during recurrence.

There were 21 patients who had positive physical exam findings following their recurrence, which had already been detected. Within this subset, 19 had concurrent symptoms, and for 6 of them, symptom onset had been the primary method of detection. For the 2 patients without symptoms, recurrence was initially detected by a rise in CA-125 on routine check in one patient, by surveillance imaging in the other.

The authors are now planning a pilot virtual intensive surveillance program, where they will evaluate patient-reported outcomes

The study was funded in part through the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. Study author Dennis Chi, MD, reports personal fees from Bovie Medical (now Apyx Medical), Verthermia, C Surgeries, and Biom’Up, and is also a former stockholder of Intuitive Surgical and TransEnterix. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A drop-off in cancer screening during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a marked increase in people presenting with advanced breast and colon cancer at Moores Cancer Center in La Jolla, Calif., according to a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“The number of patients presenting at late, incurable stages is increasing,” say the authors, led by Jade Zifei Zhou, MD, PhD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the center, which is affiliated with the University of California, San Diego.

As the pandemic unfolded and much of routine medicine was put on hold, the postponement or delay in mammograms, colonoscopies, and other screenings led many cancer experts to warn of trouble ahead. In June 2020, for instance, the National Cancer Institute predicted tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths through 2030 because of missed screenings and delays in care.

The message now, Dr. Zhou and colleagues say, is that “patients who have delayed preventative care during the pandemic should be encouraged to resume treatment as soon as possible.”

The team compared the number of people presenting to their cancer center with stage I and IV disease, either for a new diagnosis or a second opinion, during 2019 and with the number during 2020, the first year of the pandemic. The review included over 500 patients, almost 90% of whom were women aged 58 years on average.

While 63.9% of patients with breast cancer presented with stage I disease in 2019, 51.3% did so in 2020. Conversely, while just 1.9% presented with stage IV breast cancer in 2019, the number went up to 6.2% in 2020.

The numbers were even worse from January through March 2021, with only 41.9% of women presenting with stage I and 8% presenting with stage IV breast cancer.

It was the same story for colon cancer, but because of smaller numbers, the findings were not statistically significant.

After the start of the pandemic, the number of patients presenting with stage I colon cancer fell from 17.8% (eight patients) to 14.6% (six patients), while stage IV presentations climbed from 6.7% (three) to 19.5% (eight).

Across all cancer types, stage I presentations fell from 31.9% in 2019 to 29% in 2020, while stage IV presentations rose from 26% to 26.4%.

One of the study limitations is that the patients who came in for a second opinion could have been newly diagnosed but might also have been referred for refractory disease, the authors comment.

No funding for this study was reported. Senior author Kathryn Ann Gold, MD, reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Rakuten, and Regeneron as well as grants from Pfizer and Pharmacyclics.

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

A drop-off in cancer screening during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a marked increase in people presenting with advanced breast and colon cancer at Moores Cancer Center in La Jolla, Calif., according to a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“The number of patients presenting at late, incurable stages is increasing,” say the authors, led by Jade Zifei Zhou, MD, PhD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the center, which is affiliated with the University of California, San Diego.

As the pandemic unfolded and much of routine medicine was put on hold, the postponement or delay in mammograms, colonoscopies, and other screenings led many cancer experts to warn of trouble ahead. In June 2020, for instance, the National Cancer Institute predicted tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths through 2030 because of missed screenings and delays in care.

The message now, Dr. Zhou and colleagues say, is that “patients who have delayed preventative care during the pandemic should be encouraged to resume treatment as soon as possible.”

The team compared the number of people presenting to their cancer center with stage I and IV disease, either for a new diagnosis or a second opinion, during 2019 and with the number during 2020, the first year of the pandemic. The review included over 500 patients, almost 90% of whom were women aged 58 years on average.

While 63.9% of patients with breast cancer presented with stage I disease in 2019, 51.3% did so in 2020. Conversely, while just 1.9% presented with stage IV breast cancer in 2019, the number went up to 6.2% in 2020.

The numbers were even worse from January through March 2021, with only 41.9% of women presenting with stage I and 8% presenting with stage IV breast cancer.

It was the same story for colon cancer, but because of smaller numbers, the findings were not statistically significant.

After the start of the pandemic, the number of patients presenting with stage I colon cancer fell from 17.8% (eight patients) to 14.6% (six patients), while stage IV presentations climbed from 6.7% (three) to 19.5% (eight).

Across all cancer types, stage I presentations fell from 31.9% in 2019 to 29% in 2020, while stage IV presentations rose from 26% to 26.4%.

One of the study limitations is that the patients who came in for a second opinion could have been newly diagnosed but might also have been referred for refractory disease, the authors comment.

No funding for this study was reported. Senior author Kathryn Ann Gold, MD, reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Rakuten, and Regeneron as well as grants from Pfizer and Pharmacyclics.

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

A drop-off in cancer screening during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a marked increase in people presenting with advanced breast and colon cancer at Moores Cancer Center in La Jolla, Calif., according to a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“The number of patients presenting at late, incurable stages is increasing,” say the authors, led by Jade Zifei Zhou, MD, PhD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the center, which is affiliated with the University of California, San Diego.

As the pandemic unfolded and much of routine medicine was put on hold, the postponement or delay in mammograms, colonoscopies, and other screenings led many cancer experts to warn of trouble ahead. In June 2020, for instance, the National Cancer Institute predicted tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths through 2030 because of missed screenings and delays in care.

The message now, Dr. Zhou and colleagues say, is that “patients who have delayed preventative care during the pandemic should be encouraged to resume treatment as soon as possible.”

The team compared the number of people presenting to their cancer center with stage I and IV disease, either for a new diagnosis or a second opinion, during 2019 and with the number during 2020, the first year of the pandemic. The review included over 500 patients, almost 90% of whom were women aged 58 years on average.

While 63.9% of patients with breast cancer presented with stage I disease in 2019, 51.3% did so in 2020. Conversely, while just 1.9% presented with stage IV breast cancer in 2019, the number went up to 6.2% in 2020.

The numbers were even worse from January through March 2021, with only 41.9% of women presenting with stage I and 8% presenting with stage IV breast cancer.

It was the same story for colon cancer, but because of smaller numbers, the findings were not statistically significant.

After the start of the pandemic, the number of patients presenting with stage I colon cancer fell from 17.8% (eight patients) to 14.6% (six patients), while stage IV presentations climbed from 6.7% (three) to 19.5% (eight).

Across all cancer types, stage I presentations fell from 31.9% in 2019 to 29% in 2020, while stage IV presentations rose from 26% to 26.4%.

One of the study limitations is that the patients who came in for a second opinion could have been newly diagnosed but might also have been referred for refractory disease, the authors comment.

No funding for this study was reported. Senior author Kathryn Ann Gold, MD, reported personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Rakuten, and Regeneron as well as grants from Pfizer and Pharmacyclics.

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

Three physicians with the Food and Drug Administration suggest in a recent JAMA Oncology viewpoint article that it might be time to give drug companies a deadline to meet accelerated approval requirements, as is done in other countries.

The FDA launched its accelerated approval program in 1992 in response to the AIDS crisis, but the bulk of approvals since then have been for cancer drugs, wrote the authors who included Gautam U. Mehta, MD, a clinical reviewer with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; R. Angelo de Claro, MD, associate director of the FDA’s Global Clinical Sciences division within the Oncology Center of Excellence; and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence.

Accelerated approvals are typically granted in oncology based on overall response rate with a requirement that companies confirm that there’s actually a clinical benefit in postmarketing studies.

The system has inspired European nations and Australia to launch their own programs, but with a key difference: Conditional approvals expire within 1 year or 2.

To be reinstated and remain on the market, companies have to submit a timeline for when they’ll meet their outstanding obligations and demonstrate that the benefit of leaving their product on the market outweighs the risk.

The approach puts “the onus of timely completion of confirmatory trials and verification of benefit” on the drug maker. In the meantime, the system limits “public exposure to stale claims of effectiveness that cannot be expeditiously substantiated,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues wrote.

There aren’t any deadlines in the United States, however, so the FDA has “to initiate a resource-intensive withdrawal process” when proof of clinical benefit is not forthcoming, they said.

In the United States, only 14 of 167 oncology indications granted accelerated approval since 1992 were withdrawn voluntarily and one was withdrawn by FDA request, and one was forced by the agency. The median time from accelerated approval to withdrawal was 8.8 years.

The actual withdrawal process itself took 11 months when bevacizumab’s breast cancer indication was canceled in 2011.

The authors didn’t call for change outright, but they did say that “future discussions of the accelerated approval program in the U.S.” will seek “to coordinate regulatory processes” with other countries, with an eye towards building “harmony between” agencies.

Among other targets for possible harmonization, they noted that only new molecular entities are eligible for accelerated approval in Europe, whereas supplemental indications are also eligible in the United States

Europe also requires a risk-benefit assessment for conditional approvals, which “has led to relatively few approvals based on single-arm clinical trial data,” the authors said.

Dr. Mehta, Dr. de Claro, and Dr. Pazdur had no conflicts of interest.

Three physicians with the Food and Drug Administration suggest in a recent JAMA Oncology viewpoint article that it might be time to give drug companies a deadline to meet accelerated approval requirements, as is done in other countries.

The FDA launched its accelerated approval program in 1992 in response to the AIDS crisis, but the bulk of approvals since then have been for cancer drugs, wrote the authors who included Gautam U. Mehta, MD, a clinical reviewer with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; R. Angelo de Claro, MD, associate director of the FDA’s Global Clinical Sciences division within the Oncology Center of Excellence; and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence.

Accelerated approvals are typically granted in oncology based on overall response rate with a requirement that companies confirm that there’s actually a clinical benefit in postmarketing studies.

The system has inspired European nations and Australia to launch their own programs, but with a key difference: Conditional approvals expire within 1 year or 2.

To be reinstated and remain on the market, companies have to submit a timeline for when they’ll meet their outstanding obligations and demonstrate that the benefit of leaving their product on the market outweighs the risk.

The approach puts “the onus of timely completion of confirmatory trials and verification of benefit” on the drug maker. In the meantime, the system limits “public exposure to stale claims of effectiveness that cannot be expeditiously substantiated,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues wrote.

There aren’t any deadlines in the United States, however, so the FDA has “to initiate a resource-intensive withdrawal process” when proof of clinical benefit is not forthcoming, they said.

In the United States, only 14 of 167 oncology indications granted accelerated approval since 1992 were withdrawn voluntarily and one was withdrawn by FDA request, and one was forced by the agency. The median time from accelerated approval to withdrawal was 8.8 years.

The actual withdrawal process itself took 11 months when bevacizumab’s breast cancer indication was canceled in 2011.

The authors didn’t call for change outright, but they did say that “future discussions of the accelerated approval program in the U.S.” will seek “to coordinate regulatory processes” with other countries, with an eye towards building “harmony between” agencies.

Among other targets for possible harmonization, they noted that only new molecular entities are eligible for accelerated approval in Europe, whereas supplemental indications are also eligible in the United States

Europe also requires a risk-benefit assessment for conditional approvals, which “has led to relatively few approvals based on single-arm clinical trial data,” the authors said.

Dr. Mehta, Dr. de Claro, and Dr. Pazdur had no conflicts of interest.

Three physicians with the Food and Drug Administration suggest in a recent JAMA Oncology viewpoint article that it might be time to give drug companies a deadline to meet accelerated approval requirements, as is done in other countries.

The FDA launched its accelerated approval program in 1992 in response to the AIDS crisis, but the bulk of approvals since then have been for cancer drugs, wrote the authors who included Gautam U. Mehta, MD, a clinical reviewer with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; R. Angelo de Claro, MD, associate director of the FDA’s Global Clinical Sciences division within the Oncology Center of Excellence; and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence.

Accelerated approvals are typically granted in oncology based on overall response rate with a requirement that companies confirm that there’s actually a clinical benefit in postmarketing studies.

The system has inspired European nations and Australia to launch their own programs, but with a key difference: Conditional approvals expire within 1 year or 2.

To be reinstated and remain on the market, companies have to submit a timeline for when they’ll meet their outstanding obligations and demonstrate that the benefit of leaving their product on the market outweighs the risk.

The approach puts “the onus of timely completion of confirmatory trials and verification of benefit” on the drug maker. In the meantime, the system limits “public exposure to stale claims of effectiveness that cannot be expeditiously substantiated,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues wrote.

There aren’t any deadlines in the United States, however, so the FDA has “to initiate a resource-intensive withdrawal process” when proof of clinical benefit is not forthcoming, they said.

In the United States, only 14 of 167 oncology indications granted accelerated approval since 1992 were withdrawn voluntarily and one was withdrawn by FDA request, and one was forced by the agency. The median time from accelerated approval to withdrawal was 8.8 years.

The actual withdrawal process itself took 11 months when bevacizumab’s breast cancer indication was canceled in 2011.

The authors didn’t call for change outright, but they did say that “future discussions of the accelerated approval program in the U.S.” will seek “to coordinate regulatory processes” with other countries, with an eye towards building “harmony between” agencies.

Among other targets for possible harmonization, they noted that only new molecular entities are eligible for accelerated approval in Europe, whereas supplemental indications are also eligible in the United States

Europe also requires a risk-benefit assessment for conditional approvals, which “has led to relatively few approvals based on single-arm clinical trial data,” the authors said.

Dr. Mehta, Dr. de Claro, and Dr. Pazdur had no conflicts of interest.

Leonard Thompson’s father was so desperate to save his 14-year-old child from certain death due to diabetes that, on Jan. 11, 1922, he took him to Toronto General Hospital to receive what is arguably the first dose of insulin given to a human. From an anticipated life expectancy of weeks – months at best – Thompson lived for an astonishing further 13 years, eventually dying from pneumonia unrelated to diabetes.

By all accounts, the story is a centenary celebration of a remarkable discovery. Insulin has changed what was once a death sentence to a near-normal life expectancy for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes over the past 100 years.

National Museum of American History/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

But behind the life-changing success of the discovery – and the Nobel Prize that went with it – lies a tale blighted by disputed claims, twisted truths, and likely injustices between the scientists involved, as they each vied for an honored place in medical history.

Kersten Hall, PhD, honorary fellow, religion and history of science, at the University of Leeds, England, has scoured archives and personal records held at the University of Toronto to uncover the personal stories behind insulin’s discovery.

Despite the wranglings, Dr. Hall asserts: “There’s a distinction between the science and the scientists. Scientists are wonderfully flawed and complex human beings with all their glorious virtues and vices, as we all are. It’s no surprise that they get greedy, jealous, and insecure.”
 

At death’s door: Diabetes before the 1920s

Prior to insulin’s discovery in 1921, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes placed someone at death’s door, with nothing but starvation – albeit a slightly slower death – to mitigate a fast-approaching departure from this world. At that time, most diabetes cases would have been type 1 diabetes because, with less obesogenic diets and shorter lifespans, people were much less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

Nowadays, it is widely recognized that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is on a steep upward curve, but so too is type 1 diabetes. In the United States alone, there are 1.5 million people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, a number expected to rise to around 5 million by 2050, according to JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization.

Interestingly, 100 years since the first treated patient, life-long insulin remains the only real effective therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes. Once pancreatic beta cells have ceased to function and insulin production has stopped, insulin replacement is the only way to keep blood glucose levels within the recommended range (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [6.5%]), according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as numerous diabetes organizations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Preliminary clinical trials have looked at stem cell transplantation, prematurely dubbed as a “cure” for type 1 diabetes, as an alternative to insulin therapy. The procedure involves transplanting stem cell–derived cells, which become functional beta cells when infused into humans, but requires immunosuppression, as reported by this news organization.

Today, the life expectancy of people with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin is close to those without the disease, although this is dependent on how tightly blood glucose is controlled. Some studies show life expectancy of those with type 1 diabetes is around 8-12 years lower than the general population but varies depending on where a person lives.

In some lower-income countries, many with type 1 diabetes still die prematurely either because they are undiagnosed or cannot access insulin. The high cost of insulin in the United States is well publicized, as featured in numerous articles by this news organization, and numerous patients in the United States have died because they cannot afford insulin.

Without insulin, young Leonard Thompson would have been lucky to have reached his 15th birthday.

“Such patients were cachectic and thin and would have weighed around 40-50 pounds (18-23 kg), which is very low for an older child. Survival was short and lasted weeks or months usually,” said Elizabeth Stephens, MD, an endocrinologist in Portland, Ore.

“The discovery of insulin was really a miracle because without it diabetes patients were facing certain death. Even nowadays, if people don’t get their insulin because they can’t afford it or for whatever reason, they can still die,” Dr. Stephens stressed.
 

Antidiabetic effects of pancreatic extract limited

Back in 1869, Paul Langerhans, MD, discovered pancreatic islet cells, or islets of Langerhans, as a medical student. Researchers tried to produce extracts that lowered blood glucose but they were too toxic for patient use.

In 1908, as detailed in his recent book, Insulin – the Crooked Timber, Dr. Hall also refers to the fact that a German researcher, Georg Zuelzer, MD, demonstrated in six patients that pancreatic extracts could reduce urinary levels of glucose and ketones, and that in one case, the treatment woke the patient from a coma. Dr. Zuelzer had purified the extract with alcohol but patients still experienced convulsions and coma; in fact, they were experiencing hypoglycemic shock, but Dr. Zuelzer had not identified it as such.

“He thought his preparation was full of impurities – and that’s the irony. He had in his hands an insulin prep that was so clean and so potent that it sent the test animals into hypoglycemic shock,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

By 1921, two young researchers, Frederick G. Banting, MD, a practicing medical doctor in Toronto, together with a final year physiology student at the University of Toronto, Charles H. Best, MD, DSc, collaborated on the instruction of Dr. Best’s superior, John James Rickard Macleod, MBChB, professor of physiology at the University of Toronto, to make pancreatic extracts, first from dogs and then from cattle.

University of Toronto/public domain

Over the months prior to treating Thompson, working together in the laboratory, Dr. Banting and Dr. Best prepared the pancreatic extract from cattle and tested it on dogs with diabetes.

Then, in what amounted to a phase 1 trial of its day, with an “n of one,” a frail and close-to-death Thompson was given 15 cc of pancreatic extract at Toronto General Hospital in January 1922. His blood glucose level dropped by 25%, but unfortunately, his body still produced ketones, indicating the antidiabetic effect was limited. He also experienced an adverse reaction at the injection site with an accumulation of abscesses.

So despite success with isolating the extract and administering it to Thompson, the product remained tainted with impurities.

At this point, colleague James Collip, MD, PhD, came to the rescue. He used his skills as a biochemist to purify the pancreatic extract enough to eliminate impurities.

When Thompson was treated 2 weeks later with the purified extract, he experienced a more positive outcome. Gone was the injection site reaction, gone were the high blood glucose levels, and Thompson “became brighter, more active, looked better, and said he felt stronger,” according to a publication describing the treatment.

Dr. Collip also determined that by over-purifying the product, the animals he experimented on could overreact and experience convulsions, coma, and death due to hypoglycemia from too much insulin.
 

Fighting talk

Recalling an excerpt from Dr. Banting’s diary, Dr. Hall said that Dr. Banting had a mercurial temper and testified to his loss of patience with Dr. Collip when the chemist refused to share his formula of purification. His diary reads: “I grabbed him in one hand by the overcoat ... and almost lifting him I sat him down hard on the chair ... I remember telling him that it was a good job he was so much smaller – otherwise I would ‘knock hell out of him.’ ”

According to Dr. Hall, in 1923, when Dr. Banting and Dr. Macleod were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine, Dr. Best resented being excluded, and despite Dr. Banting’s sharing half his prize money with Dr. Best, animosity prevailed.

At one point, before leaving on a plane for a wartime mission to the United Kingdom, Dr. Banting noted that if he didn’t make it back alive, “and they give my [professorial] chair to that son-of-a-bitch Best, I’ll never rest in my grave.” In a cruel twist of fate, Dr. Banting’s plane crashed and all aboard died.

The Nobel Prize had also been a source of rivalry between Dr. Banting and his boss, Dr. Macleod. In late 1921, while presenting the findings from animal models at the American Physiological Society conference, Dr. Banting’s nerves got the better of him and Dr. Macleod took over at the podium to finish the talk. Dr. Banting perceived this as his boss stealing the limelight.

University of Toronto/public domain

The Nobel Prize or a poisoned chalice?

Awarded annually for physics, chemistry, medicine/physiology, literature, peace, and economics, Nobel Prizes are usually considered the holy grail of achievement. In 1895, funds for the prizes were bequeathed by Alfred Nobel in his last will and testament, with each prize worth around $40,000 at the time (approximately $1,000,000 in today’s value).

Writing in 2001 in the journal Diabetes Voice, Professor Sir George Alberti, DPhil, BM BCh, former president of the UK Royal College of Physicians, summarized the burden that accompanies the Nobel Prize: “I personally believe that such prizes and awards do more harm than good and should be abolished. Many a scientist has gone to their grave feeling deeply aggrieved because they were not awarded a Nobel Prize.”

Such high stakes surround the prize that, in the case of insulin, the course of its discovery meant courtesies and truth were swept aside in hot pursuit of fame. After Dr. Macleod died in 1935 and Dr. Banting died in 1941, Dr. Best took the opportunity to try to revise history. There was the small obstacle of Dr. Collip, but Dr. Best managed to play down Dr. Collip’s contribution by focusing on the eureka moment as being the first insulin dose administered, despite the fact that a more complete recovery without side effects was later achieved only with Dr. Collip’s help.

Despite exclusion from the Nobel Prize, Dr. Best nevertheless became recognized as the “go-to-guy” for the discovery of insulin, said Dr. Hall. When Dr. Best spoke about the discovery of insulin at the New York Diabetes Association meeting in 1946, he was introduced as a speaker whose reputation was already so great that he did “not require much of an introduction.”

“And when a new research institute was opened in Toronto in 1953, it was named in his honor. The opening address, by Sir Henry Dale of the UK Medical Research Council, sang Best’s praises to the rafters, much to the disgruntlement of Best’s former colleague, James Collip, who was sitting in the audience,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

Both Dr. Hall and Dr. Stephens live with type 1 diabetes and have benefited from the efforts of Dr. Banting, Dr. Best, Dr. Collip, Dr. Zuelzer, and Dr. Macleod.

“The discovery of insulin was a miracle, it has allowed people to survive,” said Dr. Stephens. “Few medicines can reverse a death sentence like insulin can. It’s easy to forget how it was when insulin wasn’t there – and it wasn’t that long ago.”

Dr. Hall reflects that scientific progress and discovery are often portrayed as being the result of towering geniuses standing on each other’s shoulders.

“But I think that when German philosopher Immanuel Kant remarked that ‘Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can ever be made,’ he offered us a much more accurate picture of how science works. And I think that there’s perhaps no more powerful example of this than the story of insulin,” he said.

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

Leonard Thompson’s father was so desperate to save his 14-year-old child from certain death due to diabetes that, on Jan. 11, 1922, he took him to Toronto General Hospital to receive what is arguably the first dose of insulin given to a human. From an anticipated life expectancy of weeks – months at best – Thompson lived for an astonishing further 13 years, eventually dying from pneumonia unrelated to diabetes.

By all accounts, the story is a centenary celebration of a remarkable discovery. Insulin has changed what was once a death sentence to a near-normal life expectancy for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes over the past 100 years.

National Museum of American History/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

But behind the life-changing success of the discovery – and the Nobel Prize that went with it – lies a tale blighted by disputed claims, twisted truths, and likely injustices between the scientists involved, as they each vied for an honored place in medical history.

Kersten Hall, PhD, honorary fellow, religion and history of science, at the University of Leeds, England, has scoured archives and personal records held at the University of Toronto to uncover the personal stories behind insulin’s discovery.

Despite the wranglings, Dr. Hall asserts: “There’s a distinction between the science and the scientists. Scientists are wonderfully flawed and complex human beings with all their glorious virtues and vices, as we all are. It’s no surprise that they get greedy, jealous, and insecure.”
 

At death’s door: Diabetes before the 1920s

Prior to insulin’s discovery in 1921, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes placed someone at death’s door, with nothing but starvation – albeit a slightly slower death – to mitigate a fast-approaching departure from this world. At that time, most diabetes cases would have been type 1 diabetes because, with less obesogenic diets and shorter lifespans, people were much less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

Nowadays, it is widely recognized that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is on a steep upward curve, but so too is type 1 diabetes. In the United States alone, there are 1.5 million people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, a number expected to rise to around 5 million by 2050, according to JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization.

Interestingly, 100 years since the first treated patient, life-long insulin remains the only real effective therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes. Once pancreatic beta cells have ceased to function and insulin production has stopped, insulin replacement is the only way to keep blood glucose levels within the recommended range (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [6.5%]), according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as numerous diabetes organizations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Preliminary clinical trials have looked at stem cell transplantation, prematurely dubbed as a “cure” for type 1 diabetes, as an alternative to insulin therapy. The procedure involves transplanting stem cell–derived cells, which become functional beta cells when infused into humans, but requires immunosuppression, as reported by this news organization.

Today, the life expectancy of people with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin is close to those without the disease, although this is dependent on how tightly blood glucose is controlled. Some studies show life expectancy of those with type 1 diabetes is around 8-12 years lower than the general population but varies depending on where a person lives.

In some lower-income countries, many with type 1 diabetes still die prematurely either because they are undiagnosed or cannot access insulin. The high cost of insulin in the United States is well publicized, as featured in numerous articles by this news organization, and numerous patients in the United States have died because they cannot afford insulin.

Without insulin, young Leonard Thompson would have been lucky to have reached his 15th birthday.

“Such patients were cachectic and thin and would have weighed around 40-50 pounds (18-23 kg), which is very low for an older child. Survival was short and lasted weeks or months usually,” said Elizabeth Stephens, MD, an endocrinologist in Portland, Ore.

“The discovery of insulin was really a miracle because without it diabetes patients were facing certain death. Even nowadays, if people don’t get their insulin because they can’t afford it or for whatever reason, they can still die,” Dr. Stephens stressed.
 

Antidiabetic effects of pancreatic extract limited

Back in 1869, Paul Langerhans, MD, discovered pancreatic islet cells, or islets of Langerhans, as a medical student. Researchers tried to produce extracts that lowered blood glucose but they were too toxic for patient use.

In 1908, as detailed in his recent book, Insulin – the Crooked Timber, Dr. Hall also refers to the fact that a German researcher, Georg Zuelzer, MD, demonstrated in six patients that pancreatic extracts could reduce urinary levels of glucose and ketones, and that in one case, the treatment woke the patient from a coma. Dr. Zuelzer had purified the extract with alcohol but patients still experienced convulsions and coma; in fact, they were experiencing hypoglycemic shock, but Dr. Zuelzer had not identified it as such.

“He thought his preparation was full of impurities – and that’s the irony. He had in his hands an insulin prep that was so clean and so potent that it sent the test animals into hypoglycemic shock,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

By 1921, two young researchers, Frederick G. Banting, MD, a practicing medical doctor in Toronto, together with a final year physiology student at the University of Toronto, Charles H. Best, MD, DSc, collaborated on the instruction of Dr. Best’s superior, John James Rickard Macleod, MBChB, professor of physiology at the University of Toronto, to make pancreatic extracts, first from dogs and then from cattle.

University of Toronto/public domain

Over the months prior to treating Thompson, working together in the laboratory, Dr. Banting and Dr. Best prepared the pancreatic extract from cattle and tested it on dogs with diabetes.

Then, in what amounted to a phase 1 trial of its day, with an “n of one,” a frail and close-to-death Thompson was given 15 cc of pancreatic extract at Toronto General Hospital in January 1922. His blood glucose level dropped by 25%, but unfortunately, his body still produced ketones, indicating the antidiabetic effect was limited. He also experienced an adverse reaction at the injection site with an accumulation of abscesses.

So despite success with isolating the extract and administering it to Thompson, the product remained tainted with impurities.

At this point, colleague James Collip, MD, PhD, came to the rescue. He used his skills as a biochemist to purify the pancreatic extract enough to eliminate impurities.

When Thompson was treated 2 weeks later with the purified extract, he experienced a more positive outcome. Gone was the injection site reaction, gone were the high blood glucose levels, and Thompson “became brighter, more active, looked better, and said he felt stronger,” according to a publication describing the treatment.

Dr. Collip also determined that by over-purifying the product, the animals he experimented on could overreact and experience convulsions, coma, and death due to hypoglycemia from too much insulin.
 

Fighting talk

Recalling an excerpt from Dr. Banting’s diary, Dr. Hall said that Dr. Banting had a mercurial temper and testified to his loss of patience with Dr. Collip when the chemist refused to share his formula of purification. His diary reads: “I grabbed him in one hand by the overcoat ... and almost lifting him I sat him down hard on the chair ... I remember telling him that it was a good job he was so much smaller – otherwise I would ‘knock hell out of him.’ ”

According to Dr. Hall, in 1923, when Dr. Banting and Dr. Macleod were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine, Dr. Best resented being excluded, and despite Dr. Banting’s sharing half his prize money with Dr. Best, animosity prevailed.

At one point, before leaving on a plane for a wartime mission to the United Kingdom, Dr. Banting noted that if he didn’t make it back alive, “and they give my [professorial] chair to that son-of-a-bitch Best, I’ll never rest in my grave.” In a cruel twist of fate, Dr. Banting’s plane crashed and all aboard died.

The Nobel Prize had also been a source of rivalry between Dr. Banting and his boss, Dr. Macleod. In late 1921, while presenting the findings from animal models at the American Physiological Society conference, Dr. Banting’s nerves got the better of him and Dr. Macleod took over at the podium to finish the talk. Dr. Banting perceived this as his boss stealing the limelight.

University of Toronto/public domain

The Nobel Prize or a poisoned chalice?

Awarded annually for physics, chemistry, medicine/physiology, literature, peace, and economics, Nobel Prizes are usually considered the holy grail of achievement. In 1895, funds for the prizes were bequeathed by Alfred Nobel in his last will and testament, with each prize worth around $40,000 at the time (approximately $1,000,000 in today’s value).

Writing in 2001 in the journal Diabetes Voice, Professor Sir George Alberti, DPhil, BM BCh, former president of the UK Royal College of Physicians, summarized the burden that accompanies the Nobel Prize: “I personally believe that such prizes and awards do more harm than good and should be abolished. Many a scientist has gone to their grave feeling deeply aggrieved because they were not awarded a Nobel Prize.”

Such high stakes surround the prize that, in the case of insulin, the course of its discovery meant courtesies and truth were swept aside in hot pursuit of fame. After Dr. Macleod died in 1935 and Dr. Banting died in 1941, Dr. Best took the opportunity to try to revise history. There was the small obstacle of Dr. Collip, but Dr. Best managed to play down Dr. Collip’s contribution by focusing on the eureka moment as being the first insulin dose administered, despite the fact that a more complete recovery without side effects was later achieved only with Dr. Collip’s help.

Despite exclusion from the Nobel Prize, Dr. Best nevertheless became recognized as the “go-to-guy” for the discovery of insulin, said Dr. Hall. When Dr. Best spoke about the discovery of insulin at the New York Diabetes Association meeting in 1946, he was introduced as a speaker whose reputation was already so great that he did “not require much of an introduction.”

“And when a new research institute was opened in Toronto in 1953, it was named in his honor. The opening address, by Sir Henry Dale of the UK Medical Research Council, sang Best’s praises to the rafters, much to the disgruntlement of Best’s former colleague, James Collip, who was sitting in the audience,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

Both Dr. Hall and Dr. Stephens live with type 1 diabetes and have benefited from the efforts of Dr. Banting, Dr. Best, Dr. Collip, Dr. Zuelzer, and Dr. Macleod.

“The discovery of insulin was a miracle, it has allowed people to survive,” said Dr. Stephens. “Few medicines can reverse a death sentence like insulin can. It’s easy to forget how it was when insulin wasn’t there – and it wasn’t that long ago.”

Dr. Hall reflects that scientific progress and discovery are often portrayed as being the result of towering geniuses standing on each other’s shoulders.

“But I think that when German philosopher Immanuel Kant remarked that ‘Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can ever be made,’ he offered us a much more accurate picture of how science works. And I think that there’s perhaps no more powerful example of this than the story of insulin,” he said.

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

Leonard Thompson’s father was so desperate to save his 14-year-old child from certain death due to diabetes that, on Jan. 11, 1922, he took him to Toronto General Hospital to receive what is arguably the first dose of insulin given to a human. From an anticipated life expectancy of weeks – months at best – Thompson lived for an astonishing further 13 years, eventually dying from pneumonia unrelated to diabetes.

By all accounts, the story is a centenary celebration of a remarkable discovery. Insulin has changed what was once a death sentence to a near-normal life expectancy for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes over the past 100 years.

National Museum of American History/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

But behind the life-changing success of the discovery – and the Nobel Prize that went with it – lies a tale blighted by disputed claims, twisted truths, and likely injustices between the scientists involved, as they each vied for an honored place in medical history.

Kersten Hall, PhD, honorary fellow, religion and history of science, at the University of Leeds, England, has scoured archives and personal records held at the University of Toronto to uncover the personal stories behind insulin’s discovery.

Despite the wranglings, Dr. Hall asserts: “There’s a distinction between the science and the scientists. Scientists are wonderfully flawed and complex human beings with all their glorious virtues and vices, as we all are. It’s no surprise that they get greedy, jealous, and insecure.”
 

At death’s door: Diabetes before the 1920s

Prior to insulin’s discovery in 1921, a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes placed someone at death’s door, with nothing but starvation – albeit a slightly slower death – to mitigate a fast-approaching departure from this world. At that time, most diabetes cases would have been type 1 diabetes because, with less obesogenic diets and shorter lifespans, people were much less likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

Nowadays, it is widely recognized that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is on a steep upward curve, but so too is type 1 diabetes. In the United States alone, there are 1.5 million people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, a number expected to rise to around 5 million by 2050, according to JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization.

Interestingly, 100 years since the first treated patient, life-long insulin remains the only real effective therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes. Once pancreatic beta cells have ceased to function and insulin production has stopped, insulin replacement is the only way to keep blood glucose levels within the recommended range (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [6.5%]), according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as numerous diabetes organizations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Preliminary clinical trials have looked at stem cell transplantation, prematurely dubbed as a “cure” for type 1 diabetes, as an alternative to insulin therapy. The procedure involves transplanting stem cell–derived cells, which become functional beta cells when infused into humans, but requires immunosuppression, as reported by this news organization.

Today, the life expectancy of people with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin is close to those without the disease, although this is dependent on how tightly blood glucose is controlled. Some studies show life expectancy of those with type 1 diabetes is around 8-12 years lower than the general population but varies depending on where a person lives.

In some lower-income countries, many with type 1 diabetes still die prematurely either because they are undiagnosed or cannot access insulin. The high cost of insulin in the United States is well publicized, as featured in numerous articles by this news organization, and numerous patients in the United States have died because they cannot afford insulin.

Without insulin, young Leonard Thompson would have been lucky to have reached his 15th birthday.

“Such patients were cachectic and thin and would have weighed around 40-50 pounds (18-23 kg), which is very low for an older child. Survival was short and lasted weeks or months usually,” said Elizabeth Stephens, MD, an endocrinologist in Portland, Ore.

“The discovery of insulin was really a miracle because without it diabetes patients were facing certain death. Even nowadays, if people don’t get their insulin because they can’t afford it or for whatever reason, they can still die,” Dr. Stephens stressed.
 

Antidiabetic effects of pancreatic extract limited

Back in 1869, Paul Langerhans, MD, discovered pancreatic islet cells, or islets of Langerhans, as a medical student. Researchers tried to produce extracts that lowered blood glucose but they were too toxic for patient use.

In 1908, as detailed in his recent book, Insulin – the Crooked Timber, Dr. Hall also refers to the fact that a German researcher, Georg Zuelzer, MD, demonstrated in six patients that pancreatic extracts could reduce urinary levels of glucose and ketones, and that in one case, the treatment woke the patient from a coma. Dr. Zuelzer had purified the extract with alcohol but patients still experienced convulsions and coma; in fact, they were experiencing hypoglycemic shock, but Dr. Zuelzer had not identified it as such.

“He thought his preparation was full of impurities – and that’s the irony. He had in his hands an insulin prep that was so clean and so potent that it sent the test animals into hypoglycemic shock,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

By 1921, two young researchers, Frederick G. Banting, MD, a practicing medical doctor in Toronto, together with a final year physiology student at the University of Toronto, Charles H. Best, MD, DSc, collaborated on the instruction of Dr. Best’s superior, John James Rickard Macleod, MBChB, professor of physiology at the University of Toronto, to make pancreatic extracts, first from dogs and then from cattle.

University of Toronto/public domain

Over the months prior to treating Thompson, working together in the laboratory, Dr. Banting and Dr. Best prepared the pancreatic extract from cattle and tested it on dogs with diabetes.

Then, in what amounted to a phase 1 trial of its day, with an “n of one,” a frail and close-to-death Thompson was given 15 cc of pancreatic extract at Toronto General Hospital in January 1922. His blood glucose level dropped by 25%, but unfortunately, his body still produced ketones, indicating the antidiabetic effect was limited. He also experienced an adverse reaction at the injection site with an accumulation of abscesses.

So despite success with isolating the extract and administering it to Thompson, the product remained tainted with impurities.

At this point, colleague James Collip, MD, PhD, came to the rescue. He used his skills as a biochemist to purify the pancreatic extract enough to eliminate impurities.

When Thompson was treated 2 weeks later with the purified extract, he experienced a more positive outcome. Gone was the injection site reaction, gone were the high blood glucose levels, and Thompson “became brighter, more active, looked better, and said he felt stronger,” according to a publication describing the treatment.

Dr. Collip also determined that by over-purifying the product, the animals he experimented on could overreact and experience convulsions, coma, and death due to hypoglycemia from too much insulin.
 

Fighting talk

Recalling an excerpt from Dr. Banting’s diary, Dr. Hall said that Dr. Banting had a mercurial temper and testified to his loss of patience with Dr. Collip when the chemist refused to share his formula of purification. His diary reads: “I grabbed him in one hand by the overcoat ... and almost lifting him I sat him down hard on the chair ... I remember telling him that it was a good job he was so much smaller – otherwise I would ‘knock hell out of him.’ ”

According to Dr. Hall, in 1923, when Dr. Banting and Dr. Macleod were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine, Dr. Best resented being excluded, and despite Dr. Banting’s sharing half his prize money with Dr. Best, animosity prevailed.

At one point, before leaving on a plane for a wartime mission to the United Kingdom, Dr. Banting noted that if he didn’t make it back alive, “and they give my [professorial] chair to that son-of-a-bitch Best, I’ll never rest in my grave.” In a cruel twist of fate, Dr. Banting’s plane crashed and all aboard died.

The Nobel Prize had also been a source of rivalry between Dr. Banting and his boss, Dr. Macleod. In late 1921, while presenting the findings from animal models at the American Physiological Society conference, Dr. Banting’s nerves got the better of him and Dr. Macleod took over at the podium to finish the talk. Dr. Banting perceived this as his boss stealing the limelight.

University of Toronto/public domain

The Nobel Prize or a poisoned chalice?

Awarded annually for physics, chemistry, medicine/physiology, literature, peace, and economics, Nobel Prizes are usually considered the holy grail of achievement. In 1895, funds for the prizes were bequeathed by Alfred Nobel in his last will and testament, with each prize worth around $40,000 at the time (approximately $1,000,000 in today’s value).

Writing in 2001 in the journal Diabetes Voice, Professor Sir George Alberti, DPhil, BM BCh, former president of the UK Royal College of Physicians, summarized the burden that accompanies the Nobel Prize: “I personally believe that such prizes and awards do more harm than good and should be abolished. Many a scientist has gone to their grave feeling deeply aggrieved because they were not awarded a Nobel Prize.”

Such high stakes surround the prize that, in the case of insulin, the course of its discovery meant courtesies and truth were swept aside in hot pursuit of fame. After Dr. Macleod died in 1935 and Dr. Banting died in 1941, Dr. Best took the opportunity to try to revise history. There was the small obstacle of Dr. Collip, but Dr. Best managed to play down Dr. Collip’s contribution by focusing on the eureka moment as being the first insulin dose administered, despite the fact that a more complete recovery without side effects was later achieved only with Dr. Collip’s help.

Despite exclusion from the Nobel Prize, Dr. Best nevertheless became recognized as the “go-to-guy” for the discovery of insulin, said Dr. Hall. When Dr. Best spoke about the discovery of insulin at the New York Diabetes Association meeting in 1946, he was introduced as a speaker whose reputation was already so great that he did “not require much of an introduction.”

“And when a new research institute was opened in Toronto in 1953, it was named in his honor. The opening address, by Sir Henry Dale of the UK Medical Research Council, sang Best’s praises to the rafters, much to the disgruntlement of Best’s former colleague, James Collip, who was sitting in the audience,” Dr. Hall pointed out.

Both Dr. Hall and Dr. Stephens live with type 1 diabetes and have benefited from the efforts of Dr. Banting, Dr. Best, Dr. Collip, Dr. Zuelzer, and Dr. Macleod.

“The discovery of insulin was a miracle, it has allowed people to survive,” said Dr. Stephens. “Few medicines can reverse a death sentence like insulin can. It’s easy to forget how it was when insulin wasn’t there – and it wasn’t that long ago.”

Dr. Hall reflects that scientific progress and discovery are often portrayed as being the result of towering geniuses standing on each other’s shoulders.

“But I think that when German philosopher Immanuel Kant remarked that ‘Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can ever be made,’ he offered us a much more accurate picture of how science works. And I think that there’s perhaps no more powerful example of this than the story of insulin,” he said.

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

In clinical management of depression, combining a reuptake inhibitor with presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors significantly improves treatment outcomes, compared with monotherapy, a meta-analysis found. Clinicians should consider this approach as a viable first-line treatment for severe depression and for nonresponders, a team of German researchers concluded.

The findings were published online Feb. 16 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Combining antidepressants is often the next step if a patient with acute depression fails to respond to a monotherapy. In a previous meta-analysis, first author Jonathan Henssler, MD, and colleagues reported on the merits of combining monoamine reuptake inhibitors (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor [SNRI], or tricyclic antidepressant) and antagonists of presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors (mianserin, mirtazapine, trazodone).

Studies that followed yielded mixed results. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed signs of substantial superiority when antidepressants were combined; another report from Japan only demonstrated a modest effect, said Christopher Baethge, MD, senior author of the meta-analysis, in an interview. Another recent trial showed better efficacy with monotherapy.

“In our view, this diverse field of trials suggested a reassessment. Specifically, we wanted to find out whether certain combinations are effective whereas others are not,” said Dr. Baethge, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Cologne (Germany).

Combing through Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the investigators selected RCTs that compared combinations versus monotherapy antidepressants in adult patients with acute depression. The meta-analysis did not include studies on bipolar depression or maintenance therapy. It also didn’t include comorbid medical conditions and concomitant diagnoses of other psychiatric disorders as exclusion criteria.

Separate investigations of combinations using presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptor antagonists or bupropion also took place.

Treatment efficacy measured as standardized mean difference (SMD) between combination and monotherapy was the primary outcome. Other outcomes included the percent of patients in remission after either treatment course or the percentage of patients stopping drug therapy.
 

Combination treatments yield better outcomes

Among 39 trials and 6,751 patients included in the analysis, 38 of the trials provided data on the primary outcome.

Combination treatments yielded more superior outcomes, compared with monotherapy (SMD, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.44). Greater efficacy in the combination approach was indicated in 82% of the studies. This finding also held up when the analysis was restricted to low risk of bias trials, applied as a first-line treatment, and among nonresponders.
 

Potential advantages of presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors

In the separate analysis, presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors did a better job than monotherapy as a first-line treatment and when applied to nonresponder populations. In comparison, bupropion combinations did not outperform monotherapy.

It’s possible that in combinations, “alpha2-autoreceptors effectively counteract, through sedation, the restlessness and  agitation that many patients find troublesome when taking monoamine-reuptake inhibitors. Similarly, they may help against sexual dysfunction associated with reuptake inhibitors,” Dr. Baethge suggested.

Presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors might also boost monoaminergic neurotransmission “by interrupting the inhibition feedback loop initiated when reuptake inhibitors increase neurotransmitter concentrations in the synaptic cleft,” he added.

Whether or not bupropion combinations help patients with treatment-resistant depression is inconclusive, noted Dr. Baethge. “More studies will likely help us get a clearer picture. So far, we can only say that we have not enough evidence to positively recommend bupropion combinations to that group of patients.”

Combining treatments did not yield more dropouts or adverse events than monotherapy. “It may thus be a safe treatment alternative when compared with other second-step strategies in treatment-resistant depression, such as augmenting monotherapy with lithium or atypical psychotic,” the investigators concluded.

Looking at this study’s limitations, the multiple clinical trials examined in a meta-analysis often have different designs, definitions of response and control groups, and use different rating scales, noted Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati, who was not involved in the study.

Some publication bias was found but overall the results kept their integrity across secondary outcomes and subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
 

Guidance for choosing more effective therapies

The hope is these results will help clinicians choose more promising combinations, such as presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptor antagonists with SSRIs or SNRIs, as opposed to combinations that are less helpful or haven’t gone through an RCT, said Dr. Baethge.

The findings on tolerability may also encourage some clinicians to consider these combinations, especially if they’ve favored less evidence-based approaches such as switching drugs or increasing the dose, he said.

Polypharmacy is often viewed as undesirable or leading to more side effects, noted Dr. Nasrallah. However, “the combination of a reuptake inhibitor plus an alpha2–presynaptic receptor antagonist like mirtazapine, can actually improve tolerability compared to monotherapy antidepressant because their mechanisms of action offset the side effects while increasing efficacy,” he said.

“Finally, although sedation is a side effect of both mirtazapine and trazodone, that can be helpful for patients with difficulty falling asleep, which is common in major depression,” added Dr. Nasrallah.

Dr. Baethge and Dr. Nasrallah had no disclosures. Dr. Henssler received a research grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

In clinical management of depression, combining a reuptake inhibitor with presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors significantly improves treatment outcomes, compared with monotherapy, a meta-analysis found. Clinicians should consider this approach as a viable first-line treatment for severe depression and for nonresponders, a team of German researchers concluded.

The findings were published online Feb. 16 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Combining antidepressants is often the next step if a patient with acute depression fails to respond to a monotherapy. In a previous meta-analysis, first author Jonathan Henssler, MD, and colleagues reported on the merits of combining monoamine reuptake inhibitors (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor [SNRI], or tricyclic antidepressant) and antagonists of presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors (mianserin, mirtazapine, trazodone).

Studies that followed yielded mixed results. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed signs of substantial superiority when antidepressants were combined; another report from Japan only demonstrated a modest effect, said Christopher Baethge, MD, senior author of the meta-analysis, in an interview. Another recent trial showed better efficacy with monotherapy.

“In our view, this diverse field of trials suggested a reassessment. Specifically, we wanted to find out whether certain combinations are effective whereas others are not,” said Dr. Baethge, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Cologne (Germany).

Combing through Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the investigators selected RCTs that compared combinations versus monotherapy antidepressants in adult patients with acute depression. The meta-analysis did not include studies on bipolar depression or maintenance therapy. It also didn’t include comorbid medical conditions and concomitant diagnoses of other psychiatric disorders as exclusion criteria.

Separate investigations of combinations using presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptor antagonists or bupropion also took place.

Treatment efficacy measured as standardized mean difference (SMD) between combination and monotherapy was the primary outcome. Other outcomes included the percent of patients in remission after either treatment course or the percentage of patients stopping drug therapy.
 

Combination treatments yield better outcomes

Among 39 trials and 6,751 patients included in the analysis, 38 of the trials provided data on the primary outcome.

Combination treatments yielded more superior outcomes, compared with monotherapy (SMD, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.44). Greater efficacy in the combination approach was indicated in 82% of the studies. This finding also held up when the analysis was restricted to low risk of bias trials, applied as a first-line treatment, and among nonresponders.
 

Potential advantages of presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors

In the separate analysis, presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors did a better job than monotherapy as a first-line treatment and when applied to nonresponder populations. In comparison, bupropion combinations did not outperform monotherapy.

It’s possible that in combinations, “alpha2-autoreceptors effectively counteract, through sedation, the restlessness and  agitation that many patients find troublesome when taking monoamine-reuptake inhibitors. Similarly, they may help against sexual dysfunction associated with reuptake inhibitors,” Dr. Baethge suggested.

Presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors might also boost monoaminergic neurotransmission “by interrupting the inhibition feedback loop initiated when reuptake inhibitors increase neurotransmitter concentrations in the synaptic cleft,” he added.

Whether or not bupropion combinations help patients with treatment-resistant depression is inconclusive, noted Dr. Baethge. “More studies will likely help us get a clearer picture. So far, we can only say that we have not enough evidence to positively recommend bupropion combinations to that group of patients.”

Combining treatments did not yield more dropouts or adverse events than monotherapy. “It may thus be a safe treatment alternative when compared with other second-step strategies in treatment-resistant depression, such as augmenting monotherapy with lithium or atypical psychotic,” the investigators concluded.

Looking at this study’s limitations, the multiple clinical trials examined in a meta-analysis often have different designs, definitions of response and control groups, and use different rating scales, noted Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati, who was not involved in the study.

Some publication bias was found but overall the results kept their integrity across secondary outcomes and subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
 

Guidance for choosing more effective therapies

The hope is these results will help clinicians choose more promising combinations, such as presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptor antagonists with SSRIs or SNRIs, as opposed to combinations that are less helpful or haven’t gone through an RCT, said Dr. Baethge.

The findings on tolerability may also encourage some clinicians to consider these combinations, especially if they’ve favored less evidence-based approaches such as switching drugs or increasing the dose, he said.

Polypharmacy is often viewed as undesirable or leading to more side effects, noted Dr. Nasrallah. However, “the combination of a reuptake inhibitor plus an alpha2–presynaptic receptor antagonist like mirtazapine, can actually improve tolerability compared to monotherapy antidepressant because their mechanisms of action offset the side effects while increasing efficacy,” he said.

“Finally, although sedation is a side effect of both mirtazapine and trazodone, that can be helpful for patients with difficulty falling asleep, which is common in major depression,” added Dr. Nasrallah.

Dr. Baethge and Dr. Nasrallah had no disclosures. Dr. Henssler received a research grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

In clinical management of depression, combining a reuptake inhibitor with presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors significantly improves treatment outcomes, compared with monotherapy, a meta-analysis found. Clinicians should consider this approach as a viable first-line treatment for severe depression and for nonresponders, a team of German researchers concluded.

The findings were published online Feb. 16 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Combining antidepressants is often the next step if a patient with acute depression fails to respond to a monotherapy. In a previous meta-analysis, first author Jonathan Henssler, MD, and colleagues reported on the merits of combining monoamine reuptake inhibitors (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor [SNRI], or tricyclic antidepressant) and antagonists of presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors (mianserin, mirtazapine, trazodone).

Studies that followed yielded mixed results. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed signs of substantial superiority when antidepressants were combined; another report from Japan only demonstrated a modest effect, said Christopher Baethge, MD, senior author of the meta-analysis, in an interview. Another recent trial showed better efficacy with monotherapy.

“In our view, this diverse field of trials suggested a reassessment. Specifically, we wanted to find out whether certain combinations are effective whereas others are not,” said Dr. Baethge, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Cologne (Germany).

Combing through Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the investigators selected RCTs that compared combinations versus monotherapy antidepressants in adult patients with acute depression. The meta-analysis did not include studies on bipolar depression or maintenance therapy. It also didn’t include comorbid medical conditions and concomitant diagnoses of other psychiatric disorders as exclusion criteria.

Separate investigations of combinations using presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptor antagonists or bupropion also took place.

Treatment efficacy measured as standardized mean difference (SMD) between combination and monotherapy was the primary outcome. Other outcomes included the percent of patients in remission after either treatment course or the percentage of patients stopping drug therapy.
 

Combination treatments yield better outcomes

Among 39 trials and 6,751 patients included in the analysis, 38 of the trials provided data on the primary outcome.

Combination treatments yielded more superior outcomes, compared with monotherapy (SMD, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.44). Greater efficacy in the combination approach was indicated in 82% of the studies. This finding also held up when the analysis was restricted to low risk of bias trials, applied as a first-line treatment, and among nonresponders.
 

Potential advantages of presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors

In the separate analysis, presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors did a better job than monotherapy as a first-line treatment and when applied to nonresponder populations. In comparison, bupropion combinations did not outperform monotherapy.

It’s possible that in combinations, “alpha2-autoreceptors effectively counteract, through sedation, the restlessness and  agitation that many patients find troublesome when taking monoamine-reuptake inhibitors. Similarly, they may help against sexual dysfunction associated with reuptake inhibitors,” Dr. Baethge suggested.

Presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptors might also boost monoaminergic neurotransmission “by interrupting the inhibition feedback loop initiated when reuptake inhibitors increase neurotransmitter concentrations in the synaptic cleft,” he added.

Whether or not bupropion combinations help patients with treatment-resistant depression is inconclusive, noted Dr. Baethge. “More studies will likely help us get a clearer picture. So far, we can only say that we have not enough evidence to positively recommend bupropion combinations to that group of patients.”

Combining treatments did not yield more dropouts or adverse events than monotherapy. “It may thus be a safe treatment alternative when compared with other second-step strategies in treatment-resistant depression, such as augmenting monotherapy with lithium or atypical psychotic,” the investigators concluded.

Looking at this study’s limitations, the multiple clinical trials examined in a meta-analysis often have different designs, definitions of response and control groups, and use different rating scales, noted Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati, who was not involved in the study.

Some publication bias was found but overall the results kept their integrity across secondary outcomes and subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
 

Guidance for choosing more effective therapies

The hope is these results will help clinicians choose more promising combinations, such as presynaptic alpha2-autoreceptor antagonists with SSRIs or SNRIs, as opposed to combinations that are less helpful or haven’t gone through an RCT, said Dr. Baethge.

The findings on tolerability may also encourage some clinicians to consider these combinations, especially if they’ve favored less evidence-based approaches such as switching drugs or increasing the dose, he said.

Polypharmacy is often viewed as undesirable or leading to more side effects, noted Dr. Nasrallah. However, “the combination of a reuptake inhibitor plus an alpha2–presynaptic receptor antagonist like mirtazapine, can actually improve tolerability compared to monotherapy antidepressant because their mechanisms of action offset the side effects while increasing efficacy,” he said.

“Finally, although sedation is a side effect of both mirtazapine and trazodone, that can be helpful for patients with difficulty falling asleep, which is common in major depression,” added Dr. Nasrallah.

Dr. Baethge and Dr. Nasrallah had no disclosures. Dr. Henssler received a research grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.

“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”

The board’s statement was posted on a government website.

But before any physicians could be reprimanded for spreading falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, Republican lawmakers threatened to disband the medical board.

The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.

Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.

Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.

A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.

The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.

Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.

“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”

The board’s statement was posted on a government website.

But before any physicians could be reprimanded for spreading falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, Republican lawmakers threatened to disband the medical board.

The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.

Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.

Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.

A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.

The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.

Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.

“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”

The board’s statement was posted on a government website.

But before any physicians could be reprimanded for spreading falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, Republican lawmakers threatened to disband the medical board.

The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.

Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.

Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.

A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.

The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.

Hours after their births, 34 infants began a three-drug combination HIV treatment. Now, 2 years later, a third of those toddlers have tested negative for HIV antibodies and have no detectable HIV DNA in their blood. The children aren’t cured of HIV, but as many as 16 of them may be candidates to stop treatment and see if they are in fact in HIV remission.

If one or more are, it would be the first time since the Mississippi baby in 2013 that scientists have induced childhood HIV remission by beginning HIV treatment very early.    

At the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Deborah Persaud, MD, interim director of pediatric infectious diseases and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization that the evidence suggests that more U.S. clinicians should start infants at high risk for HIV on presumptive treatment – not only to potentially prevent transmission but also to set the child up for the lowest possible viral reservoir, the first step to HIV remission.

The three-drug preemptive treatment is “not uniformly practiced,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re at a point now where we don’t have to wait to see if we have remission” to act on these findings, she said. “The question is, should this now become standard of care for in-utero infected infants?” 

Every year, about 150 infants are born with HIV in the United States, according to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Current U.S. perinatal treatment guidelines already suggest either treatment with one or more HIV drugs at birth to attempt preventing transmission or initiating three-drug regimens for infants at high risk for perinatally acquired HIV. In this case “high risk” is defined as infants born to:

• people who haven’t received any HIV treatment before delivery or during delivery,
• people who did receive treatment but failed to achieve undetectable viral loads, or
• people who acquire HIV during pregnancy, or who otherwise weren’t diagnosed until after birth.

Trying to replicate the Mississippi baby

The Mississippi baby did eventually relapse. But ever since Dr. Persaud reported the case of that 2-year-old who went into treatment-free remission in 2013, she has been trying to figure out how to duplicate that initial success. There were several factors in that remission, but one piece researchers could control was starting treatment very early – before HIV blood tests even come back positive. So, in this trial, researchers enrolled 440 infants in Africa and Asia at high risk for in utero HIV transmission.

All 440 of those infants received their first doses of the three-drug preemptive treatment within 24 hours of birth. Of those 440 infants, 34 tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.*

Meanwhile, in North America, South America, and African countries, another 20 infants enrolled in the trial – not as part of the protocol but because their clinicians had been influenced by the news of the Mississippi baby, Dr. Persaud said, and decided on their own to start high-risk infants on three-drug regimens preemptively.

“We wanted to take advantage of those real-world situations of infants being treated outside the clinical trials,” Dr. Persaud said.

Now there were 54 infants trying this very early treatment. In Cohort One, they started their first drug cocktail 7 hours after delivery. In Cohort Two, their first antiretroviral combination treatment was at 32.8 hours of life, and they enrolled in the trial at 8 days. Then researchers followed the infants closely, adding on lopinavir and ritonavir when age-appropriate.
 

Meeting milestones

To continue in the trial and be considered for treatment interruption, infants had to meet certain milestones. At 24 weeks, HIV RNA needed to be below 200 copies per milliliter. Then their HIV RNA needed to stay below 200 copies consistently until week 48. At week 48, they had to have an HIV RNA that was even lower – below 20 or 40 copies – with “target not detected” in the test in HIV RNA. That’s a sign that there weren’t even any trace levels of viral nucleic acid RNA in the blood to indicate HIV. Then, from week 48 on, they had to maintain that level of viral suppression until age 2.

At that point, not only did they need to maintain that level of viral suppression, they also needed to have a negative HIV antibody test and a PCR test for total HIV DNA, which had to be undetectable down to the limit of 4 copies per 106 – that is, there were fewer than 4 copies of the virus out of 1 million cells tested. Only then would they be considered for treatment interruption.

“After week 28 there was no leeway,” Dr. Persaud said. Then “they had to have nothing detectable from the first year of age. We thought the best shot at remission were cases that achieved very good and strict virologic control.”

 

Criteria for consideration

Of the 34 infants in Cohort One, 24 infants made it past the first hurdle at 24 weeks and 6 had PCR tests that found no cell-associated HIV DNA. In Cohort Two, 15 made it past the week-24 hurdle and 4 had no detectable HIV DNA via PCR test.

Now, more than 2 years out from study initiation, Dr. Persaud and colleagues are evaluating each child to see if any still meet the requirements for treatment interruption. The COVID-19 pandemic has delayed their evaluations, and it’s possible that fewer children now meet the requirements. But Dr. Persaud said there are still candidates left. An analysis suggests that up to 30% of the children, or 16, were candidates at 2 years.

“We have kids who are eligible for [antiretroviral therapy] cessation years out from this, which I think is really important,” she said in an interview. “It’s not game over.”

And although 30% is not an overwhelming victory, Dr. Persaud said the team’s goal was “to identify an N of 1 to replicate the Mississippi baby.” The study team, led by Ellen Chadwick, MD, of Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, and a member of the board that creates HIV perinatal treatment guidelines, is starting a new trial, using more modern, integrase inhibitor-based, three-drug regimens for infants and pairing them with broadly neutralizing antibodies. The combination used in this trial included zidovudine, or AZT.

If one of the children is able to go off treatment, it would be the first step toward creating a functional cure for HIV, starting with the youngest people affected by the virus.  

“This trial convinces me that very early treatment was the key strategy that led to remission in the Mississippi baby,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re confirming here that the first step toward remission and cure is reducing reservoirs. We’ve got that here. Whether we need more on top of that – therapeutic vaccines, immunotherapies, or a better regimen to start out with – needs to be determined.”

The presentation was met with excitement and questions. For instance, if very early treatment works, why does it work for just 30% of the children?

Were some of the children able to control HIV on their own because they were rare post-treatment controllers? And was 30% really a victory? Others were convinced of it.

“Amazing outcome to have 30% so well suppressed after 2 years with CA-DNA not detected,” commented Hermione Lyall, MBChB, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in the United Kingdom, in the virtual chat.

As for whether the study should change practice, Elaine Abrams, MD, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and CROI cochair, said that this study proves that the three-drug regimen is at the very least safe to start immediately.

Whether it should become standard of care everywhere is still up for discussion, she told this news organization.

“It very much depends on what you’re trying to achieve,” she said. “Postnatal prophylaxis is provided to reduce the risk of acquiring infection. That’s a different objective than early treatment. If you have 1,000 high-risk babies, how many are likely to turn out to have HIV infection? And how many of those will you be treating with three drugs and actually making this impact by doing so? And how many babies are going to be getting possibly extra treatment that they don’t need?”

Regardless, what’s clear is that treatment is essential – for mother and infant, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It needs to start, he said, by making sure all mothers know their HIV status and have access early in pregnancy to the treatment that can prevent transmission.

“So much of what’s wrong in the world is about implementation of health care,” he said in an interview. Still, “if you could demonstrate that early treatment to the mother plus early treatment to the babies [is efficacious], we could really talk about an HIV-free generation of kids.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Persaud, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Abrams, and Dr. Lyall all report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Correction, 2/16/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the number that tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.

This article was updated 2/16/22.

Hours after their births, 34 infants began a three-drug combination HIV treatment. Now, 2 years later, a third of those toddlers have tested negative for HIV antibodies and have no detectable HIV DNA in their blood. The children aren’t cured of HIV, but as many as 16 of them may be candidates to stop treatment and see if they are in fact in HIV remission.

If one or more are, it would be the first time since the Mississippi baby in 2013 that scientists have induced childhood HIV remission by beginning HIV treatment very early.    

At the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Deborah Persaud, MD, interim director of pediatric infectious diseases and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization that the evidence suggests that more U.S. clinicians should start infants at high risk for HIV on presumptive treatment – not only to potentially prevent transmission but also to set the child up for the lowest possible viral reservoir, the first step to HIV remission.

The three-drug preemptive treatment is “not uniformly practiced,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re at a point now where we don’t have to wait to see if we have remission” to act on these findings, she said. “The question is, should this now become standard of care for in-utero infected infants?” 

Every year, about 150 infants are born with HIV in the United States, according to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Current U.S. perinatal treatment guidelines already suggest either treatment with one or more HIV drugs at birth to attempt preventing transmission or initiating three-drug regimens for infants at high risk for perinatally acquired HIV. In this case “high risk” is defined as infants born to:

• people who haven’t received any HIV treatment before delivery or during delivery,
• people who did receive treatment but failed to achieve undetectable viral loads, or
• people who acquire HIV during pregnancy, or who otherwise weren’t diagnosed until after birth.

Trying to replicate the Mississippi baby

The Mississippi baby did eventually relapse. But ever since Dr. Persaud reported the case of that 2-year-old who went into treatment-free remission in 2013, she has been trying to figure out how to duplicate that initial success. There were several factors in that remission, but one piece researchers could control was starting treatment very early – before HIV blood tests even come back positive. So, in this trial, researchers enrolled 440 infants in Africa and Asia at high risk for in utero HIV transmission.

All 440 of those infants received their first doses of the three-drug preemptive treatment within 24 hours of birth. Of those 440 infants, 34 tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.*

Meanwhile, in North America, South America, and African countries, another 20 infants enrolled in the trial – not as part of the protocol but because their clinicians had been influenced by the news of the Mississippi baby, Dr. Persaud said, and decided on their own to start high-risk infants on three-drug regimens preemptively.

“We wanted to take advantage of those real-world situations of infants being treated outside the clinical trials,” Dr. Persaud said.

Now there were 54 infants trying this very early treatment. In Cohort One, they started their first drug cocktail 7 hours after delivery. In Cohort Two, their first antiretroviral combination treatment was at 32.8 hours of life, and they enrolled in the trial at 8 days. Then researchers followed the infants closely, adding on lopinavir and ritonavir when age-appropriate.
 

Meeting milestones

To continue in the trial and be considered for treatment interruption, infants had to meet certain milestones. At 24 weeks, HIV RNA needed to be below 200 copies per milliliter. Then their HIV RNA needed to stay below 200 copies consistently until week 48. At week 48, they had to have an HIV RNA that was even lower – below 20 or 40 copies – with “target not detected” in the test in HIV RNA. That’s a sign that there weren’t even any trace levels of viral nucleic acid RNA in the blood to indicate HIV. Then, from week 48 on, they had to maintain that level of viral suppression until age 2.

At that point, not only did they need to maintain that level of viral suppression, they also needed to have a negative HIV antibody test and a PCR test for total HIV DNA, which had to be undetectable down to the limit of 4 copies per 106 – that is, there were fewer than 4 copies of the virus out of 1 million cells tested. Only then would they be considered for treatment interruption.

“After week 28 there was no leeway,” Dr. Persaud said. Then “they had to have nothing detectable from the first year of age. We thought the best shot at remission were cases that achieved very good and strict virologic control.”

 

Criteria for consideration

Of the 34 infants in Cohort One, 24 infants made it past the first hurdle at 24 weeks and 6 had PCR tests that found no cell-associated HIV DNA. In Cohort Two, 15 made it past the week-24 hurdle and 4 had no detectable HIV DNA via PCR test.

Now, more than 2 years out from study initiation, Dr. Persaud and colleagues are evaluating each child to see if any still meet the requirements for treatment interruption. The COVID-19 pandemic has delayed their evaluations, and it’s possible that fewer children now meet the requirements. But Dr. Persaud said there are still candidates left. An analysis suggests that up to 30% of the children, or 16, were candidates at 2 years.

“We have kids who are eligible for [antiretroviral therapy] cessation years out from this, which I think is really important,” she said in an interview. “It’s not game over.”

And although 30% is not an overwhelming victory, Dr. Persaud said the team’s goal was “to identify an N of 1 to replicate the Mississippi baby.” The study team, led by Ellen Chadwick, MD, of Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, and a member of the board that creates HIV perinatal treatment guidelines, is starting a new trial, using more modern, integrase inhibitor-based, three-drug regimens for infants and pairing them with broadly neutralizing antibodies. The combination used in this trial included zidovudine, or AZT.

If one of the children is able to go off treatment, it would be the first step toward creating a functional cure for HIV, starting with the youngest people affected by the virus.  

“This trial convinces me that very early treatment was the key strategy that led to remission in the Mississippi baby,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re confirming here that the first step toward remission and cure is reducing reservoirs. We’ve got that here. Whether we need more on top of that – therapeutic vaccines, immunotherapies, or a better regimen to start out with – needs to be determined.”

The presentation was met with excitement and questions. For instance, if very early treatment works, why does it work for just 30% of the children?

Were some of the children able to control HIV on their own because they were rare post-treatment controllers? And was 30% really a victory? Others were convinced of it.

“Amazing outcome to have 30% so well suppressed after 2 years with CA-DNA not detected,” commented Hermione Lyall, MBChB, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in the United Kingdom, in the virtual chat.

As for whether the study should change practice, Elaine Abrams, MD, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and CROI cochair, said that this study proves that the three-drug regimen is at the very least safe to start immediately.

Whether it should become standard of care everywhere is still up for discussion, she told this news organization.

“It very much depends on what you’re trying to achieve,” she said. “Postnatal prophylaxis is provided to reduce the risk of acquiring infection. That’s a different objective than early treatment. If you have 1,000 high-risk babies, how many are likely to turn out to have HIV infection? And how many of those will you be treating with three drugs and actually making this impact by doing so? And how many babies are going to be getting possibly extra treatment that they don’t need?”

Regardless, what’s clear is that treatment is essential – for mother and infant, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It needs to start, he said, by making sure all mothers know their HIV status and have access early in pregnancy to the treatment that can prevent transmission.

“So much of what’s wrong in the world is about implementation of health care,” he said in an interview. Still, “if you could demonstrate that early treatment to the mother plus early treatment to the babies [is efficacious], we could really talk about an HIV-free generation of kids.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Persaud, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Abrams, and Dr. Lyall all report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Correction, 2/16/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the number that tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.

This article was updated 2/16/22.

Hours after their births, 34 infants began a three-drug combination HIV treatment. Now, 2 years later, a third of those toddlers have tested negative for HIV antibodies and have no detectable HIV DNA in their blood. The children aren’t cured of HIV, but as many as 16 of them may be candidates to stop treatment and see if they are in fact in HIV remission.

If one or more are, it would be the first time since the Mississippi baby in 2013 that scientists have induced childhood HIV remission by beginning HIV treatment very early.    

At the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Deborah Persaud, MD, interim director of pediatric infectious diseases and professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization that the evidence suggests that more U.S. clinicians should start infants at high risk for HIV on presumptive treatment – not only to potentially prevent transmission but also to set the child up for the lowest possible viral reservoir, the first step to HIV remission.

The three-drug preemptive treatment is “not uniformly practiced,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re at a point now where we don’t have to wait to see if we have remission” to act on these findings, she said. “The question is, should this now become standard of care for in-utero infected infants?” 

Every year, about 150 infants are born with HIV in the United States, according to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation. Current U.S. perinatal treatment guidelines already suggest either treatment with one or more HIV drugs at birth to attempt preventing transmission or initiating three-drug regimens for infants at high risk for perinatally acquired HIV. In this case “high risk” is defined as infants born to:

• people who haven’t received any HIV treatment before delivery or during delivery,
• people who did receive treatment but failed to achieve undetectable viral loads, or
• people who acquire HIV during pregnancy, or who otherwise weren’t diagnosed until after birth.

Trying to replicate the Mississippi baby

The Mississippi baby did eventually relapse. But ever since Dr. Persaud reported the case of that 2-year-old who went into treatment-free remission in 2013, she has been trying to figure out how to duplicate that initial success. There were several factors in that remission, but one piece researchers could control was starting treatment very early – before HIV blood tests even come back positive. So, in this trial, researchers enrolled 440 infants in Africa and Asia at high risk for in utero HIV transmission.

All 440 of those infants received their first doses of the three-drug preemptive treatment within 24 hours of birth. Of those 440 infants, 34 tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.*

Meanwhile, in North America, South America, and African countries, another 20 infants enrolled in the trial – not as part of the protocol but because their clinicians had been influenced by the news of the Mississippi baby, Dr. Persaud said, and decided on their own to start high-risk infants on three-drug regimens preemptively.

“We wanted to take advantage of those real-world situations of infants being treated outside the clinical trials,” Dr. Persaud said.

Now there were 54 infants trying this very early treatment. In Cohort One, they started their first drug cocktail 7 hours after delivery. In Cohort Two, their first antiretroviral combination treatment was at 32.8 hours of life, and they enrolled in the trial at 8 days. Then researchers followed the infants closely, adding on lopinavir and ritonavir when age-appropriate.
 

Meeting milestones

To continue in the trial and be considered for treatment interruption, infants had to meet certain milestones. At 24 weeks, HIV RNA needed to be below 200 copies per milliliter. Then their HIV RNA needed to stay below 200 copies consistently until week 48. At week 48, they had to have an HIV RNA that was even lower – below 20 or 40 copies – with “target not detected” in the test in HIV RNA. That’s a sign that there weren’t even any trace levels of viral nucleic acid RNA in the blood to indicate HIV. Then, from week 48 on, they had to maintain that level of viral suppression until age 2.

At that point, not only did they need to maintain that level of viral suppression, they also needed to have a negative HIV antibody test and a PCR test for total HIV DNA, which had to be undetectable down to the limit of 4 copies per 106 – that is, there were fewer than 4 copies of the virus out of 1 million cells tested. Only then would they be considered for treatment interruption.

“After week 28 there was no leeway,” Dr. Persaud said. Then “they had to have nothing detectable from the first year of age. We thought the best shot at remission were cases that achieved very good and strict virologic control.”

 

Criteria for consideration

Of the 34 infants in Cohort One, 24 infants made it past the first hurdle at 24 weeks and 6 had PCR tests that found no cell-associated HIV DNA. In Cohort Two, 15 made it past the week-24 hurdle and 4 had no detectable HIV DNA via PCR test.

Now, more than 2 years out from study initiation, Dr. Persaud and colleagues are evaluating each child to see if any still meet the requirements for treatment interruption. The COVID-19 pandemic has delayed their evaluations, and it’s possible that fewer children now meet the requirements. But Dr. Persaud said there are still candidates left. An analysis suggests that up to 30% of the children, or 16, were candidates at 2 years.

“We have kids who are eligible for [antiretroviral therapy] cessation years out from this, which I think is really important,” she said in an interview. “It’s not game over.”

And although 30% is not an overwhelming victory, Dr. Persaud said the team’s goal was “to identify an N of 1 to replicate the Mississippi baby.” The study team, led by Ellen Chadwick, MD, of Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, and a member of the board that creates HIV perinatal treatment guidelines, is starting a new trial, using more modern, integrase inhibitor-based, three-drug regimens for infants and pairing them with broadly neutralizing antibodies. The combination used in this trial included zidovudine, or AZT.

If one of the children is able to go off treatment, it would be the first step toward creating a functional cure for HIV, starting with the youngest people affected by the virus.  

“This trial convinces me that very early treatment was the key strategy that led to remission in the Mississippi baby,” Dr. Persaud said in an interview. “We’re confirming here that the first step toward remission and cure is reducing reservoirs. We’ve got that here. Whether we need more on top of that – therapeutic vaccines, immunotherapies, or a better regimen to start out with – needs to be determined.”

The presentation was met with excitement and questions. For instance, if very early treatment works, why does it work for just 30% of the children?

Were some of the children able to control HIV on their own because they were rare post-treatment controllers? And was 30% really a victory? Others were convinced of it.

“Amazing outcome to have 30% so well suppressed after 2 years with CA-DNA not detected,” commented Hermione Lyall, MBChB, a pediatric infectious disease doctor at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in the United Kingdom, in the virtual chat.

As for whether the study should change practice, Elaine Abrams, MD, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and CROI cochair, said that this study proves that the three-drug regimen is at the very least safe to start immediately.

Whether it should become standard of care everywhere is still up for discussion, she told this news organization.

“It very much depends on what you’re trying to achieve,” she said. “Postnatal prophylaxis is provided to reduce the risk of acquiring infection. That’s a different objective than early treatment. If you have 1,000 high-risk babies, how many are likely to turn out to have HIV infection? And how many of those will you be treating with three drugs and actually making this impact by doing so? And how many babies are going to be getting possibly extra treatment that they don’t need?”

Regardless, what’s clear is that treatment is essential – for mother and infant, said Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It needs to start, he said, by making sure all mothers know their HIV status and have access early in pregnancy to the treatment that can prevent transmission.

“So much of what’s wrong in the world is about implementation of health care,” he said in an interview. Still, “if you could demonstrate that early treatment to the mother plus early treatment to the babies [is efficacious], we could really talk about an HIV-free generation of kids.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Persaud, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Abrams, and Dr. Lyall all report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Correction, 2/16/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the number that tested positive for HIV and remained in the trial.

This article was updated 2/16/22.

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.

“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, the quality of antibody performance increases following infection but not after vaccination,” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.

This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.

One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.

This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”

The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.

An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

A focus on earlier strains

Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.

The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.

To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.

They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.

These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.

Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
 

Protection linked to obesity

Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.

There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m².

This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.

“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

Before the boosters

Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Again, not the current situation.”

“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.

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

It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.

“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, the quality of antibody performance increases following infection but not after vaccination,” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.

This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.

One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.

This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”

The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.

An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

A focus on earlier strains

Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.

The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.

To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.

They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.

These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.

Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
 

Protection linked to obesity

Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.

There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m².

This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.

“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

Before the boosters

Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Again, not the current situation.”

“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.

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

It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.

“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, the quality of antibody performance increases following infection but not after vaccination,” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.

This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.

One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.

This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”

The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.

An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

A focus on earlier strains

Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.

The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.

To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.

They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.

These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.

Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
 

Protection linked to obesity

Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.

There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m².

This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.

“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

Before the boosters

Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Again, not the current situation.”

“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.

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

In a first, a middle-aged woman has been in remission from HIV for 14 months after being treated for leukemia with transplants of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood. If she remains off treatment without any hint of HIV, she would be only the third person in the world – after the Berlin Patient and the London Patient – to be cured through a transplant.

“Her own virus could not infect her cells,” said Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which both presenters and the audience attended remotely.

The middle-aged New York woman of mixed race, who has asked that her specific race and age not be shared to protect her privacy, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 when she was still in the very early stages of infection. She started treatment immediately and quickly achieved an undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load not only prevents someone from transmitting HIV to others but also reduces or eliminates HIV replication, which means fewer variants and less time for the virus to infiltrate cells where it can hide.

But in 2017, she was diagnosed with leukemia. As a last resort to cure her of the cancer, she received a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood that closely matched her own and umbilical cord blood obtained from a cord blood bank. That particular sample of cord blood was selected for its genetic mutation against the CCR5 receptor on immune cells, CD4 T cells. That mutation makes the immune system resistant to HIV.

The two previous HIV cures, of Berlin Patient Timothy Ray Brown and London Patient Adam Castillejo, also used stem cell transplantation with a CCR5 mutation, but theirs were bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are more arduous than cord blood transplants, which are commonly used in pediatric cancer treatment.

In this case, the physicians treating her used both.

“This allows the adult cells to accelerate and grow up until the cord blood takes over,” said Dr. Bryson. During her presentation, Dr. Bryson pointed to two types of data: First, she presented data showing the level of HIV in the patient’s blood. Soon after HIV diagnosis and treatment, her viral load dropped to undetectable levels. She had a spike of virus when she received the transplant, but then it went back to undetectable and has stayed that way ever since.

Meanwhile, following the transplant, her immune system started rebuilding itself using the new, HIV-resistant cells provided in the transplant. As her care team watched, no graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, a common side effect of stem cell transplants, emerged. In fact, the transplant went so well that she was discharged early from the hospital.

One hundred days after the transplant, the immune system contained within the cord blood had taken over. Her CD4 immune cells returned to normal levels a little more than a year after the transplant. By 27 months, she decided to stop all HIV treatment to see if the transplant had worked.

This was the real test. But as Dr. Bryson and colleagues continued to watch her HIV viral load and her CD4 counts and search for infectious virus, they didn’t find any. She tested negative for HIV by antibody test. Dr. Bryson grew 75 million of her cells in a lab to look for any HIV. None. Aside from one blip in detectable HIV DNA at 14 weeks, researchers never found HIV in the patient again.

“Her cells are resistant to HIV now – both her own strains and laboratory strains,” Dr. Bryson told this news organization. “It’s been 14 months since then. She has no rebound and no detectable virus.”

The presentation drew as raucous as praise gets in a virtual environment. The comments began pouring in.

“Impressive results,” wrote Jim Hoxie, MD, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Exciting case,” wrote Allison Agwu, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

And Dennis Copertino, a research specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote: “Thank you so much for translating this important cure strategy to people of color.”

Most donors with CCR5 mutations are White, Dr. Bryson said, suggesting that this approach, in a mixed-race woman, could expand the pool of people living with HIV and cancer who are good candidates for the approach.

But other observers had questions, ones that may require more research to answer. Some asked why this woman’s virus, after transplantation, wasn’t just immune to viruses with CCR5 but also another variant, called CXCR4, that one wouldn’t expect. Luis Montaner, DVM, director of the Immunopathogenesis Laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, wondered whether it was more than the blood that had cleared HIV. Did it get into the tissue, too? That question has not yet been answered.

For Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the lack of GVH disease was a powerful and hopeful finding.

“There’s been this ongoing hypothesis that maybe graft-versus-host disease was needed at some level to help clear out every last single CD4+ T cell that may or may not have been harboring replication-competent virus,” Dr. Dieffenbach said in an interview. “But there was no GVH disease. That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now the challenge is to move from a single case to making cure available to other people living with HIV.

The case also got cure researchers thinking.

Dr. Montaner called the case “an encouraging roadmap supporting anti-CCR5 strategies by CRISPR Cas9,” studies that are now underway.

Steven Deeks, MD, called the case “perhaps a model for how we might do this using a person’s own cells. Because we were never really going to be transplanting cells from another person as a scalable cure.”

For people living with HIV, particularly women of color, the results raise hopes and questions. Nina Martinez knows something about being a “first.” In 2019, she was the first American woman of color living with HIV to donate a kidney to another person living with the virus. To her, the excitement over the first woman of color being cured of HIV just shines a light on how very White and male HIV cure studies have been until now.

“For me, I’m not looking for a cure in which the successful step forward is me getting cancer,” she said in an interview. “I’m looking at, what’s going to be sustainable? I want to know what’s going to work for a group of people.”

Gina Marie Brown, a social worker living with HIV in New Orleans, is also thinking of groups of people.

“Every time we get a breakthrough, it’s like the sun is taken from behind the clouds a little more,” said Ms. Brown. “I think about people in the South, who bear a huge burden of HIV. I think about trans women. I think about Black women, and gay, bisexual, and same-gender-loving men. This could really impact HIV – in the same way that PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] has, the same way that one pill once a day has.”

When Ms. Brown was diagnosed with HIV 22 years ago, she started to plan her funeral.

“That’s how much I thought HIV was a death sentence,” she told this news organization. “Oh my goodness! Glad you stuck around, Gina.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bryson, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Deeks, and Dr. Montaner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a first, a middle-aged woman has been in remission from HIV for 14 months after being treated for leukemia with transplants of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood. If she remains off treatment without any hint of HIV, she would be only the third person in the world – after the Berlin Patient and the London Patient – to be cured through a transplant.

“Her own virus could not infect her cells,” said Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which both presenters and the audience attended remotely.

The middle-aged New York woman of mixed race, who has asked that her specific race and age not be shared to protect her privacy, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 when she was still in the very early stages of infection. She started treatment immediately and quickly achieved an undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load not only prevents someone from transmitting HIV to others but also reduces or eliminates HIV replication, which means fewer variants and less time for the virus to infiltrate cells where it can hide.

But in 2017, she was diagnosed with leukemia. As a last resort to cure her of the cancer, she received a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood that closely matched her own and umbilical cord blood obtained from a cord blood bank. That particular sample of cord blood was selected for its genetic mutation against the CCR5 receptor on immune cells, CD4 T cells. That mutation makes the immune system resistant to HIV.

The two previous HIV cures, of Berlin Patient Timothy Ray Brown and London Patient Adam Castillejo, also used stem cell transplantation with a CCR5 mutation, but theirs were bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are more arduous than cord blood transplants, which are commonly used in pediatric cancer treatment.

In this case, the physicians treating her used both.

“This allows the adult cells to accelerate and grow up until the cord blood takes over,” said Dr. Bryson. During her presentation, Dr. Bryson pointed to two types of data: First, she presented data showing the level of HIV in the patient’s blood. Soon after HIV diagnosis and treatment, her viral load dropped to undetectable levels. She had a spike of virus when she received the transplant, but then it went back to undetectable and has stayed that way ever since.

Meanwhile, following the transplant, her immune system started rebuilding itself using the new, HIV-resistant cells provided in the transplant. As her care team watched, no graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, a common side effect of stem cell transplants, emerged. In fact, the transplant went so well that she was discharged early from the hospital.

One hundred days after the transplant, the immune system contained within the cord blood had taken over. Her CD4 immune cells returned to normal levels a little more than a year after the transplant. By 27 months, she decided to stop all HIV treatment to see if the transplant had worked.

This was the real test. But as Dr. Bryson and colleagues continued to watch her HIV viral load and her CD4 counts and search for infectious virus, they didn’t find any. She tested negative for HIV by antibody test. Dr. Bryson grew 75 million of her cells in a lab to look for any HIV. None. Aside from one blip in detectable HIV DNA at 14 weeks, researchers never found HIV in the patient again.

“Her cells are resistant to HIV now – both her own strains and laboratory strains,” Dr. Bryson told this news organization. “It’s been 14 months since then. She has no rebound and no detectable virus.”

The presentation drew as raucous as praise gets in a virtual environment. The comments began pouring in.

“Impressive results,” wrote Jim Hoxie, MD, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Exciting case,” wrote Allison Agwu, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

And Dennis Copertino, a research specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote: “Thank you so much for translating this important cure strategy to people of color.”

Most donors with CCR5 mutations are White, Dr. Bryson said, suggesting that this approach, in a mixed-race woman, could expand the pool of people living with HIV and cancer who are good candidates for the approach.

But other observers had questions, ones that may require more research to answer. Some asked why this woman’s virus, after transplantation, wasn’t just immune to viruses with CCR5 but also another variant, called CXCR4, that one wouldn’t expect. Luis Montaner, DVM, director of the Immunopathogenesis Laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, wondered whether it was more than the blood that had cleared HIV. Did it get into the tissue, too? That question has not yet been answered.

For Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the lack of GVH disease was a powerful and hopeful finding.

“There’s been this ongoing hypothesis that maybe graft-versus-host disease was needed at some level to help clear out every last single CD4+ T cell that may or may not have been harboring replication-competent virus,” Dr. Dieffenbach said in an interview. “But there was no GVH disease. That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now the challenge is to move from a single case to making cure available to other people living with HIV.

The case also got cure researchers thinking.

Dr. Montaner called the case “an encouraging roadmap supporting anti-CCR5 strategies by CRISPR Cas9,” studies that are now underway.

Steven Deeks, MD, called the case “perhaps a model for how we might do this using a person’s own cells. Because we were never really going to be transplanting cells from another person as a scalable cure.”

For people living with HIV, particularly women of color, the results raise hopes and questions. Nina Martinez knows something about being a “first.” In 2019, she was the first American woman of color living with HIV to donate a kidney to another person living with the virus. To her, the excitement over the first woman of color being cured of HIV just shines a light on how very White and male HIV cure studies have been until now.

“For me, I’m not looking for a cure in which the successful step forward is me getting cancer,” she said in an interview. “I’m looking at, what’s going to be sustainable? I want to know what’s going to work for a group of people.”

Gina Marie Brown, a social worker living with HIV in New Orleans, is also thinking of groups of people.

“Every time we get a breakthrough, it’s like the sun is taken from behind the clouds a little more,” said Ms. Brown. “I think about people in the South, who bear a huge burden of HIV. I think about trans women. I think about Black women, and gay, bisexual, and same-gender-loving men. This could really impact HIV – in the same way that PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] has, the same way that one pill once a day has.”

When Ms. Brown was diagnosed with HIV 22 years ago, she started to plan her funeral.

“That’s how much I thought HIV was a death sentence,” she told this news organization. “Oh my goodness! Glad you stuck around, Gina.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bryson, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Deeks, and Dr. Montaner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a first, a middle-aged woman has been in remission from HIV for 14 months after being treated for leukemia with transplants of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood. If she remains off treatment without any hint of HIV, she would be only the third person in the world – after the Berlin Patient and the London Patient – to be cured through a transplant.

“Her own virus could not infect her cells,” said Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which both presenters and the audience attended remotely.

The middle-aged New York woman of mixed race, who has asked that her specific race and age not be shared to protect her privacy, was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 when she was still in the very early stages of infection. She started treatment immediately and quickly achieved an undetectable viral load. An undetectable viral load not only prevents someone from transmitting HIV to others but also reduces or eliminates HIV replication, which means fewer variants and less time for the virus to infiltrate cells where it can hide.

But in 2017, she was diagnosed with leukemia. As a last resort to cure her of the cancer, she received a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood that closely matched her own and umbilical cord blood obtained from a cord blood bank. That particular sample of cord blood was selected for its genetic mutation against the CCR5 receptor on immune cells, CD4 T cells. That mutation makes the immune system resistant to HIV.

The two previous HIV cures, of Berlin Patient Timothy Ray Brown and London Patient Adam Castillejo, also used stem cell transplantation with a CCR5 mutation, but theirs were bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow transplants are more arduous than cord blood transplants, which are commonly used in pediatric cancer treatment.

In this case, the physicians treating her used both.

“This allows the adult cells to accelerate and grow up until the cord blood takes over,” said Dr. Bryson. During her presentation, Dr. Bryson pointed to two types of data: First, she presented data showing the level of HIV in the patient’s blood. Soon after HIV diagnosis and treatment, her viral load dropped to undetectable levels. She had a spike of virus when she received the transplant, but then it went back to undetectable and has stayed that way ever since.

Meanwhile, following the transplant, her immune system started rebuilding itself using the new, HIV-resistant cells provided in the transplant. As her care team watched, no graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, a common side effect of stem cell transplants, emerged. In fact, the transplant went so well that she was discharged early from the hospital.

One hundred days after the transplant, the immune system contained within the cord blood had taken over. Her CD4 immune cells returned to normal levels a little more than a year after the transplant. By 27 months, she decided to stop all HIV treatment to see if the transplant had worked.

This was the real test. But as Dr. Bryson and colleagues continued to watch her HIV viral load and her CD4 counts and search for infectious virus, they didn’t find any. She tested negative for HIV by antibody test. Dr. Bryson grew 75 million of her cells in a lab to look for any HIV. None. Aside from one blip in detectable HIV DNA at 14 weeks, researchers never found HIV in the patient again.

“Her cells are resistant to HIV now – both her own strains and laboratory strains,” Dr. Bryson told this news organization. “It’s been 14 months since then. She has no rebound and no detectable virus.”

The presentation drew as raucous as praise gets in a virtual environment. The comments began pouring in.

“Impressive results,” wrote Jim Hoxie, MD, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Exciting case,” wrote Allison Agwu, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

And Dennis Copertino, a research specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote: “Thank you so much for translating this important cure strategy to people of color.”

Most donors with CCR5 mutations are White, Dr. Bryson said, suggesting that this approach, in a mixed-race woman, could expand the pool of people living with HIV and cancer who are good candidates for the approach.

But other observers had questions, ones that may require more research to answer. Some asked why this woman’s virus, after transplantation, wasn’t just immune to viruses with CCR5 but also another variant, called CXCR4, that one wouldn’t expect. Luis Montaner, DVM, director of the Immunopathogenesis Laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, wondered whether it was more than the blood that had cleared HIV. Did it get into the tissue, too? That question has not yet been answered.

For Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the lack of GVH disease was a powerful and hopeful finding.

“There’s been this ongoing hypothesis that maybe graft-versus-host disease was needed at some level to help clear out every last single CD4+ T cell that may or may not have been harboring replication-competent virus,” Dr. Dieffenbach said in an interview. “But there was no GVH disease. That’s incredible. It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now the challenge is to move from a single case to making cure available to other people living with HIV.

The case also got cure researchers thinking.

Dr. Montaner called the case “an encouraging roadmap supporting anti-CCR5 strategies by CRISPR Cas9,” studies that are now underway.

Steven Deeks, MD, called the case “perhaps a model for how we might do this using a person’s own cells. Because we were never really going to be transplanting cells from another person as a scalable cure.”

For people living with HIV, particularly women of color, the results raise hopes and questions. Nina Martinez knows something about being a “first.” In 2019, she was the first American woman of color living with HIV to donate a kidney to another person living with the virus. To her, the excitement over the first woman of color being cured of HIV just shines a light on how very White and male HIV cure studies have been until now.

“For me, I’m not looking for a cure in which the successful step forward is me getting cancer,” she said in an interview. “I’m looking at, what’s going to be sustainable? I want to know what’s going to work for a group of people.”

Gina Marie Brown, a social worker living with HIV in New Orleans, is also thinking of groups of people.

“Every time we get a breakthrough, it’s like the sun is taken from behind the clouds a little more,” said Ms. Brown. “I think about people in the South, who bear a huge burden of HIV. I think about trans women. I think about Black women, and gay, bisexual, and same-gender-loving men. This could really impact HIV – in the same way that PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] has, the same way that one pill once a day has.”

When Ms. Brown was diagnosed with HIV 22 years ago, she started to plan her funeral.

“That’s how much I thought HIV was a death sentence,” she told this news organization. “Oh my goodness! Glad you stuck around, Gina.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bryson, Dr. Dieffenbach, Dr. Deeks, and Dr. Montaner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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