Neurology Reviews

Influenza infection is linked to a subsequent diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease (PD) more than 10 years later, resurfacing a long-held debate about whether infection increases the risk for movement disorders over the long term.

In a large case-control study, investigators found the odds of PD were elevated by approximately 90% for PD that occurred more than 15 years after influenza infection and by more than 70% for PD occurring more than 10 years after the flu.

“This study is not definitive by any means, but it certainly suggests there are potential long-term consequences from influenza,” study investigator Noelle M. Cocoros, DSc, research scientist at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The study was published online Oct. 25 in JAMA Neurology.

Ongoing debate

The debate about whether influenza is associated with PD has been going on as far back as the 1918 influenza pandemic, when experts documented parkinsonism in affected individuals.

Using data from the Danish patient registry, researchers identified 10,271 subjects diagnosed with PD during a 17-year period (2000-2016). Of these, 38.7% were female, and the mean age was 71.4 years.

They matched these subjects for age and sex to 51,355 controls without PD. Compared with controls, slightly fewer individuals with PD had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema, but there was a similar distribution of cardiovascular disease and various other conditions.

Researchers collected data on influenza diagnoses from inpatient and outpatient hospital clinics from 1977 to 2016. They plotted these by month and year on a graph, calculated the median number of diagnoses per month, and identified peaks as those with more than threefold the median.

They categorized cases in groups related to the time between the infection and PD: More than 10 years, 10-15 years, and more than 15 years.

The time lapse accounts for a rather long “run-up” to PD, said Dr. Cocoros. There’s a sometimes decades-long preclinical phase before patients develop typical motor signs and a prodromal phase where they may present with nonmotor symptoms such as sleep disorders and constipation.

“We expected there would be at least 10 years between any infection and PD if there was an association present,” said Dr. Cocoros.

Investigators found an association between influenza exposure and PD diagnosis “that held up over time,” she said.

For more than 10 years before PD, the likelihood of a diagnosis for the infected compared with the unexposed was increased 73% (odds ratio [OR] 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.71; P = .02) after adjustment for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, lung cancer, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

The odds increased with more time from infection. For more than 15 years, the adjusted OR was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.14 - 3.19; P =.01).

However, for the 10- to 15-year time frame, the point estimate was reduced and the CI nonsignificant (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.54-3.27; P = .53). This “is a little hard to interpret,” but could be a result of the small numbers, exposure misclassification, or because “the longer time interval is what’s meaningful,” said Dr. Cocoros.
 

Potential COVID-19–related PD surge?

In a sensitivity analysis, researchers looked at peak infection activity. “We wanted to increase the likelihood of these diagnoses representing actual infection,” Dr. Cocoros noted.

Here, the OR was still elevated at more than 10 years, but the CI was quite wide and included 1 (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.80-2.89; P = .21). “So the association holds up, but the estimates are quite unstable,” said Dr. Cocoros.

Researchers examined associations with numerous other infection types, but did not see the same trend over time. Some infections – for example, gastrointestinal infections and septicemia – were associated with PD within 5 years, but most associations appeared to be null after more than 10 years.

“There seemed to be associations earlier between the infection and PD, which we interpret to suggest there’s actually not a meaningful association,” said Dr. Cocoros.

An exception might be urinary tract infections (UTIs), where after 10 years, the adjusted OR was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.01-1.40). Research suggests patients with PD often have UTIs and neurogenic bladder.

“It’s possible that UTIs could be an early symptom of PD rather than a causative factor,” said Dr. Cocoros.

It’s unclear how influenza might lead to PD but it could be that the virus gets into the central nervous system, resulting in neuroinflammation. Cytokines generated in response to the influenza infection might damage the brain.

“The infection could be a ‘primer’ or an initial ‘hit’ to the system, maybe setting people up for PD,” said Dr. Cocoros.

As for the current COVID-19 pandemic, some experts are concerned about a potential surge in PD cases in decades to come, and are calling for prospective monitoring of patients with this infection, said Dr. Cocoros.

However, she noted that infections don’t account for all PD cases and that genetic and environmental factors also influence risk.

Many individuals who contract influenza don’t seek medical care or get tested, so it’s possible the study counted those who had the infection as unexposed. Another potential study limitation was that small numbers for some infections, for example, Helicobacter pylori and hepatitis C, limited the ability to interpret results.
 

‘Exciting and important’ findings

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Aparna Wagle Shukla, MD, professor, Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, said the results amid the current pandemic are “exciting and important” and “have reinvigorated interest” in the role of infection in PD.

However, the study had some limitations, an important one being lack of accounting for confounding factors, including environmental factors, she said. Exposure to pesticides, living in a rural area, drinking well water, and having had a head injury may increase PD risk, whereas high intake of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs might lower the risk.

The researchers did not take into account exposure to multiple microbes or “infection burden,” said Dr. Wagle Shukla, who was not involved in the current study. In addition, as the data are from a single country with exposure to specific influenza strains, application of the findings elsewhere may be limited.

Dr. Wagle Shukla noted that a case-control design “isn’t ideal” from an epidemiological perspective. “Future studies should involve large cohorts followed longitudinally.”

The study was supported by grants from the Lundbeck Foundation and the Augustinus Foundation. Dr. Cocoros has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have disclosed relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

Influenza infection is linked to a subsequent diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease (PD) more than 10 years later, resurfacing a long-held debate about whether infection increases the risk for movement disorders over the long term.

In a large case-control study, investigators found the odds of PD were elevated by approximately 90% for PD that occurred more than 15 years after influenza infection and by more than 70% for PD occurring more than 10 years after the flu.

“This study is not definitive by any means, but it certainly suggests there are potential long-term consequences from influenza,” study investigator Noelle M. Cocoros, DSc, research scientist at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The study was published online Oct. 25 in JAMA Neurology.

Ongoing debate

The debate about whether influenza is associated with PD has been going on as far back as the 1918 influenza pandemic, when experts documented parkinsonism in affected individuals.

Using data from the Danish patient registry, researchers identified 10,271 subjects diagnosed with PD during a 17-year period (2000-2016). Of these, 38.7% were female, and the mean age was 71.4 years.

They matched these subjects for age and sex to 51,355 controls without PD. Compared with controls, slightly fewer individuals with PD had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema, but there was a similar distribution of cardiovascular disease and various other conditions.

Researchers collected data on influenza diagnoses from inpatient and outpatient hospital clinics from 1977 to 2016. They plotted these by month and year on a graph, calculated the median number of diagnoses per month, and identified peaks as those with more than threefold the median.

They categorized cases in groups related to the time between the infection and PD: More than 10 years, 10-15 years, and more than 15 years.

The time lapse accounts for a rather long “run-up” to PD, said Dr. Cocoros. There’s a sometimes decades-long preclinical phase before patients develop typical motor signs and a prodromal phase where they may present with nonmotor symptoms such as sleep disorders and constipation.

“We expected there would be at least 10 years between any infection and PD if there was an association present,” said Dr. Cocoros.

Investigators found an association between influenza exposure and PD diagnosis “that held up over time,” she said.

For more than 10 years before PD, the likelihood of a diagnosis for the infected compared with the unexposed was increased 73% (odds ratio [OR] 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.71; P = .02) after adjustment for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, lung cancer, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

The odds increased with more time from infection. For more than 15 years, the adjusted OR was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.14 - 3.19; P =.01).

However, for the 10- to 15-year time frame, the point estimate was reduced and the CI nonsignificant (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.54-3.27; P = .53). This “is a little hard to interpret,” but could be a result of the small numbers, exposure misclassification, or because “the longer time interval is what’s meaningful,” said Dr. Cocoros.
 

Potential COVID-19–related PD surge?

In a sensitivity analysis, researchers looked at peak infection activity. “We wanted to increase the likelihood of these diagnoses representing actual infection,” Dr. Cocoros noted.

Here, the OR was still elevated at more than 10 years, but the CI was quite wide and included 1 (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.80-2.89; P = .21). “So the association holds up, but the estimates are quite unstable,” said Dr. Cocoros.

Researchers examined associations with numerous other infection types, but did not see the same trend over time. Some infections – for example, gastrointestinal infections and septicemia – were associated with PD within 5 years, but most associations appeared to be null after more than 10 years.

“There seemed to be associations earlier between the infection and PD, which we interpret to suggest there’s actually not a meaningful association,” said Dr. Cocoros.

An exception might be urinary tract infections (UTIs), where after 10 years, the adjusted OR was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.01-1.40). Research suggests patients with PD often have UTIs and neurogenic bladder.

“It’s possible that UTIs could be an early symptom of PD rather than a causative factor,” said Dr. Cocoros.

It’s unclear how influenza might lead to PD but it could be that the virus gets into the central nervous system, resulting in neuroinflammation. Cytokines generated in response to the influenza infection might damage the brain.

“The infection could be a ‘primer’ or an initial ‘hit’ to the system, maybe setting people up for PD,” said Dr. Cocoros.

As for the current COVID-19 pandemic, some experts are concerned about a potential surge in PD cases in decades to come, and are calling for prospective monitoring of patients with this infection, said Dr. Cocoros.

However, she noted that infections don’t account for all PD cases and that genetic and environmental factors also influence risk.

Many individuals who contract influenza don’t seek medical care or get tested, so it’s possible the study counted those who had the infection as unexposed. Another potential study limitation was that small numbers for some infections, for example, Helicobacter pylori and hepatitis C, limited the ability to interpret results.
 

‘Exciting and important’ findings

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Aparna Wagle Shukla, MD, professor, Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, said the results amid the current pandemic are “exciting and important” and “have reinvigorated interest” in the role of infection in PD.

However, the study had some limitations, an important one being lack of accounting for confounding factors, including environmental factors, she said. Exposure to pesticides, living in a rural area, drinking well water, and having had a head injury may increase PD risk, whereas high intake of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs might lower the risk.

The researchers did not take into account exposure to multiple microbes or “infection burden,” said Dr. Wagle Shukla, who was not involved in the current study. In addition, as the data are from a single country with exposure to specific influenza strains, application of the findings elsewhere may be limited.

Dr. Wagle Shukla noted that a case-control design “isn’t ideal” from an epidemiological perspective. “Future studies should involve large cohorts followed longitudinally.”

The study was supported by grants from the Lundbeck Foundation and the Augustinus Foundation. Dr. Cocoros has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have disclosed relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

Influenza infection is linked to a subsequent diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease (PD) more than 10 years later, resurfacing a long-held debate about whether infection increases the risk for movement disorders over the long term.

In a large case-control study, investigators found the odds of PD were elevated by approximately 90% for PD that occurred more than 15 years after influenza infection and by more than 70% for PD occurring more than 10 years after the flu.

“This study is not definitive by any means, but it certainly suggests there are potential long-term consequences from influenza,” study investigator Noelle M. Cocoros, DSc, research scientist at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The study was published online Oct. 25 in JAMA Neurology.

Ongoing debate

The debate about whether influenza is associated with PD has been going on as far back as the 1918 influenza pandemic, when experts documented parkinsonism in affected individuals.

Using data from the Danish patient registry, researchers identified 10,271 subjects diagnosed with PD during a 17-year period (2000-2016). Of these, 38.7% were female, and the mean age was 71.4 years.

They matched these subjects for age and sex to 51,355 controls without PD. Compared with controls, slightly fewer individuals with PD had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema, but there was a similar distribution of cardiovascular disease and various other conditions.

Researchers collected data on influenza diagnoses from inpatient and outpatient hospital clinics from 1977 to 2016. They plotted these by month and year on a graph, calculated the median number of diagnoses per month, and identified peaks as those with more than threefold the median.

They categorized cases in groups related to the time between the infection and PD: More than 10 years, 10-15 years, and more than 15 years.

The time lapse accounts for a rather long “run-up” to PD, said Dr. Cocoros. There’s a sometimes decades-long preclinical phase before patients develop typical motor signs and a prodromal phase where they may present with nonmotor symptoms such as sleep disorders and constipation.

“We expected there would be at least 10 years between any infection and PD if there was an association present,” said Dr. Cocoros.

Investigators found an association between influenza exposure and PD diagnosis “that held up over time,” she said.

For more than 10 years before PD, the likelihood of a diagnosis for the infected compared with the unexposed was increased 73% (odds ratio [OR] 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.71; P = .02) after adjustment for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, lung cancer, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.

The odds increased with more time from infection. For more than 15 years, the adjusted OR was 1.91 (95% CI, 1.14 - 3.19; P =.01).

However, for the 10- to 15-year time frame, the point estimate was reduced and the CI nonsignificant (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.54-3.27; P = .53). This “is a little hard to interpret,” but could be a result of the small numbers, exposure misclassification, or because “the longer time interval is what’s meaningful,” said Dr. Cocoros.
 

Potential COVID-19–related PD surge?

In a sensitivity analysis, researchers looked at peak infection activity. “We wanted to increase the likelihood of these diagnoses representing actual infection,” Dr. Cocoros noted.

Here, the OR was still elevated at more than 10 years, but the CI was quite wide and included 1 (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.80-2.89; P = .21). “So the association holds up, but the estimates are quite unstable,” said Dr. Cocoros.

Researchers examined associations with numerous other infection types, but did not see the same trend over time. Some infections – for example, gastrointestinal infections and septicemia – were associated with PD within 5 years, but most associations appeared to be null after more than 10 years.

“There seemed to be associations earlier between the infection and PD, which we interpret to suggest there’s actually not a meaningful association,” said Dr. Cocoros.

An exception might be urinary tract infections (UTIs), where after 10 years, the adjusted OR was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.01-1.40). Research suggests patients with PD often have UTIs and neurogenic bladder.

“It’s possible that UTIs could be an early symptom of PD rather than a causative factor,” said Dr. Cocoros.

It’s unclear how influenza might lead to PD but it could be that the virus gets into the central nervous system, resulting in neuroinflammation. Cytokines generated in response to the influenza infection might damage the brain.

“The infection could be a ‘primer’ or an initial ‘hit’ to the system, maybe setting people up for PD,” said Dr. Cocoros.

As for the current COVID-19 pandemic, some experts are concerned about a potential surge in PD cases in decades to come, and are calling for prospective monitoring of patients with this infection, said Dr. Cocoros.

However, she noted that infections don’t account for all PD cases and that genetic and environmental factors also influence risk.

Many individuals who contract influenza don’t seek medical care or get tested, so it’s possible the study counted those who had the infection as unexposed. Another potential study limitation was that small numbers for some infections, for example, Helicobacter pylori and hepatitis C, limited the ability to interpret results.
 

‘Exciting and important’ findings

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Aparna Wagle Shukla, MD, professor, Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, said the results amid the current pandemic are “exciting and important” and “have reinvigorated interest” in the role of infection in PD.

However, the study had some limitations, an important one being lack of accounting for confounding factors, including environmental factors, she said. Exposure to pesticides, living in a rural area, drinking well water, and having had a head injury may increase PD risk, whereas high intake of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs might lower the risk.

The researchers did not take into account exposure to multiple microbes or “infection burden,” said Dr. Wagle Shukla, who was not involved in the current study. In addition, as the data are from a single country with exposure to specific influenza strains, application of the findings elsewhere may be limited.

Dr. Wagle Shukla noted that a case-control design “isn’t ideal” from an epidemiological perspective. “Future studies should involve large cohorts followed longitudinally.”

The study was supported by grants from the Lundbeck Foundation and the Augustinus Foundation. Dr. Cocoros has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have disclosed relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis, said in an interview.

The study, published online Oct. 20, 2021, in the journal Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, AD, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of AD, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid-beta, a hallmark sign of AD.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University.

Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta 42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR greater than 0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of AD pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both).

The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta ₄₂ ratio, apo E four-allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of AD could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis, said in an interview.

The study, published online Oct. 20, 2021, in the journal Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, AD, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of AD, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid-beta, a hallmark sign of AD.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University.

Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta 42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR greater than 0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of AD pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both).

The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta ₄₂ ratio, apo E four-allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of AD could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis, said in an interview.

The study, published online Oct. 20, 2021, in the journal Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, AD, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of AD, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid-beta, a hallmark sign of AD.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University.

Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta 42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR greater than 0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of AD pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both).

The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta ₄₂ ratio, apo E four-allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of AD could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Inside the emergency department at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich., staff members are struggling to care for patients showing up much sicker than they’ve ever seen.

Tiffani Dusang, the ER’s nursing director, practically vibrates with pent-up anxiety, looking at patients lying on a long line of stretchers pushed up against the beige walls of the hospital hallways. “It’s hard to watch,” she said in a warm Texas twang.

But there’s nothing she can do. The ER’s 72 rooms are already filled.

“I always feel very, very bad when I walk down the hallway and see that people are in pain, or needing to sleep, or needing quiet. But they have to be in the hallway with, as you can see, 10 or 15 people walking by every minute,” Ms. Dusang said.

The scene is a stark contrast to where this emergency department — and thousands of others — were at the start of the pandemic. Except for initial hot spots like New York City, in spring 2020 many ERs across the country were often eerily empty. Terrified of contracting COVID-19, people who were sick with other things did their best to stay away from hospitals. Visits to emergency rooms dropped to half their typical levels, according to the Epic Health Research Network, and didn’t fully rebound until this summer.

But now, they’re too full. Even in parts of the country where covid isn’t overwhelming the health system, patients are showing up to the ER sicker than before the pandemic, their diseases more advanced and in need of more complicated care.

Months of treatment delays have exacerbated chronic conditions and worsened symptoms. Doctors and nurses say the severity of illness ranges widely and includes abdominal pain, respiratory problems, blood clots, heart conditions and suicide attempts, among other conditions.

But they can hardly be accommodated. Emergency departments, ideally, are meant to be brief ports in a storm, with patients staying just long enough to be sent home with instructions to follow up with primary care physicians, or sufficiently stabilized to be transferred “upstairs” to inpatient or intensive care units.

Except now those long-term care floors are full too, with a mix of covid and non-covid patients. People coming to the ER get warehoused for hours, even days, forcing ER staffers to perform long-term care roles they weren’t trained to do.

At Sparrow, space is a valuable commodity in the ER: A separate section of the hospital was turned into an overflow unit. Stretchers stack up in halls. A row of brown reclining chairs lines a wall, intended for patients who aren’t sick enough for a stretcher but are too sick to stay in the main waiting room.

Forget privacy, Alejos Perrientoz learned when he arrived. He came to the ER because his arm had been tingling and painful for over a week. He couldn’t hold a cup of coffee. A nurse gave him a full physical exam in a brown recliner, which made him self-conscious about having his shirt lifted in front of strangers. “I felt a little uncomfortable,” he whispered. “But I have no choice, you know? I’m in the hallway. There’s no rooms.

“We could have done the physical in the parking lot,” he added, managing a laugh.

Even patients who arrive by ambulance are not guaranteed a room: One nurse runs triage, screening those who absolutely need a bed, and those who can be put in the waiting area.

“I hate that we even have to make that determination,” MS. Dusang said. Lately, staff members have been pulling out some patients already in the ER’s rooms when others arrive who are more critically ill. “No one likes to take someone out of the privacy of their room and say, ‘We’re going to put you in a hallway because we need to get care to someone else.’”

ER patients have grown sicker

“We are hearing from members in every part of the country,” said Dr. Lisa Moreno, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. “The Midwest, the South, the Northeast, the West … they are seeing this exact same phenomenon.”

Although the number of ER visits returned to pre-COVID levels this summer, admission rates, from the ER to the hospital’s inpatient floors, are still almost 20% higher. That’s according to the most recent analysis by the Epic Health Research Network, which pulls data from more than 120 million patients across the country.

“It’s an early indicator that what’s happening in the ED is that we’re seeing more acute cases than we were pre-pandemic,” said Caleb Cox, a data scientist at Epic.

Less acute cases, such as people with health issues like rashes or conjunctivitis, still aren’t going to the ER as much as they used to. Instead, they may be opting for an urgent care center or their primary care doctor, Mr. Cox explained. Meanwhile, there has been an increase in people coming to the ER with more serious conditions, like strokes and heart attacks.

So, even though the total number of patients coming to ERs is about the same as before the pandemic, “that’s absolutely going to feel like [if I’m an ER doctor or nurse] I’m seeing more patients and I’m seeing more acute patients,” Mr. Cox said.

Dr. Moreno, the AAEM president, works at an emergency department in New Orleans. She said the level of illness, and the inability to admit patients quickly and move them to beds upstairs, has created a level of chaos she described as “not even humane.”

At the beginning of a recent shift, she heard a patient crying nearby and went to investigate. It was a paraplegic man who’d recently had surgery for colon cancer. His large post-operative wound was sealed with a device called a wound vac, which pulls fluid from the wound into a drainage tube attached to a portable vacuum pump.

But the wound vac had malfunctioned, which is why he had come to the ER. Staffers were so busy, however, that by the time Dr. Moreno came in, the fluid from his wound was leaking everywhere.

“When I went in, the bed was covered,” she recalled. “I mean, he was lying in a puddle of secretions from this wound. And he was crying, because he said to me, ‘I’m paralyzed. I can’t move to get away from all these secretions, and I know I’m going to end up getting an infection. I know I’m going to end up getting an ulcer. I’ve been laying in this for, like, eight or nine hours.’”

The nurse in charge of his care told Dr. Moreno she simply hadn’t had time to help this patient yet. “She said, ‘I’ve had so many patients to take care of, and so many critical patients. I started [an IV] drip on this person. This person is on a cardiac monitor. I just didn’t have time to get in there.’”

“This is not humane care,” Dr. Moreno said. “This is horrible care.”

But it’s what can happen when emergency department staffers don’t have the resources they need to deal with the onslaught of competing demands.

“All the nurses and doctors had the highest level of intent to do the right thing for the person,” Dr. Moreno said. “But because of the high acuity of … a large number of patients, the staffing ratio of nurse to patient, even the staffing ratio of doctor to patient, this guy did not get the care that he deserved to get, just as a human being.”

The instance of unintended neglect that Dr. Moreno saw is extreme, and not the experience of most patients who arrive at ERs these days. But the problem is not new: Even before the pandemic, ER overcrowding had been a “widespread problem and a source of patient harm, according to a recent commentary in NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery.

“ED crowding is not an issue of inconvenience,” the authors wrote. “There is incontrovertible evidence that ED crowding leads to significant patient harm, including morbidity and mortality related to consequential delays of treatment for both high- and low-acuity patients.”

And already-overwhelmed staffers are burning out.

Burnout feeds staffing shortages, and vice versa

Every morning, Tiffani Dusang wakes up and checks her Sparrow email with one singular hope: that she will not see yet another nurse resignation letter in her inbox.

“I cannot tell you how many of them [the nurses] tell me they went home crying” after their shifts, she said.

Despite Ms. Dusang’s best efforts to support her staffers, they’re leaving too fast to be replaced, either to take higher-paying gigs as a travel nurse, to try a less-stressful type of nursing, or simply walking away from the profession entirely.

Kelly Spitz has been an emergency department nurse at Sparrow for 10 years. But, lately, she has also fantasized about leaving. “It has crossed my mind several times,” she said, and yet she continues to come back. “Because I have a team here. And I love what I do.” But then she started to cry. The issue is not the hard work, or even the stress. She struggles with not being able to give her patients the kind of care and attention she wants to give them, and that they need and deserve, she said.

She often thinks about a patient whose test results revealed terminal cancer, she said. Ms. Spitz spent all day working the phones, hustling case managers, trying to get hospice care set up in the man’s home. He was going to die, and she just didn’t want him to have to die in the hospital, where only one visitor was allowed. She wanted to get him home, and back with his family.

Finally, after many hours, they found an ambulance to take him home.

Three days later, the man’s family members called Ms. Spitz: He had died surrounded by family. They were calling to thank her.

“I felt like I did my job there, because I got him home,” she said. But that’s a rare feeling these days. “I just hope it gets better. I hope it gets better soon.”

Around 4 p.m. at Sparrow Hospital as one shift approached its end, Ms. Dusang faced a new crisis: The overnight shift was more short-staffed than usual.

“Can we get two inpatient nurses?” she asked, hoping to borrow two nurses from one of the hospital floors upstairs.

“Already tried,” replied nurse Troy Latunski.

Without more staff, it’s going to be hard to care for new patients who come in overnight — from car crashes to seizures or other emergencies.

But Mr. Latunski had a plan: He would go home, snatch a few hours of sleep and return at 11 p.m. to work the overnight shift in the ER’s overflow unit. That meant he would be largely caring for eight patients, alone. On just a few short hours of sleep. But lately that seemed to be their only, and best, option.

Ms. Dusang considered for a moment, took a deep breath and nodded. “OK,” she said.

“Go home. Get some sleep. Thank you,” she added, shooting Mr. Latunski a grateful smile. And then she pivoted, because another nurse was approaching with an urgent question. On to the next crisis.

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 Michigan Radio, NPR and KHN.

Inside the emergency department at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich., staff members are struggling to care for patients showing up much sicker than they’ve ever seen.

Tiffani Dusang, the ER’s nursing director, practically vibrates with pent-up anxiety, looking at patients lying on a long line of stretchers pushed up against the beige walls of the hospital hallways. “It’s hard to watch,” she said in a warm Texas twang.

But there’s nothing she can do. The ER’s 72 rooms are already filled.

“I always feel very, very bad when I walk down the hallway and see that people are in pain, or needing to sleep, or needing quiet. But they have to be in the hallway with, as you can see, 10 or 15 people walking by every minute,” Ms. Dusang said.

The scene is a stark contrast to where this emergency department — and thousands of others — were at the start of the pandemic. Except for initial hot spots like New York City, in spring 2020 many ERs across the country were often eerily empty. Terrified of contracting COVID-19, people who were sick with other things did their best to stay away from hospitals. Visits to emergency rooms dropped to half their typical levels, according to the Epic Health Research Network, and didn’t fully rebound until this summer.

But now, they’re too full. Even in parts of the country where covid isn’t overwhelming the health system, patients are showing up to the ER sicker than before the pandemic, their diseases more advanced and in need of more complicated care.

Months of treatment delays have exacerbated chronic conditions and worsened symptoms. Doctors and nurses say the severity of illness ranges widely and includes abdominal pain, respiratory problems, blood clots, heart conditions and suicide attempts, among other conditions.

But they can hardly be accommodated. Emergency departments, ideally, are meant to be brief ports in a storm, with patients staying just long enough to be sent home with instructions to follow up with primary care physicians, or sufficiently stabilized to be transferred “upstairs” to inpatient or intensive care units.

Except now those long-term care floors are full too, with a mix of covid and non-covid patients. People coming to the ER get warehoused for hours, even days, forcing ER staffers to perform long-term care roles they weren’t trained to do.

At Sparrow, space is a valuable commodity in the ER: A separate section of the hospital was turned into an overflow unit. Stretchers stack up in halls. A row of brown reclining chairs lines a wall, intended for patients who aren’t sick enough for a stretcher but are too sick to stay in the main waiting room.

Forget privacy, Alejos Perrientoz learned when he arrived. He came to the ER because his arm had been tingling and painful for over a week. He couldn’t hold a cup of coffee. A nurse gave him a full physical exam in a brown recliner, which made him self-conscious about having his shirt lifted in front of strangers. “I felt a little uncomfortable,” he whispered. “But I have no choice, you know? I’m in the hallway. There’s no rooms.

“We could have done the physical in the parking lot,” he added, managing a laugh.

Even patients who arrive by ambulance are not guaranteed a room: One nurse runs triage, screening those who absolutely need a bed, and those who can be put in the waiting area.

“I hate that we even have to make that determination,” MS. Dusang said. Lately, staff members have been pulling out some patients already in the ER’s rooms when others arrive who are more critically ill. “No one likes to take someone out of the privacy of their room and say, ‘We’re going to put you in a hallway because we need to get care to someone else.’”

ER patients have grown sicker

“We are hearing from members in every part of the country,” said Dr. Lisa Moreno, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. “The Midwest, the South, the Northeast, the West … they are seeing this exact same phenomenon.”

Although the number of ER visits returned to pre-COVID levels this summer, admission rates, from the ER to the hospital’s inpatient floors, are still almost 20% higher. That’s according to the most recent analysis by the Epic Health Research Network, which pulls data from more than 120 million patients across the country.

“It’s an early indicator that what’s happening in the ED is that we’re seeing more acute cases than we were pre-pandemic,” said Caleb Cox, a data scientist at Epic.

Less acute cases, such as people with health issues like rashes or conjunctivitis, still aren’t going to the ER as much as they used to. Instead, they may be opting for an urgent care center or their primary care doctor, Mr. Cox explained. Meanwhile, there has been an increase in people coming to the ER with more serious conditions, like strokes and heart attacks.

So, even though the total number of patients coming to ERs is about the same as before the pandemic, “that’s absolutely going to feel like [if I’m an ER doctor or nurse] I’m seeing more patients and I’m seeing more acute patients,” Mr. Cox said.

Dr. Moreno, the AAEM president, works at an emergency department in New Orleans. She said the level of illness, and the inability to admit patients quickly and move them to beds upstairs, has created a level of chaos she described as “not even humane.”

At the beginning of a recent shift, she heard a patient crying nearby and went to investigate. It was a paraplegic man who’d recently had surgery for colon cancer. His large post-operative wound was sealed with a device called a wound vac, which pulls fluid from the wound into a drainage tube attached to a portable vacuum pump.

But the wound vac had malfunctioned, which is why he had come to the ER. Staffers were so busy, however, that by the time Dr. Moreno came in, the fluid from his wound was leaking everywhere.

“When I went in, the bed was covered,” she recalled. “I mean, he was lying in a puddle of secretions from this wound. And he was crying, because he said to me, ‘I’m paralyzed. I can’t move to get away from all these secretions, and I know I’m going to end up getting an infection. I know I’m going to end up getting an ulcer. I’ve been laying in this for, like, eight or nine hours.’”

The nurse in charge of his care told Dr. Moreno she simply hadn’t had time to help this patient yet. “She said, ‘I’ve had so many patients to take care of, and so many critical patients. I started [an IV] drip on this person. This person is on a cardiac monitor. I just didn’t have time to get in there.’”

“This is not humane care,” Dr. Moreno said. “This is horrible care.”

But it’s what can happen when emergency department staffers don’t have the resources they need to deal with the onslaught of competing demands.

“All the nurses and doctors had the highest level of intent to do the right thing for the person,” Dr. Moreno said. “But because of the high acuity of … a large number of patients, the staffing ratio of nurse to patient, even the staffing ratio of doctor to patient, this guy did not get the care that he deserved to get, just as a human being.”

The instance of unintended neglect that Dr. Moreno saw is extreme, and not the experience of most patients who arrive at ERs these days. But the problem is not new: Even before the pandemic, ER overcrowding had been a “widespread problem and a source of patient harm, according to a recent commentary in NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery.

“ED crowding is not an issue of inconvenience,” the authors wrote. “There is incontrovertible evidence that ED crowding leads to significant patient harm, including morbidity and mortality related to consequential delays of treatment for both high- and low-acuity patients.”

And already-overwhelmed staffers are burning out.

Burnout feeds staffing shortages, and vice versa

Every morning, Tiffani Dusang wakes up and checks her Sparrow email with one singular hope: that she will not see yet another nurse resignation letter in her inbox.

“I cannot tell you how many of them [the nurses] tell me they went home crying” after their shifts, she said.

Despite Ms. Dusang’s best efforts to support her staffers, they’re leaving too fast to be replaced, either to take higher-paying gigs as a travel nurse, to try a less-stressful type of nursing, or simply walking away from the profession entirely.

Kelly Spitz has been an emergency department nurse at Sparrow for 10 years. But, lately, she has also fantasized about leaving. “It has crossed my mind several times,” she said, and yet she continues to come back. “Because I have a team here. And I love what I do.” But then she started to cry. The issue is not the hard work, or even the stress. She struggles with not being able to give her patients the kind of care and attention she wants to give them, and that they need and deserve, she said.

She often thinks about a patient whose test results revealed terminal cancer, she said. Ms. Spitz spent all day working the phones, hustling case managers, trying to get hospice care set up in the man’s home. He was going to die, and she just didn’t want him to have to die in the hospital, where only one visitor was allowed. She wanted to get him home, and back with his family.

Finally, after many hours, they found an ambulance to take him home.

Three days later, the man’s family members called Ms. Spitz: He had died surrounded by family. They were calling to thank her.

“I felt like I did my job there, because I got him home,” she said. But that’s a rare feeling these days. “I just hope it gets better. I hope it gets better soon.”

Around 4 p.m. at Sparrow Hospital as one shift approached its end, Ms. Dusang faced a new crisis: The overnight shift was more short-staffed than usual.

“Can we get two inpatient nurses?” she asked, hoping to borrow two nurses from one of the hospital floors upstairs.

“Already tried,” replied nurse Troy Latunski.

Without more staff, it’s going to be hard to care for new patients who come in overnight — from car crashes to seizures or other emergencies.

But Mr. Latunski had a plan: He would go home, snatch a few hours of sleep and return at 11 p.m. to work the overnight shift in the ER’s overflow unit. That meant he would be largely caring for eight patients, alone. On just a few short hours of sleep. But lately that seemed to be their only, and best, option.

Ms. Dusang considered for a moment, took a deep breath and nodded. “OK,” she said.

“Go home. Get some sleep. Thank you,” she added, shooting Mr. Latunski a grateful smile. And then she pivoted, because another nurse was approaching with an urgent question. On to the next crisis.

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 Michigan Radio, NPR and KHN.

Inside the emergency department at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich., staff members are struggling to care for patients showing up much sicker than they’ve ever seen.

Tiffani Dusang, the ER’s nursing director, practically vibrates with pent-up anxiety, looking at patients lying on a long line of stretchers pushed up against the beige walls of the hospital hallways. “It’s hard to watch,” she said in a warm Texas twang.

But there’s nothing she can do. The ER’s 72 rooms are already filled.

“I always feel very, very bad when I walk down the hallway and see that people are in pain, or needing to sleep, or needing quiet. But they have to be in the hallway with, as you can see, 10 or 15 people walking by every minute,” Ms. Dusang said.

The scene is a stark contrast to where this emergency department — and thousands of others — were at the start of the pandemic. Except for initial hot spots like New York City, in spring 2020 many ERs across the country were often eerily empty. Terrified of contracting COVID-19, people who were sick with other things did their best to stay away from hospitals. Visits to emergency rooms dropped to half their typical levels, according to the Epic Health Research Network, and didn’t fully rebound until this summer.

But now, they’re too full. Even in parts of the country where covid isn’t overwhelming the health system, patients are showing up to the ER sicker than before the pandemic, their diseases more advanced and in need of more complicated care.

Months of treatment delays have exacerbated chronic conditions and worsened symptoms. Doctors and nurses say the severity of illness ranges widely and includes abdominal pain, respiratory problems, blood clots, heart conditions and suicide attempts, among other conditions.

But they can hardly be accommodated. Emergency departments, ideally, are meant to be brief ports in a storm, with patients staying just long enough to be sent home with instructions to follow up with primary care physicians, or sufficiently stabilized to be transferred “upstairs” to inpatient or intensive care units.

Except now those long-term care floors are full too, with a mix of covid and non-covid patients. People coming to the ER get warehoused for hours, even days, forcing ER staffers to perform long-term care roles they weren’t trained to do.

At Sparrow, space is a valuable commodity in the ER: A separate section of the hospital was turned into an overflow unit. Stretchers stack up in halls. A row of brown reclining chairs lines a wall, intended for patients who aren’t sick enough for a stretcher but are too sick to stay in the main waiting room.

Forget privacy, Alejos Perrientoz learned when he arrived. He came to the ER because his arm had been tingling and painful for over a week. He couldn’t hold a cup of coffee. A nurse gave him a full physical exam in a brown recliner, which made him self-conscious about having his shirt lifted in front of strangers. “I felt a little uncomfortable,” he whispered. “But I have no choice, you know? I’m in the hallway. There’s no rooms.

“We could have done the physical in the parking lot,” he added, managing a laugh.

Even patients who arrive by ambulance are not guaranteed a room: One nurse runs triage, screening those who absolutely need a bed, and those who can be put in the waiting area.

“I hate that we even have to make that determination,” MS. Dusang said. Lately, staff members have been pulling out some patients already in the ER’s rooms when others arrive who are more critically ill. “No one likes to take someone out of the privacy of their room and say, ‘We’re going to put you in a hallway because we need to get care to someone else.’”

ER patients have grown sicker

“We are hearing from members in every part of the country,” said Dr. Lisa Moreno, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine. “The Midwest, the South, the Northeast, the West … they are seeing this exact same phenomenon.”

Although the number of ER visits returned to pre-COVID levels this summer, admission rates, from the ER to the hospital’s inpatient floors, are still almost 20% higher. That’s according to the most recent analysis by the Epic Health Research Network, which pulls data from more than 120 million patients across the country.

“It’s an early indicator that what’s happening in the ED is that we’re seeing more acute cases than we were pre-pandemic,” said Caleb Cox, a data scientist at Epic.

Less acute cases, such as people with health issues like rashes or conjunctivitis, still aren’t going to the ER as much as they used to. Instead, they may be opting for an urgent care center or their primary care doctor, Mr. Cox explained. Meanwhile, there has been an increase in people coming to the ER with more serious conditions, like strokes and heart attacks.

So, even though the total number of patients coming to ERs is about the same as before the pandemic, “that’s absolutely going to feel like [if I’m an ER doctor or nurse] I’m seeing more patients and I’m seeing more acute patients,” Mr. Cox said.

Dr. Moreno, the AAEM president, works at an emergency department in New Orleans. She said the level of illness, and the inability to admit patients quickly and move them to beds upstairs, has created a level of chaos she described as “not even humane.”

At the beginning of a recent shift, she heard a patient crying nearby and went to investigate. It was a paraplegic man who’d recently had surgery for colon cancer. His large post-operative wound was sealed with a device called a wound vac, which pulls fluid from the wound into a drainage tube attached to a portable vacuum pump.

But the wound vac had malfunctioned, which is why he had come to the ER. Staffers were so busy, however, that by the time Dr. Moreno came in, the fluid from his wound was leaking everywhere.

“When I went in, the bed was covered,” she recalled. “I mean, he was lying in a puddle of secretions from this wound. And he was crying, because he said to me, ‘I’m paralyzed. I can’t move to get away from all these secretions, and I know I’m going to end up getting an infection. I know I’m going to end up getting an ulcer. I’ve been laying in this for, like, eight or nine hours.’”

The nurse in charge of his care told Dr. Moreno she simply hadn’t had time to help this patient yet. “She said, ‘I’ve had so many patients to take care of, and so many critical patients. I started [an IV] drip on this person. This person is on a cardiac monitor. I just didn’t have time to get in there.’”

“This is not humane care,” Dr. Moreno said. “This is horrible care.”

But it’s what can happen when emergency department staffers don’t have the resources they need to deal with the onslaught of competing demands.

“All the nurses and doctors had the highest level of intent to do the right thing for the person,” Dr. Moreno said. “But because of the high acuity of … a large number of patients, the staffing ratio of nurse to patient, even the staffing ratio of doctor to patient, this guy did not get the care that he deserved to get, just as a human being.”

The instance of unintended neglect that Dr. Moreno saw is extreme, and not the experience of most patients who arrive at ERs these days. But the problem is not new: Even before the pandemic, ER overcrowding had been a “widespread problem and a source of patient harm, according to a recent commentary in NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery.

“ED crowding is not an issue of inconvenience,” the authors wrote. “There is incontrovertible evidence that ED crowding leads to significant patient harm, including morbidity and mortality related to consequential delays of treatment for both high- and low-acuity patients.”

And already-overwhelmed staffers are burning out.

Burnout feeds staffing shortages, and vice versa

Every morning, Tiffani Dusang wakes up and checks her Sparrow email with one singular hope: that she will not see yet another nurse resignation letter in her inbox.

“I cannot tell you how many of them [the nurses] tell me they went home crying” after their shifts, she said.

Despite Ms. Dusang’s best efforts to support her staffers, they’re leaving too fast to be replaced, either to take higher-paying gigs as a travel nurse, to try a less-stressful type of nursing, or simply walking away from the profession entirely.

Kelly Spitz has been an emergency department nurse at Sparrow for 10 years. But, lately, she has also fantasized about leaving. “It has crossed my mind several times,” she said, and yet she continues to come back. “Because I have a team here. And I love what I do.” But then she started to cry. The issue is not the hard work, or even the stress. She struggles with not being able to give her patients the kind of care and attention she wants to give them, and that they need and deserve, she said.

She often thinks about a patient whose test results revealed terminal cancer, she said. Ms. Spitz spent all day working the phones, hustling case managers, trying to get hospice care set up in the man’s home. He was going to die, and she just didn’t want him to have to die in the hospital, where only one visitor was allowed. She wanted to get him home, and back with his family.

Finally, after many hours, they found an ambulance to take him home.

Three days later, the man’s family members called Ms. Spitz: He had died surrounded by family. They were calling to thank her.

“I felt like I did my job there, because I got him home,” she said. But that’s a rare feeling these days. “I just hope it gets better. I hope it gets better soon.”

Around 4 p.m. at Sparrow Hospital as one shift approached its end, Ms. Dusang faced a new crisis: The overnight shift was more short-staffed than usual.

“Can we get two inpatient nurses?” she asked, hoping to borrow two nurses from one of the hospital floors upstairs.

“Already tried,” replied nurse Troy Latunski.

Without more staff, it’s going to be hard to care for new patients who come in overnight — from car crashes to seizures or other emergencies.

But Mr. Latunski had a plan: He would go home, snatch a few hours of sleep and return at 11 p.m. to work the overnight shift in the ER’s overflow unit. That meant he would be largely caring for eight patients, alone. On just a few short hours of sleep. But lately that seemed to be their only, and best, option.

Ms. Dusang considered for a moment, took a deep breath and nodded. “OK,” she said.

“Go home. Get some sleep. Thank you,” she added, shooting Mr. Latunski a grateful smile. And then she pivoted, because another nurse was approaching with an urgent question. On to the next crisis.

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 Michigan Radio, NPR and KHN.

My office’s storage room has an old bankers box, which has been there since I moved 8 years ago. Before that it was at my other office, behind an old desk. I had no idea what was in it, I always assumed office supplies, surplus drug company pens and sticky notes, who-knows-whats.

Last week I had one of those days where everyone cancels, so I decided to investigate the box.

It was packed with 10 years worth (2000-2010) of my secretary’s MRI scheduling sheets that had somehow escaped occasional shredding purges. So I sat down next to the office shredder to get rid of them.

As I fed the sheets in, the names jumped out at me. Some I have absolutely no recollection of. Others I still see today.

There were names of the long-deceased, bringing them back to me for the first time in years. There were others that I have no idea what happened to – they must have just stopped seeing me at some point, though for the life of me I can’t remember when, or why. Yet, in my mind, there they were, as if I’d just seen them yesterday. A few times I got curious enough to turn back to my computer and look up their charts, trying to remember their stories.

Then there were those I still remember clearly, every single detail of, in spite of the elapsed time. Something about their case or personality had indelibly etched them in my memory. A valuable lesson learned from them that had something or nothing to do with medicine that’s still with me.

Looking back, I’d guess I’ve seen roughly 15,000-20,000 patients over my career. Not nearly as many as my colleagues in general practice, but still quite a few. A decent sized basketball arena full.

The majority don’t stick with you. That’s the way it is in life. We meet a lot of people as we walk down the road, but generally only remember those walking with us for a good part of it.

The ones we didn’t know long – but who are still clearly remembered – are also valuable. In their own way, perhaps unknowingly, they made an impact that hopefully makes us better.

For that I’ll always be grateful to them.

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

My office’s storage room has an old bankers box, which has been there since I moved 8 years ago. Before that it was at my other office, behind an old desk. I had no idea what was in it, I always assumed office supplies, surplus drug company pens and sticky notes, who-knows-whats.

Last week I had one of those days where everyone cancels, so I decided to investigate the box.

It was packed with 10 years worth (2000-2010) of my secretary’s MRI scheduling sheets that had somehow escaped occasional shredding purges. So I sat down next to the office shredder to get rid of them.

As I fed the sheets in, the names jumped out at me. Some I have absolutely no recollection of. Others I still see today.

There were names of the long-deceased, bringing them back to me for the first time in years. There were others that I have no idea what happened to – they must have just stopped seeing me at some point, though for the life of me I can’t remember when, or why. Yet, in my mind, there they were, as if I’d just seen them yesterday. A few times I got curious enough to turn back to my computer and look up their charts, trying to remember their stories.

Then there were those I still remember clearly, every single detail of, in spite of the elapsed time. Something about their case or personality had indelibly etched them in my memory. A valuable lesson learned from them that had something or nothing to do with medicine that’s still with me.

Looking back, I’d guess I’ve seen roughly 15,000-20,000 patients over my career. Not nearly as many as my colleagues in general practice, but still quite a few. A decent sized basketball arena full.

The majority don’t stick with you. That’s the way it is in life. We meet a lot of people as we walk down the road, but generally only remember those walking with us for a good part of it.

The ones we didn’t know long – but who are still clearly remembered – are also valuable. In their own way, perhaps unknowingly, they made an impact that hopefully makes us better.

For that I’ll always be grateful to them.

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

My office’s storage room has an old bankers box, which has been there since I moved 8 years ago. Before that it was at my other office, behind an old desk. I had no idea what was in it, I always assumed office supplies, surplus drug company pens and sticky notes, who-knows-whats.

Last week I had one of those days where everyone cancels, so I decided to investigate the box.

It was packed with 10 years worth (2000-2010) of my secretary’s MRI scheduling sheets that had somehow escaped occasional shredding purges. So I sat down next to the office shredder to get rid of them.

As I fed the sheets in, the names jumped out at me. Some I have absolutely no recollection of. Others I still see today.

There were names of the long-deceased, bringing them back to me for the first time in years. There were others that I have no idea what happened to – they must have just stopped seeing me at some point, though for the life of me I can’t remember when, or why. Yet, in my mind, there they were, as if I’d just seen them yesterday. A few times I got curious enough to turn back to my computer and look up their charts, trying to remember their stories.

Then there were those I still remember clearly, every single detail of, in spite of the elapsed time. Something about their case or personality had indelibly etched them in my memory. A valuable lesson learned from them that had something or nothing to do with medicine that’s still with me.

Looking back, I’d guess I’ve seen roughly 15,000-20,000 patients over my career. Not nearly as many as my colleagues in general practice, but still quite a few. A decent sized basketball arena full.

The majority don’t stick with you. That’s the way it is in life. We meet a lot of people as we walk down the road, but generally only remember those walking with us for a good part of it.

The ones we didn’t know long – but who are still clearly remembered – are also valuable. In their own way, perhaps unknowingly, they made an impact that hopefully makes us better.

For that I’ll always be grateful to them.

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

Women who take a wide variety of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) – not just those on a few types – may be especially susceptible to hair loss via alopecia, a new study finds.

From 2009 to 2019, the Food and Drug Administration received 7,978 reports of new-onset alopecia in patients taking DMTs, particularly teriflunomide (3,255, 40.8%; 90% female), dimethyl fumarate (1,641, 20.6%; 89% female), natalizumab (955, 12.0%; 92% female), and fingolimod (776, 9.7% of the total reports; 93% female), several researchers reported at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). Of these, only teriflunomide had previously been linked to alopecia, study coauthor Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

“Our finding of frequent reports of alopecia on DMTs studied calls for further investigation into the subject,” Dr. Obeidat said. “Alopecia can cause deep personal impacts and can be a source of significant psychological concern for some patients.”

According to Dr. Obeidat, alopecia has been linked to the only a few DMTs – cladribine and the interferons – in addition to teriflunomide. “To our surprise, we received anecdotal reports of hair thinning from several of our MS patients treated with various other [DMTs]. Upon further investigation, we could not find substantial literature to explain this phenomenon which led us to conduct our investigation.”

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues identified DMT-related alopecia cases (18.3%) among 43,655 reports in the skin and subcutaneous tissue disorder category in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Other DMTs with more than 1 case report were interferon beta-1a (635, 8.0%; 92% female), glatiramer acetate (332, 4.2%; 87% female), ocrelizumab (142, 1.8%; 94% female), interferon beta-1b (126, 1.6%; 95% female), alemtuzumab (86, 1.1%; 88% female), cladribine (17, 0.2%; 65% female), and rituximab (10, 0.1%; 90% female).

The average age for the case reports varied from 42 to 51 years for most of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age, 40 years) and cladribine (average age, 38 years), which had low numbers of cases.

Siponimod (three cases) and ozanimod (no cases) were not included in the age and gender analyses.

Why do so many women seem to be affected, well beyond their percentage of MS cases overall? The answer is unclear, said medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study’s lead author. “There could be a biological explanation,” Mr. Porwal said, “or women may report cases more often: “Earlier studies suggested that alopecia may affect women more adversely in terms of body image as well as overall psychological well-being, compared to males.”

The researchers also noted that patients – not medical professionals – provided most of the case reports in the FDA database. “We believe this indicates that alopecia is a patient-centered concern that may have a larger impact on their lives than what the health care teams may perceive,” Mr. Porwal said. “Oftentimes, we as health care providers, look for the more acute and apparent adverse events, which can overshadow issues such as hair thinning/alopecia that could have even greater psychological impacts on our patients.”

Dr. Obeidat said there are still multiple mysteries about DMT and alopecia risk: the true incidence of cases per DMT or DMT class, the mechanism(s) behind a link, the permanent or transient nature of the alopecia cases, and the risk factors in individual patients.

Going forward, he said, “we advise clinicians to discuss hair thinning or alopecia as a possible side effect that has been reported in association with all DMTs in the real-world, postmarketing era.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Obeidat reported various disclosures; the other authors reported no disclosures.

Women who take a wide variety of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) – not just those on a few types – may be especially susceptible to hair loss via alopecia, a new study finds.

From 2009 to 2019, the Food and Drug Administration received 7,978 reports of new-onset alopecia in patients taking DMTs, particularly teriflunomide (3,255, 40.8%; 90% female), dimethyl fumarate (1,641, 20.6%; 89% female), natalizumab (955, 12.0%; 92% female), and fingolimod (776, 9.7% of the total reports; 93% female), several researchers reported at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). Of these, only teriflunomide had previously been linked to alopecia, study coauthor Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

“Our finding of frequent reports of alopecia on DMTs studied calls for further investigation into the subject,” Dr. Obeidat said. “Alopecia can cause deep personal impacts and can be a source of significant psychological concern for some patients.”

According to Dr. Obeidat, alopecia has been linked to the only a few DMTs – cladribine and the interferons – in addition to teriflunomide. “To our surprise, we received anecdotal reports of hair thinning from several of our MS patients treated with various other [DMTs]. Upon further investigation, we could not find substantial literature to explain this phenomenon which led us to conduct our investigation.”

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues identified DMT-related alopecia cases (18.3%) among 43,655 reports in the skin and subcutaneous tissue disorder category in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Other DMTs with more than 1 case report were interferon beta-1a (635, 8.0%; 92% female), glatiramer acetate (332, 4.2%; 87% female), ocrelizumab (142, 1.8%; 94% female), interferon beta-1b (126, 1.6%; 95% female), alemtuzumab (86, 1.1%; 88% female), cladribine (17, 0.2%; 65% female), and rituximab (10, 0.1%; 90% female).

The average age for the case reports varied from 42 to 51 years for most of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age, 40 years) and cladribine (average age, 38 years), which had low numbers of cases.

Siponimod (three cases) and ozanimod (no cases) were not included in the age and gender analyses.

Why do so many women seem to be affected, well beyond their percentage of MS cases overall? The answer is unclear, said medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study’s lead author. “There could be a biological explanation,” Mr. Porwal said, “or women may report cases more often: “Earlier studies suggested that alopecia may affect women more adversely in terms of body image as well as overall psychological well-being, compared to males.”

The researchers also noted that patients – not medical professionals – provided most of the case reports in the FDA database. “We believe this indicates that alopecia is a patient-centered concern that may have a larger impact on their lives than what the health care teams may perceive,” Mr. Porwal said. “Oftentimes, we as health care providers, look for the more acute and apparent adverse events, which can overshadow issues such as hair thinning/alopecia that could have even greater psychological impacts on our patients.”

Dr. Obeidat said there are still multiple mysteries about DMT and alopecia risk: the true incidence of cases per DMT or DMT class, the mechanism(s) behind a link, the permanent or transient nature of the alopecia cases, and the risk factors in individual patients.

Going forward, he said, “we advise clinicians to discuss hair thinning or alopecia as a possible side effect that has been reported in association with all DMTs in the real-world, postmarketing era.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Obeidat reported various disclosures; the other authors reported no disclosures.

Women who take a wide variety of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) – not just those on a few types – may be especially susceptible to hair loss via alopecia, a new study finds.

From 2009 to 2019, the Food and Drug Administration received 7,978 reports of new-onset alopecia in patients taking DMTs, particularly teriflunomide (3,255, 40.8%; 90% female), dimethyl fumarate (1,641, 20.6%; 89% female), natalizumab (955, 12.0%; 92% female), and fingolimod (776, 9.7% of the total reports; 93% female), several researchers reported at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). Of these, only teriflunomide had previously been linked to alopecia, study coauthor Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, a neurologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

“Our finding of frequent reports of alopecia on DMTs studied calls for further investigation into the subject,” Dr. Obeidat said. “Alopecia can cause deep personal impacts and can be a source of significant psychological concern for some patients.”

According to Dr. Obeidat, alopecia has been linked to the only a few DMTs – cladribine and the interferons – in addition to teriflunomide. “To our surprise, we received anecdotal reports of hair thinning from several of our MS patients treated with various other [DMTs]. Upon further investigation, we could not find substantial literature to explain this phenomenon which led us to conduct our investigation.”

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues identified DMT-related alopecia cases (18.3%) among 43,655 reports in the skin and subcutaneous tissue disorder category in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Other DMTs with more than 1 case report were interferon beta-1a (635, 8.0%; 92% female), glatiramer acetate (332, 4.2%; 87% female), ocrelizumab (142, 1.8%; 94% female), interferon beta-1b (126, 1.6%; 95% female), alemtuzumab (86, 1.1%; 88% female), cladribine (17, 0.2%; 65% female), and rituximab (10, 0.1%; 90% female).

The average age for the case reports varied from 42 to 51 years for most of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age, 40 years) and cladribine (average age, 38 years), which had low numbers of cases.

Siponimod (three cases) and ozanimod (no cases) were not included in the age and gender analyses.

Why do so many women seem to be affected, well beyond their percentage of MS cases overall? The answer is unclear, said medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study’s lead author. “There could be a biological explanation,” Mr. Porwal said, “or women may report cases more often: “Earlier studies suggested that alopecia may affect women more adversely in terms of body image as well as overall psychological well-being, compared to males.”

The researchers also noted that patients – not medical professionals – provided most of the case reports in the FDA database. “We believe this indicates that alopecia is a patient-centered concern that may have a larger impact on their lives than what the health care teams may perceive,” Mr. Porwal said. “Oftentimes, we as health care providers, look for the more acute and apparent adverse events, which can overshadow issues such as hair thinning/alopecia that could have even greater psychological impacts on our patients.”

Dr. Obeidat said there are still multiple mysteries about DMT and alopecia risk: the true incidence of cases per DMT or DMT class, the mechanism(s) behind a link, the permanent or transient nature of the alopecia cases, and the risk factors in individual patients.

Going forward, he said, “we advise clinicians to discuss hair thinning or alopecia as a possible side effect that has been reported in association with all DMTs in the real-world, postmarketing era.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Obeidat reported various disclosures; the other authors reported no disclosures.

It’s undeniable that great strides have been made in advancing the science of multiple sclerosis (MS) over the past 20 years. Continued pursuit of research and discovery has revolutionized the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of this debilitating condition that causes symptoms that may impact nearly every part of the body and mind. Despite these advancements, there is still more work to be done.

As the search for a cure continues, it’s imperative to ask the big questions: How does MS develop and progress? How can we reduce health disparities in care and treatment? How can we improve existing treatments and expedite the discovery of new ones? To continue making progress, we must stretch the boundaries of scientific understanding until we have answers and solutions to these and other important questions.

We know that MS is a leading cause of non-traumatic disability for young people.^1,2 Yet, one of the biggest challenges for neurologists is that every person’s experience with MS is unique, making it difficult to predict what symptoms will manifest, how disruptive the symptoms and relapses will be and how a person will respond to treatment.

Twenty years ago, it was widely thought that MS was mainly driven by T cells, but in the late 1990’s, a team of researchers made a groundbreaking discovery: B cells also played a key role in MS. This discovery redefined how the scientific community thought about the underlying biology of MS and the central role B cells can play. 

It was this bold thinking that led researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and scientists at Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, to explore whether a medication that depleted B cells would have an impact on MS. This collaboration, in turn, inspired the clinical research behind Ocrevus^® (ocrelizumab), the first and only treatment approved by the FDA for both relapsing MS (RMS) and primary progressive MS (PPMS). MS is a progressive disease from the start. An important goal of treating MS is to reduce disease progression as soon as possible to slow how quickly a person’s disability changes and prevent the long-term consequences of disease progression.³ Ocrevus is administered via infusion twice yearly, with the initial dose split into two separate infusions and given two weeks apart. As with any therapy, this treatment has side effects, which can be found in the full Prescribing Information and Medication Guide. Ocrevus is contraindicated in patients with active hepatitis B virus infection and in patients with a history of life-threatening infusion reactions to Ocrevus. The warnings and precautions for Ocrevus are infusion reactions, and infections, which include respiratory tract infections, herpes, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. Additional warnings are possible increased risk of immunosuppressant effects with other immunosuppressants, reduction in immunoglobulins, and malignancies.

Ensuring a Continuum of Care 
Another significant challenge facing the MS community is ensuring ongoing support and care for people living with the condition, especially throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “We know that seeking early and appropriate care for MS is critical to slowing disability progression and achieving successful patient outcomes,” said Dr. Ashish Pradhan, Executive Director of Neuroimmunology at Genentech. “The pandemic has created additional barriers to early diagnosis and treatment, but we are committed to continuing to do everything we can to support patients and physicians at this stressful time.” Dr. Pradhan also observed that FDA's approval of a shorter infusion time for Ocrevus in December 2020 could potentially contribute to reducing some of the burden on the healthcare system in the long-term.

Being able to connect with others in the MS community is a vital part of navigating the uncertainties of living with the condition. This past April, to shine a light on the diverse MS community, Genentech hosted an #MSVisibility Virtual Concert that gathered people from across the world with different backgrounds and MS experiences and encouraged people living with MS to continue seeking appropriate support and care during the pandemic.

Continued support of the MS community through advocacy partnerships and grants over the years has played a sustained role in Genentech’s efforts to ensure people with MS receive necessary medical care and treatment. For example, Genentech partnered with an MS advocacy organization to fund a program that helps people get to and from their medical appointments. In addition, for more than 30 years, Genentech has helped more than two million people get the medicine they need through patient assistance programs like Genentech Access Solutions and the Genentech Patient Foundation.

Advancing Inclusive Research in MS 
MS has been shown to impact individuals and specific populations in markedly different ways. Those who identify as Black or of African descent and Hispanic/Latinos for example can experience more severe symptoms and faster disease progression than their Caucasian counterparts.^4,5 Unfortunately, it’s not clear exactly why, largely because of their vast underrepresentation in clinical trials (less than 5% and 1%, respectively).⁶ While there are multiple explanations for these disparities, around one-in-three minority patients don’t participate in clinical trials due to lack of trust and 52% feel that the healthcare system is not only flawed, but is actually working against them.⁷

“Increased diversity in research is paramount to ensuring that the healthcare system is serving every person living with MS and ultimately reducing health inequities while providing more tailored treatment options,” commented Dr. Pradhan. “To advance the care of undertreated and underserved people with MS, we are creating and supporting programs, grants and other initiatives focused on people of color and inclusive and minority research to better understand how MS presents itself and develops in different patient populations. We want to make sure that all generations of people living with MS are equally represented in clinical research and have access to the treatments that will work best for them.”

Refining Existing Approaches and Leading Treatment Innovation
For decades, Genentech and Roche have been conducting neuroscience research and clinical trials to make forward progress in understanding and treating a variety of neurological conditions, including MS. While the treatment landscape for MS has evolved significantly over the past two decades, continued investment in research and development is critical. Continuing to review and refine existing treatment approaches may improve patient outcomes and discovering new treatment approaches may play an important role in advancing the treatment paradigm.

Dr. Pradhan added, “as the scientific community continues to think boldly, and re-imagine treatment and care for MS, we hope to continue to improve our understanding of the condition for all people with the disease, and advance treatment options. Pushing boundaries means refusing to stop until everyone living with MS can be treated effectively and a cure is found. This sentiment reminds me of a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote, ‘Don’t follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.’ That’s what we are trying to do at Genentech.”

To learn more, please visit Ocrevus.com.

Indications and Important Safety Information
OCREVUS is indicated for the treatment of:

• Relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), to include clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, in adults.
• Primary progressive MS, in adults. 

Contraindications
OCREVUS is contraindicated in patients with active hepatitis B virus infection and in patients with a history of life-threatening infusion reaction to OCREVUS.

Warnings and Precautions

Infusion Reactions  

OCREVUS can cause infusion reactions, which can include pruritus, rash, urticaria, erythema, bronchospasm, throat irritation, oropharyngeal pain, dyspnea, pharyngeal or laryngeal edema, flushing, hypotension, pyrexia, fatigue, headache, dizziness, nausea, tachycardia, and anaphylaxis. In multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials, the incidence of infusion reactions in OCREVUS-treated patients [who received methylprednisolone (or an equivalent steroid) and possibly other pre-medication to reduce the risk of infusion reactions prior to each infusion] was 34-40%, with the highest incidence with the first infusion. There were no fatal infusion reactions, but 0.3% of OCREVUS-treated MS patients experienced infusion reactions that were serious, some requiring hospitalization.  

Observe patients treated with OCREVUS for infusion reactions during the infusion and for at least one hour after completion of the infusion. Inform patients that infusion reactions can occur up to 24 hours after the infusion. Administer pre-medication (e.g., methylprednisolone or an equivalent corticosteroid, and an antihistamine) to reduce the frequency and severity of infusion reactions. The addition of an antipyretic (e.g., acetaminophen) may also be considered. For life-threatening infusion reactions, immediately and permanently stop OCREVUS and administer appropriate supportive treatment. For less severe infusion reactions, management may involve temporarily stopping the infusion, reducing the infusion rate, and/or administering symptomatic treatment.

Infections

A higher proportion of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced infections compared to patients taking REBIF or placebo. In RMS trials, 58% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced one or more infections compared to 52% of REBIF-treated patients. In the PPMS trial, 70% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced one or more infections compared to 68% of patients on placebo. OCREVUS increased the risk for upper respiratory tract infections, lower respiratory tract infections, skin infections, and herpes-related infections. OCREVUS was not associated with an increased risk of serious infections in MS patients. Delay OCREVUS administration in patients with an active infection until the infection is resolved.

Respiratory Tract Infections

A higher proportion of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced respiratory tract infections compared to patients taking REBIF or placebo. In RMS trials, 40% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced upper respiratory tract infections compared to 33% of REBIF-treated patients, and 8% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced lower respiratory tract infections compared to 5% of REBIF-treated patients. In the PPMS trial, 49% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced upper respiratory tract infections compared to 43% of patients on placebo and 10% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced lower respiratory tract infections compared to 9% of patients on placebo. The infections were predominantly mild to moderate and consisted mostly of upper respiratory tract infections and bronchitis.

Herpes

In active-controlled (RMS) clinical trials, herpes infections were reported more frequently in OCREVUS-treated patients than in REBIF-treated patients, including herpes zoster (2.1% vs. 1.0%), herpes simplex (0.7% vs. 0.1%), oral herpes (3.0% vs. 2.2%), genital herpes (0.1% vs. 0%), and herpes virus infection (0.1% vs. 0%). Infections were predominantly mild to moderate in severity. In the placebo-controlled (PPMS) clinical trial, oral herpes was reported more frequently in the OCREVUS-treated patients than in the patients on placebo (2.7% vs 0.8%).

Serious cases of infections caused by herpes simplex virus and varicella zoster virus, including central nervous system infections (encephalitis and meningitis), intraocular infections, and disseminated skin and soft tissue infections, have been reported in the postmarketing setting in multiple sclerosis patients receiving OCREVUS. Serious herpes virus infections may occur at any time during treatment with OCREVUS. Some cases were life-threatening. 

If serious herpes infections occur, OCREVUS should be discontinued or withheld until the infection has resolved, and appropriate treatment should be administered.

Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML)

PML is an opportunistic viral infection of the brain caused by the John Cunningham (JC) virus that typically only occurs in patients who are immunocompromised, and that usually leads to death or severe disability. Although no cases of PML were identified in OCREVUS clinical trials, JC virus infection resulting in PML has been observed in patients treated with other anti-CD20 antibodies and other MS therapies and has been associated with some risk factors (e.g., immunocompromised patients, polytherapy with immunosuppressants). At the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML, withhold OCREVUS and perform an appropriate diagnostic evaluation. MRI findings may be apparent before clinical signs or symptoms. Typical symptoms associated with PML are diverse, progress over days to weeks, and include progressive weakness on one side of the body or clumsiness of limbs, disturbance of vision, and changes in thinking, memory, and orientation leading to confusion and personality changes (per USPI).

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Reactivation

Hepatitis B reactivation has been reported in MS patients treated with OCREVUS in the postmarketing setting. Fulminant hepatitis, hepatic failure, and death caused by HBV reactivation have occurred in patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies. Perform HBV screening in all patients before initiation of treatment with OCREVUS. Do not administer OCREVUS to patients with active HBV confirmed by positive results for HBsAg and anti-HB tests. For patients who are negative for surface antigen [HBsAg] and positive for HB core antibody [HBcAb+] or are carriers of HBV [HBsAg+], consult liver disease experts before starting and during treatment.

Possible Increased Risk of Immunosuppressant Effects with Other Immunosuppressants

When initiating OCREVUS after an immunosuppressive therapy or initiating an immunosuppressive therapy after OCREVUS, consider the potential for increased immunosuppressive effect. OCREVUS has not been studied in combination with other MS therapies.

Vaccinations

Administer all immunizations according to immunization guidelines at least 4 weeks prior to initiation of OCREVUS for live or live-attenuated vaccines and, whenever possible, at least 2 weeks prior to initiation of OCREVUS for non-live vaccines. OCREVUS may interfere with the effectiveness of non-live vaccines. The safety of immunization with live or live-attenuated vaccines following OCREVUS therapy has not been studied, and vaccination with live-attenuated or live vaccines is not recommended during treatment and until B-cell repletion.

Vaccination of Infants Born to Mothers Treated with OCREVUS During Pregnancy

In infants of mothers exposed to OCREVUS during pregnancy, do not administer live or live-attenuated vaccines before confirming the recovery of B-cell counts as measured by CD19+ B-cells. Depletion of B-cells in these infants may increase the risks from live or live-attenuated vaccines.

You may administer non-live vaccines, as indicated, prior to recovery from B-cell depletion, but should consider assessing vaccine immune responses, including consultation with a qualified specialist, to assess whether a protective immune response was mounted.

Reduction in Immunoglobulins

As expected with any B-cell depleting therapy, decreased immunoglobulin levels are observed with OCREVUS treatment. The pooled data of OCREVUS clinical studies (RMS and PPMS) and their open-label extensions (up to approximately 7 years of exposure) have shown an association between decreased levels of immunoglobulin G (IgG<LLN) and increased rates of serious infections. Monitor the levels of quantitative serum immunoglobulins during OCREVUS treatment and after discontinuation of treatment, until B-cell repletion, and especially in the setting of recurrent serious infections. Consider discontinuing OCREVUS therapy in patients with serious opportunistic or recurrent serious infections, and if prolonged hypogammaglobulinemia requires treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins.

Malignancies  

An increased risk of malignancy with OCREVUS may exist. In controlled trials, malignancies, including breast cancer, occurred more frequently in OCREVUS-treated patients. Breast cancer occurred in 6 of 781 females treated with OCREVUS and none of 668 females treated with REBIF or placebo. Patients should follow standard breast cancer screening guidelines.

Use in Specific Populations

Pregnancy

Pregnancy Exposure Registry

There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy and fetal/neonatal/infant outcomes in women exposed to OCREVUS during pregnancy. Physicians are encouraged to register patients and pregnant women are encouraged to register themselves by calling 1-833-872-4370 or visiting www.ocrevuspregnancyregistry.com.

There are no adequate data on the developmental risk associated with use of OCREVUS in pregnant women. There are no data on B-cell levels in human neonates following maternal exposure to OCREVUS. However, transient peripheral B-cell depletion and lymphocytopenia have been reported in infants born to mothers exposed to other anti-CD20 antibodies during pregnancy. OCREVUS is a humanized monoclonal antibody of an immunoglobulin G1 subtype and immunoglobulins are known to cross the placental barrier. 

Lactation 

There are no data on the presence of ocrelizumab in human milk, the effects on the breastfed infant, or the effects of the drug on milk production. Ocrelizumab was excreted in the milk of ocrelizumab-treated monkeys. Human IgG is excreted in human milk, and the potential for absorption of ocrelizumab to lead to B-cell depletion in the infant is unknown. The developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for OCREVUS and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed infant from OCREVUS or from the underlying maternal condition.

Females and Males of Reproductive Potential

Women of childbearing potential should use effective contraception while receiving OCREVUS and for 6 months after the last infusion of OCREVUS.

Most Common Adverse Reactions

RMS: The most common adverse reactions in RMS trials (incidence ≥10% and >REBIF) were upper respiratory tract infections (40%) and infusion reactions (34%).
 

PPMS: The most common adverse reactions in PPMS trials (incidence ≥10% and >placebo) were upper respiratory tract infections (49%), infusion reactions (40%), skin infections (14%), and lower respiratory tract infections (10%).

For additional safety information, please see the full Prescribing Information and Medication Guide.

¹ Murray TJ. (2006). Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. BMJ, 322 (7540):525-527.
² Tullman M. (2013). Overview of the Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Disease Progression Associated With Multiple Sclerosis. The American Journal of Managed Care. 19 (2): S15-S20.
³ National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2015). Multiple Sclerosis: Hope Through Research. Available at: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Hope-Through-Research/Multiple-Sclerosis-Hope-Through-Research.
⁴ National MS Society. "Who Gets MS? - African Americans." Retrieved November 2020. nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Who-Gets-MS/African-American-Resources.
⁵ Langer-Gould A, et al. Neurology. 2013;80:1734-1739; 2. Wallin MT, et al. Brain. 2012;135:1778-1785.
⁶ U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Clinical Trials Shed Light on Minority Health.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration Website. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20180908114418/https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm349063.htm. Published 2018.
⁷ Genentech. “A New Perspective on Health Inequity.” https://www.gene.com/stories/a-new-perspective-on-health-inequity.

It’s undeniable that great strides have been made in advancing the science of multiple sclerosis (MS) over the past 20 years. Continued pursuit of research and discovery has revolutionized the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of this debilitating condition that causes symptoms that may impact nearly every part of the body and mind. Despite these advancements, there is still more work to be done.

As the search for a cure continues, it’s imperative to ask the big questions: How does MS develop and progress? How can we reduce health disparities in care and treatment? How can we improve existing treatments and expedite the discovery of new ones? To continue making progress, we must stretch the boundaries of scientific understanding until we have answers and solutions to these and other important questions.

We know that MS is a leading cause of non-traumatic disability for young people.^1,2 Yet, one of the biggest challenges for neurologists is that every person’s experience with MS is unique, making it difficult to predict what symptoms will manifest, how disruptive the symptoms and relapses will be and how a person will respond to treatment.

Twenty years ago, it was widely thought that MS was mainly driven by T cells, but in the late 1990’s, a team of researchers made a groundbreaking discovery: B cells also played a key role in MS. This discovery redefined how the scientific community thought about the underlying biology of MS and the central role B cells can play. 

It was this bold thinking that led researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and scientists at Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, to explore whether a medication that depleted B cells would have an impact on MS. This collaboration, in turn, inspired the clinical research behind Ocrevus^® (ocrelizumab), the first and only treatment approved by the FDA for both relapsing MS (RMS) and primary progressive MS (PPMS). MS is a progressive disease from the start. An important goal of treating MS is to reduce disease progression as soon as possible to slow how quickly a person’s disability changes and prevent the long-term consequences of disease progression.³ Ocrevus is administered via infusion twice yearly, with the initial dose split into two separate infusions and given two weeks apart. As with any therapy, this treatment has side effects, which can be found in the full Prescribing Information and Medication Guide. Ocrevus is contraindicated in patients with active hepatitis B virus infection and in patients with a history of life-threatening infusion reactions to Ocrevus. The warnings and precautions for Ocrevus are infusion reactions, and infections, which include respiratory tract infections, herpes, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. Additional warnings are possible increased risk of immunosuppressant effects with other immunosuppressants, reduction in immunoglobulins, and malignancies.

Ensuring a Continuum of Care 
Another significant challenge facing the MS community is ensuring ongoing support and care for people living with the condition, especially throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “We know that seeking early and appropriate care for MS is critical to slowing disability progression and achieving successful patient outcomes,” said Dr. Ashish Pradhan, Executive Director of Neuroimmunology at Genentech. “The pandemic has created additional barriers to early diagnosis and treatment, but we are committed to continuing to do everything we can to support patients and physicians at this stressful time.” Dr. Pradhan also observed that FDA's approval of a shorter infusion time for Ocrevus in December 2020 could potentially contribute to reducing some of the burden on the healthcare system in the long-term.

Being able to connect with others in the MS community is a vital part of navigating the uncertainties of living with the condition. This past April, to shine a light on the diverse MS community, Genentech hosted an #MSVisibility Virtual Concert that gathered people from across the world with different backgrounds and MS experiences and encouraged people living with MS to continue seeking appropriate support and care during the pandemic.

Continued support of the MS community through advocacy partnerships and grants over the years has played a sustained role in Genentech’s efforts to ensure people with MS receive necessary medical care and treatment. For example, Genentech partnered with an MS advocacy organization to fund a program that helps people get to and from their medical appointments. In addition, for more than 30 years, Genentech has helped more than two million people get the medicine they need through patient assistance programs like Genentech Access Solutions and the Genentech Patient Foundation.

Advancing Inclusive Research in MS 
MS has been shown to impact individuals and specific populations in markedly different ways. Those who identify as Black or of African descent and Hispanic/Latinos for example can experience more severe symptoms and faster disease progression than their Caucasian counterparts.^4,5 Unfortunately, it’s not clear exactly why, largely because of their vast underrepresentation in clinical trials (less than 5% and 1%, respectively).⁶ While there are multiple explanations for these disparities, around one-in-three minority patients don’t participate in clinical trials due to lack of trust and 52% feel that the healthcare system is not only flawed, but is actually working against them.⁷

“Increased diversity in research is paramount to ensuring that the healthcare system is serving every person living with MS and ultimately reducing health inequities while providing more tailored treatment options,” commented Dr. Pradhan. “To advance the care of undertreated and underserved people with MS, we are creating and supporting programs, grants and other initiatives focused on people of color and inclusive and minority research to better understand how MS presents itself and develops in different patient populations. We want to make sure that all generations of people living with MS are equally represented in clinical research and have access to the treatments that will work best for them.”

Refining Existing Approaches and Leading Treatment Innovation
For decades, Genentech and Roche have been conducting neuroscience research and clinical trials to make forward progress in understanding and treating a variety of neurological conditions, including MS. While the treatment landscape for MS has evolved significantly over the past two decades, continued investment in research and development is critical. Continuing to review and refine existing treatment approaches may improve patient outcomes and discovering new treatment approaches may play an important role in advancing the treatment paradigm.

Dr. Pradhan added, “as the scientific community continues to think boldly, and re-imagine treatment and care for MS, we hope to continue to improve our understanding of the condition for all people with the disease, and advance treatment options. Pushing boundaries means refusing to stop until everyone living with MS can be treated effectively and a cure is found. This sentiment reminds me of a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote, ‘Don’t follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.’ That’s what we are trying to do at Genentech.”

To learn more, please visit Ocrevus.com.

Indications and Important Safety Information
OCREVUS is indicated for the treatment of:

• Relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), to include clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, in adults.
• Primary progressive MS, in adults. 

Contraindications
OCREVUS is contraindicated in patients with active hepatitis B virus infection and in patients with a history of life-threatening infusion reaction to OCREVUS.

Warnings and Precautions

Infusion Reactions  

OCREVUS can cause infusion reactions, which can include pruritus, rash, urticaria, erythema, bronchospasm, throat irritation, oropharyngeal pain, dyspnea, pharyngeal or laryngeal edema, flushing, hypotension, pyrexia, fatigue, headache, dizziness, nausea, tachycardia, and anaphylaxis. In multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials, the incidence of infusion reactions in OCREVUS-treated patients [who received methylprednisolone (or an equivalent steroid) and possibly other pre-medication to reduce the risk of infusion reactions prior to each infusion] was 34-40%, with the highest incidence with the first infusion. There were no fatal infusion reactions, but 0.3% of OCREVUS-treated MS patients experienced infusion reactions that were serious, some requiring hospitalization.  

Observe patients treated with OCREVUS for infusion reactions during the infusion and for at least one hour after completion of the infusion. Inform patients that infusion reactions can occur up to 24 hours after the infusion. Administer pre-medication (e.g., methylprednisolone or an equivalent corticosteroid, and an antihistamine) to reduce the frequency and severity of infusion reactions. The addition of an antipyretic (e.g., acetaminophen) may also be considered. For life-threatening infusion reactions, immediately and permanently stop OCREVUS and administer appropriate supportive treatment. For less severe infusion reactions, management may involve temporarily stopping the infusion, reducing the infusion rate, and/or administering symptomatic treatment.

Infections

A higher proportion of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced infections compared to patients taking REBIF or placebo. In RMS trials, 58% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced one or more infections compared to 52% of REBIF-treated patients. In the PPMS trial, 70% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced one or more infections compared to 68% of patients on placebo. OCREVUS increased the risk for upper respiratory tract infections, lower respiratory tract infections, skin infections, and herpes-related infections. OCREVUS was not associated with an increased risk of serious infections in MS patients. Delay OCREVUS administration in patients with an active infection until the infection is resolved.

Respiratory Tract Infections

A higher proportion of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced respiratory tract infections compared to patients taking REBIF or placebo. In RMS trials, 40% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced upper respiratory tract infections compared to 33% of REBIF-treated patients, and 8% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced lower respiratory tract infections compared to 5% of REBIF-treated patients. In the PPMS trial, 49% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced upper respiratory tract infections compared to 43% of patients on placebo and 10% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced lower respiratory tract infections compared to 9% of patients on placebo. The infections were predominantly mild to moderate and consisted mostly of upper respiratory tract infections and bronchitis.

Herpes

In active-controlled (RMS) clinical trials, herpes infections were reported more frequently in OCREVUS-treated patients than in REBIF-treated patients, including herpes zoster (2.1% vs. 1.0%), herpes simplex (0.7% vs. 0.1%), oral herpes (3.0% vs. 2.2%), genital herpes (0.1% vs. 0%), and herpes virus infection (0.1% vs. 0%). Infections were predominantly mild to moderate in severity. In the placebo-controlled (PPMS) clinical trial, oral herpes was reported more frequently in the OCREVUS-treated patients than in the patients on placebo (2.7% vs 0.8%).

Serious cases of infections caused by herpes simplex virus and varicella zoster virus, including central nervous system infections (encephalitis and meningitis), intraocular infections, and disseminated skin and soft tissue infections, have been reported in the postmarketing setting in multiple sclerosis patients receiving OCREVUS. Serious herpes virus infections may occur at any time during treatment with OCREVUS. Some cases were life-threatening. 

If serious herpes infections occur, OCREVUS should be discontinued or withheld until the infection has resolved, and appropriate treatment should be administered.

Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML)

PML is an opportunistic viral infection of the brain caused by the John Cunningham (JC) virus that typically only occurs in patients who are immunocompromised, and that usually leads to death or severe disability. Although no cases of PML were identified in OCREVUS clinical trials, JC virus infection resulting in PML has been observed in patients treated with other anti-CD20 antibodies and other MS therapies and has been associated with some risk factors (e.g., immunocompromised patients, polytherapy with immunosuppressants). At the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML, withhold OCREVUS and perform an appropriate diagnostic evaluation. MRI findings may be apparent before clinical signs or symptoms. Typical symptoms associated with PML are diverse, progress over days to weeks, and include progressive weakness on one side of the body or clumsiness of limbs, disturbance of vision, and changes in thinking, memory, and orientation leading to confusion and personality changes (per USPI).

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Reactivation

Hepatitis B reactivation has been reported in MS patients treated with OCREVUS in the postmarketing setting. Fulminant hepatitis, hepatic failure, and death caused by HBV reactivation have occurred in patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies. Perform HBV screening in all patients before initiation of treatment with OCREVUS. Do not administer OCREVUS to patients with active HBV confirmed by positive results for HBsAg and anti-HB tests. For patients who are negative for surface antigen [HBsAg] and positive for HB core antibody [HBcAb+] or are carriers of HBV [HBsAg+], consult liver disease experts before starting and during treatment.

Possible Increased Risk of Immunosuppressant Effects with Other Immunosuppressants

When initiating OCREVUS after an immunosuppressive therapy or initiating an immunosuppressive therapy after OCREVUS, consider the potential for increased immunosuppressive effect. OCREVUS has not been studied in combination with other MS therapies.

Vaccinations

Administer all immunizations according to immunization guidelines at least 4 weeks prior to initiation of OCREVUS for live or live-attenuated vaccines and, whenever possible, at least 2 weeks prior to initiation of OCREVUS for non-live vaccines. OCREVUS may interfere with the effectiveness of non-live vaccines. The safety of immunization with live or live-attenuated vaccines following OCREVUS therapy has not been studied, and vaccination with live-attenuated or live vaccines is not recommended during treatment and until B-cell repletion.

Vaccination of Infants Born to Mothers Treated with OCREVUS During Pregnancy

In infants of mothers exposed to OCREVUS during pregnancy, do not administer live or live-attenuated vaccines before confirming the recovery of B-cell counts as measured by CD19+ B-cells. Depletion of B-cells in these infants may increase the risks from live or live-attenuated vaccines.

You may administer non-live vaccines, as indicated, prior to recovery from B-cell depletion, but should consider assessing vaccine immune responses, including consultation with a qualified specialist, to assess whether a protective immune response was mounted.

Reduction in Immunoglobulins

As expected with any B-cell depleting therapy, decreased immunoglobulin levels are observed with OCREVUS treatment. The pooled data of OCREVUS clinical studies (RMS and PPMS) and their open-label extensions (up to approximately 7 years of exposure) have shown an association between decreased levels of immunoglobulin G (IgG<LLN) and increased rates of serious infections. Monitor the levels of quantitative serum immunoglobulins during OCREVUS treatment and after discontinuation of treatment, until B-cell repletion, and especially in the setting of recurrent serious infections. Consider discontinuing OCREVUS therapy in patients with serious opportunistic or recurrent serious infections, and if prolonged hypogammaglobulinemia requires treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins.

Malignancies  

An increased risk of malignancy with OCREVUS may exist. In controlled trials, malignancies, including breast cancer, occurred more frequently in OCREVUS-treated patients. Breast cancer occurred in 6 of 781 females treated with OCREVUS and none of 668 females treated with REBIF or placebo. Patients should follow standard breast cancer screening guidelines.

Use in Specific Populations

Pregnancy

Pregnancy Exposure Registry

There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy and fetal/neonatal/infant outcomes in women exposed to OCREVUS during pregnancy. Physicians are encouraged to register patients and pregnant women are encouraged to register themselves by calling 1-833-872-4370 or visiting www.ocrevuspregnancyregistry.com.

There are no adequate data on the developmental risk associated with use of OCREVUS in pregnant women. There are no data on B-cell levels in human neonates following maternal exposure to OCREVUS. However, transient peripheral B-cell depletion and lymphocytopenia have been reported in infants born to mothers exposed to other anti-CD20 antibodies during pregnancy. OCREVUS is a humanized monoclonal antibody of an immunoglobulin G1 subtype and immunoglobulins are known to cross the placental barrier. 

Lactation 

There are no data on the presence of ocrelizumab in human milk, the effects on the breastfed infant, or the effects of the drug on milk production. Ocrelizumab was excreted in the milk of ocrelizumab-treated monkeys. Human IgG is excreted in human milk, and the potential for absorption of ocrelizumab to lead to B-cell depletion in the infant is unknown. The developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for OCREVUS and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed infant from OCREVUS or from the underlying maternal condition.

Females and Males of Reproductive Potential

Women of childbearing potential should use effective contraception while receiving OCREVUS and for 6 months after the last infusion of OCREVUS.

Most Common Adverse Reactions

RMS: The most common adverse reactions in RMS trials (incidence ≥10% and >REBIF) were upper respiratory tract infections (40%) and infusion reactions (34%).
 

PPMS: The most common adverse reactions in PPMS trials (incidence ≥10% and >placebo) were upper respiratory tract infections (49%), infusion reactions (40%), skin infections (14%), and lower respiratory tract infections (10%).

For additional safety information, please see the full Prescribing Information and Medication Guide.

¹ Murray TJ. (2006). Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. BMJ, 322 (7540):525-527.
² Tullman M. (2013). Overview of the Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Disease Progression Associated With Multiple Sclerosis. The American Journal of Managed Care. 19 (2): S15-S20.
³ National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2015). Multiple Sclerosis: Hope Through Research. Available at: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Hope-Through-Research/Multiple-Sclerosis-Hope-Through-Research.
⁴ National MS Society. "Who Gets MS? - African Americans." Retrieved November 2020. nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Who-Gets-MS/African-American-Resources.
⁵ Langer-Gould A, et al. Neurology. 2013;80:1734-1739; 2. Wallin MT, et al. Brain. 2012;135:1778-1785.
⁶ U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Clinical Trials Shed Light on Minority Health.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration Website. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20180908114418/https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm349063.htm. Published 2018.
⁷ Genentech. “A New Perspective on Health Inequity.” https://www.gene.com/stories/a-new-perspective-on-health-inequity.

It’s undeniable that great strides have been made in advancing the science of multiple sclerosis (MS) over the past 20 years. Continued pursuit of research and discovery has revolutionized the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of this debilitating condition that causes symptoms that may impact nearly every part of the body and mind. Despite these advancements, there is still more work to be done.

As the search for a cure continues, it’s imperative to ask the big questions: How does MS develop and progress? How can we reduce health disparities in care and treatment? How can we improve existing treatments and expedite the discovery of new ones? To continue making progress, we must stretch the boundaries of scientific understanding until we have answers and solutions to these and other important questions.

We know that MS is a leading cause of non-traumatic disability for young people.^1,2 Yet, one of the biggest challenges for neurologists is that every person’s experience with MS is unique, making it difficult to predict what symptoms will manifest, how disruptive the symptoms and relapses will be and how a person will respond to treatment.

Twenty years ago, it was widely thought that MS was mainly driven by T cells, but in the late 1990’s, a team of researchers made a groundbreaking discovery: B cells also played a key role in MS. This discovery redefined how the scientific community thought about the underlying biology of MS and the central role B cells can play. 

It was this bold thinking that led researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and scientists at Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, to explore whether a medication that depleted B cells would have an impact on MS. This collaboration, in turn, inspired the clinical research behind Ocrevus^® (ocrelizumab), the first and only treatment approved by the FDA for both relapsing MS (RMS) and primary progressive MS (PPMS). MS is a progressive disease from the start. An important goal of treating MS is to reduce disease progression as soon as possible to slow how quickly a person’s disability changes and prevent the long-term consequences of disease progression.³ Ocrevus is administered via infusion twice yearly, with the initial dose split into two separate infusions and given two weeks apart. As with any therapy, this treatment has side effects, which can be found in the full Prescribing Information and Medication Guide. Ocrevus is contraindicated in patients with active hepatitis B virus infection and in patients with a history of life-threatening infusion reactions to Ocrevus. The warnings and precautions for Ocrevus are infusion reactions, and infections, which include respiratory tract infections, herpes, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. Additional warnings are possible increased risk of immunosuppressant effects with other immunosuppressants, reduction in immunoglobulins, and malignancies.

Ensuring a Continuum of Care 
Another significant challenge facing the MS community is ensuring ongoing support and care for people living with the condition, especially throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “We know that seeking early and appropriate care for MS is critical to slowing disability progression and achieving successful patient outcomes,” said Dr. Ashish Pradhan, Executive Director of Neuroimmunology at Genentech. “The pandemic has created additional barriers to early diagnosis and treatment, but we are committed to continuing to do everything we can to support patients and physicians at this stressful time.” Dr. Pradhan also observed that FDA's approval of a shorter infusion time for Ocrevus in December 2020 could potentially contribute to reducing some of the burden on the healthcare system in the long-term.

Being able to connect with others in the MS community is a vital part of navigating the uncertainties of living with the condition. This past April, to shine a light on the diverse MS community, Genentech hosted an #MSVisibility Virtual Concert that gathered people from across the world with different backgrounds and MS experiences and encouraged people living with MS to continue seeking appropriate support and care during the pandemic.

Continued support of the MS community through advocacy partnerships and grants over the years has played a sustained role in Genentech’s efforts to ensure people with MS receive necessary medical care and treatment. For example, Genentech partnered with an MS advocacy organization to fund a program that helps people get to and from their medical appointments. In addition, for more than 30 years, Genentech has helped more than two million people get the medicine they need through patient assistance programs like Genentech Access Solutions and the Genentech Patient Foundation.

Advancing Inclusive Research in MS 
MS has been shown to impact individuals and specific populations in markedly different ways. Those who identify as Black or of African descent and Hispanic/Latinos for example can experience more severe symptoms and faster disease progression than their Caucasian counterparts.^4,5 Unfortunately, it’s not clear exactly why, largely because of their vast underrepresentation in clinical trials (less than 5% and 1%, respectively).⁶ While there are multiple explanations for these disparities, around one-in-three minority patients don’t participate in clinical trials due to lack of trust and 52% feel that the healthcare system is not only flawed, but is actually working against them.⁷

“Increased diversity in research is paramount to ensuring that the healthcare system is serving every person living with MS and ultimately reducing health inequities while providing more tailored treatment options,” commented Dr. Pradhan. “To advance the care of undertreated and underserved people with MS, we are creating and supporting programs, grants and other initiatives focused on people of color and inclusive and minority research to better understand how MS presents itself and develops in different patient populations. We want to make sure that all generations of people living with MS are equally represented in clinical research and have access to the treatments that will work best for them.”

Refining Existing Approaches and Leading Treatment Innovation
For decades, Genentech and Roche have been conducting neuroscience research and clinical trials to make forward progress in understanding and treating a variety of neurological conditions, including MS. While the treatment landscape for MS has evolved significantly over the past two decades, continued investment in research and development is critical. Continuing to review and refine existing treatment approaches may improve patient outcomes and discovering new treatment approaches may play an important role in advancing the treatment paradigm.

Dr. Pradhan added, “as the scientific community continues to think boldly, and re-imagine treatment and care for MS, we hope to continue to improve our understanding of the condition for all people with the disease, and advance treatment options. Pushing boundaries means refusing to stop until everyone living with MS can be treated effectively and a cure is found. This sentiment reminds me of a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote, ‘Don’t follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.’ That’s what we are trying to do at Genentech.”

To learn more, please visit Ocrevus.com.

Indications and Important Safety Information
OCREVUS is indicated for the treatment of:

• Relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), to include clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, in adults.
• Primary progressive MS, in adults. 

Contraindications
OCREVUS is contraindicated in patients with active hepatitis B virus infection and in patients with a history of life-threatening infusion reaction to OCREVUS.

Warnings and Precautions

Infusion Reactions  

OCREVUS can cause infusion reactions, which can include pruritus, rash, urticaria, erythema, bronchospasm, throat irritation, oropharyngeal pain, dyspnea, pharyngeal or laryngeal edema, flushing, hypotension, pyrexia, fatigue, headache, dizziness, nausea, tachycardia, and anaphylaxis. In multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials, the incidence of infusion reactions in OCREVUS-treated patients [who received methylprednisolone (or an equivalent steroid) and possibly other pre-medication to reduce the risk of infusion reactions prior to each infusion] was 34-40%, with the highest incidence with the first infusion. There were no fatal infusion reactions, but 0.3% of OCREVUS-treated MS patients experienced infusion reactions that were serious, some requiring hospitalization.  

Observe patients treated with OCREVUS for infusion reactions during the infusion and for at least one hour after completion of the infusion. Inform patients that infusion reactions can occur up to 24 hours after the infusion. Administer pre-medication (e.g., methylprednisolone or an equivalent corticosteroid, and an antihistamine) to reduce the frequency and severity of infusion reactions. The addition of an antipyretic (e.g., acetaminophen) may also be considered. For life-threatening infusion reactions, immediately and permanently stop OCREVUS and administer appropriate supportive treatment. For less severe infusion reactions, management may involve temporarily stopping the infusion, reducing the infusion rate, and/or administering symptomatic treatment.

Infections

A higher proportion of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced infections compared to patients taking REBIF or placebo. In RMS trials, 58% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced one or more infections compared to 52% of REBIF-treated patients. In the PPMS trial, 70% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced one or more infections compared to 68% of patients on placebo. OCREVUS increased the risk for upper respiratory tract infections, lower respiratory tract infections, skin infections, and herpes-related infections. OCREVUS was not associated with an increased risk of serious infections in MS patients. Delay OCREVUS administration in patients with an active infection until the infection is resolved.

Respiratory Tract Infections

A higher proportion of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced respiratory tract infections compared to patients taking REBIF or placebo. In RMS trials, 40% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced upper respiratory tract infections compared to 33% of REBIF-treated patients, and 8% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced lower respiratory tract infections compared to 5% of REBIF-treated patients. In the PPMS trial, 49% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced upper respiratory tract infections compared to 43% of patients on placebo and 10% of OCREVUS-treated patients experienced lower respiratory tract infections compared to 9% of patients on placebo. The infections were predominantly mild to moderate and consisted mostly of upper respiratory tract infections and bronchitis.

Herpes

In active-controlled (RMS) clinical trials, herpes infections were reported more frequently in OCREVUS-treated patients than in REBIF-treated patients, including herpes zoster (2.1% vs. 1.0%), herpes simplex (0.7% vs. 0.1%), oral herpes (3.0% vs. 2.2%), genital herpes (0.1% vs. 0%), and herpes virus infection (0.1% vs. 0%). Infections were predominantly mild to moderate in severity. In the placebo-controlled (PPMS) clinical trial, oral herpes was reported more frequently in the OCREVUS-treated patients than in the patients on placebo (2.7% vs 0.8%).

Serious cases of infections caused by herpes simplex virus and varicella zoster virus, including central nervous system infections (encephalitis and meningitis), intraocular infections, and disseminated skin and soft tissue infections, have been reported in the postmarketing setting in multiple sclerosis patients receiving OCREVUS. Serious herpes virus infections may occur at any time during treatment with OCREVUS. Some cases were life-threatening. 

If serious herpes infections occur, OCREVUS should be discontinued or withheld until the infection has resolved, and appropriate treatment should be administered.

Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML)

PML is an opportunistic viral infection of the brain caused by the John Cunningham (JC) virus that typically only occurs in patients who are immunocompromised, and that usually leads to death or severe disability. Although no cases of PML were identified in OCREVUS clinical trials, JC virus infection resulting in PML has been observed in patients treated with other anti-CD20 antibodies and other MS therapies and has been associated with some risk factors (e.g., immunocompromised patients, polytherapy with immunosuppressants). At the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML, withhold OCREVUS and perform an appropriate diagnostic evaluation. MRI findings may be apparent before clinical signs or symptoms. Typical symptoms associated with PML are diverse, progress over days to weeks, and include progressive weakness on one side of the body or clumsiness of limbs, disturbance of vision, and changes in thinking, memory, and orientation leading to confusion and personality changes (per USPI).

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Reactivation

Hepatitis B reactivation has been reported in MS patients treated with OCREVUS in the postmarketing setting. Fulminant hepatitis, hepatic failure, and death caused by HBV reactivation have occurred in patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies. Perform HBV screening in all patients before initiation of treatment with OCREVUS. Do not administer OCREVUS to patients with active HBV confirmed by positive results for HBsAg and anti-HB tests. For patients who are negative for surface antigen [HBsAg] and positive for HB core antibody [HBcAb+] or are carriers of HBV [HBsAg+], consult liver disease experts before starting and during treatment.

Possible Increased Risk of Immunosuppressant Effects with Other Immunosuppressants

When initiating OCREVUS after an immunosuppressive therapy or initiating an immunosuppressive therapy after OCREVUS, consider the potential for increased immunosuppressive effect. OCREVUS has not been studied in combination with other MS therapies.

Vaccinations

Administer all immunizations according to immunization guidelines at least 4 weeks prior to initiation of OCREVUS for live or live-attenuated vaccines and, whenever possible, at least 2 weeks prior to initiation of OCREVUS for non-live vaccines. OCREVUS may interfere with the effectiveness of non-live vaccines. The safety of immunization with live or live-attenuated vaccines following OCREVUS therapy has not been studied, and vaccination with live-attenuated or live vaccines is not recommended during treatment and until B-cell repletion.

Vaccination of Infants Born to Mothers Treated with OCREVUS During Pregnancy

In infants of mothers exposed to OCREVUS during pregnancy, do not administer live or live-attenuated vaccines before confirming the recovery of B-cell counts as measured by CD19+ B-cells. Depletion of B-cells in these infants may increase the risks from live or live-attenuated vaccines.

You may administer non-live vaccines, as indicated, prior to recovery from B-cell depletion, but should consider assessing vaccine immune responses, including consultation with a qualified specialist, to assess whether a protective immune response was mounted.

Reduction in Immunoglobulins

As expected with any B-cell depleting therapy, decreased immunoglobulin levels are observed with OCREVUS treatment. The pooled data of OCREVUS clinical studies (RMS and PPMS) and their open-label extensions (up to approximately 7 years of exposure) have shown an association between decreased levels of immunoglobulin G (IgG<LLN) and increased rates of serious infections. Monitor the levels of quantitative serum immunoglobulins during OCREVUS treatment and after discontinuation of treatment, until B-cell repletion, and especially in the setting of recurrent serious infections. Consider discontinuing OCREVUS therapy in patients with serious opportunistic or recurrent serious infections, and if prolonged hypogammaglobulinemia requires treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins.

Malignancies  

An increased risk of malignancy with OCREVUS may exist. In controlled trials, malignancies, including breast cancer, occurred more frequently in OCREVUS-treated patients. Breast cancer occurred in 6 of 781 females treated with OCREVUS and none of 668 females treated with REBIF or placebo. Patients should follow standard breast cancer screening guidelines.

Use in Specific Populations

Pregnancy

Pregnancy Exposure Registry

There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy and fetal/neonatal/infant outcomes in women exposed to OCREVUS during pregnancy. Physicians are encouraged to register patients and pregnant women are encouraged to register themselves by calling 1-833-872-4370 or visiting www.ocrevuspregnancyregistry.com.

There are no adequate data on the developmental risk associated with use of OCREVUS in pregnant women. There are no data on B-cell levels in human neonates following maternal exposure to OCREVUS. However, transient peripheral B-cell depletion and lymphocytopenia have been reported in infants born to mothers exposed to other anti-CD20 antibodies during pregnancy. OCREVUS is a humanized monoclonal antibody of an immunoglobulin G1 subtype and immunoglobulins are known to cross the placental barrier. 

Lactation 

There are no data on the presence of ocrelizumab in human milk, the effects on the breastfed infant, or the effects of the drug on milk production. Ocrelizumab was excreted in the milk of ocrelizumab-treated monkeys. Human IgG is excreted in human milk, and the potential for absorption of ocrelizumab to lead to B-cell depletion in the infant is unknown. The developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for OCREVUS and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed infant from OCREVUS or from the underlying maternal condition.

Females and Males of Reproductive Potential

Women of childbearing potential should use effective contraception while receiving OCREVUS and for 6 months after the last infusion of OCREVUS.

Most Common Adverse Reactions

RMS: The most common adverse reactions in RMS trials (incidence ≥10% and >REBIF) were upper respiratory tract infections (40%) and infusion reactions (34%).
 

PPMS: The most common adverse reactions in PPMS trials (incidence ≥10% and >placebo) were upper respiratory tract infections (49%), infusion reactions (40%), skin infections (14%), and lower respiratory tract infections (10%).

For additional safety information, please see the full Prescribing Information and Medication Guide.

¹ Murray TJ. (2006). Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. BMJ, 322 (7540):525-527.
² Tullman M. (2013). Overview of the Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Disease Progression Associated With Multiple Sclerosis. The American Journal of Managed Care. 19 (2): S15-S20.
³ National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2015). Multiple Sclerosis: Hope Through Research. Available at: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Hope-Through-Research/Multiple-Sclerosis-Hope-Through-Research.
⁴ National MS Society. "Who Gets MS? - African Americans." Retrieved November 2020. nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Who-Gets-MS/African-American-Resources.
⁵ Langer-Gould A, et al. Neurology. 2013;80:1734-1739; 2. Wallin MT, et al. Brain. 2012;135:1778-1785.
⁶ U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Clinical Trials Shed Light on Minority Health.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration Website. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20180908114418/https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm349063.htm. Published 2018.
⁷ Genentech. “A New Perspective on Health Inequity.” https://www.gene.com/stories/a-new-perspective-on-health-inequity.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) may be more likely to develop psoriasis if they take certain B cell-depleting therapies, a new study finds. However, overall rates of reported disease are very low, and there’s no confirmation of a connection.

“People with MS and comorbid psoriasis – or those at a known high-risk for developing psoriasis – may benefit from a careful consideration of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), specifically when B cell-depleting therapies are considered,” study coauthor and Medical College of Wisconsin neurologist Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, said in an interview. The findings were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues launched the study after noticing cases of psoriasis that developed months to years after patients started taking ocrelizumab, a B cell-depleting therapy. “We referred to the published literature and only found very scant reports of MS, psoriasis, and B cell-depleting therapy use,” he said. “Thus we decided to pursue an investigation of a large [Food and Drug Administration] database to examine for possible out-of-proportion reports for psoriasis in patients with MS who were receiving B cell-depleting therapy.”

The researchers tracked case reports of psoriasis in patients with MS on DMTs from 2009 to 2020 via the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. They found 517 psoriasis reports among 45,547 reports of skin/cutaneous conditions. The reports were linked to interferon beta 1a (136 reports, 26% of total), natalizumab (107, 21%), fingolimod (75, 15%), dimethyl fumarate (64, 12%), ocrelizumab (49, 10%), teriflunomide (28, 5%), interferon beta 1b (22, 4%), glatiramer acetate (12, 2%), rituximab (10, 2%), and alemtuzumab (9, 2%).

The total numbers of cases is low, but this may reflect underreporting due to the assumption that “autoimmunity begets autoimmunity” and therefore cases of psoriasis in MS are not alarming, medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study lead author, said in an interview.

The average age of patients – 48-51 – was similar for all of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age 41), which had a very small number of cases. The percentage of cases in females was 71%-77% for most of the drugs, with a few exceptions: rituximab (60%), ocrelizumab (63%), and alemtuzumab (33%).

Other drugs – cladribine, siponimod, and ozanimod – had 1, 1, and 0 reports, respectively, and were not included in the age and gender analyses.

The researchers also found that psoriasis made up about 65% of all skin/cutaneous adverse reports for rituximab, the highest number among DMTs. By comparison, that number was about 30% for ocrelizumab and under 1% for dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab.

Links between psoriasis and MS are murky, Dr. Obeidat said. “Some studies consider the presence of psoriasis as a possible indicator of increased future risk for MS, but there’s no clear association between the two conditions,” he said.

As for DMTs, “a few case reports of psoriasis in association with interferon-beta and rare case reports in association with ocrelizumab therapy have been published. However, the possible association between certain DMTs and psoriasis remains unclear,” he said.

Going forward, “we advise that patients with psoriasis on B cell-depleting agents are monitored more closely,” Dr. Obeidat said. “If the psoriasis worsens, it may be beneficial to think about potential alternative therapies.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Obeidat reports various disclosures; the other authors report no disclosures.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) may be more likely to develop psoriasis if they take certain B cell-depleting therapies, a new study finds. However, overall rates of reported disease are very low, and there’s no confirmation of a connection.

“People with MS and comorbid psoriasis – or those at a known high-risk for developing psoriasis – may benefit from a careful consideration of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), specifically when B cell-depleting therapies are considered,” study coauthor and Medical College of Wisconsin neurologist Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, said in an interview. The findings were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues launched the study after noticing cases of psoriasis that developed months to years after patients started taking ocrelizumab, a B cell-depleting therapy. “We referred to the published literature and only found very scant reports of MS, psoriasis, and B cell-depleting therapy use,” he said. “Thus we decided to pursue an investigation of a large [Food and Drug Administration] database to examine for possible out-of-proportion reports for psoriasis in patients with MS who were receiving B cell-depleting therapy.”

The researchers tracked case reports of psoriasis in patients with MS on DMTs from 2009 to 2020 via the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. They found 517 psoriasis reports among 45,547 reports of skin/cutaneous conditions. The reports were linked to interferon beta 1a (136 reports, 26% of total), natalizumab (107, 21%), fingolimod (75, 15%), dimethyl fumarate (64, 12%), ocrelizumab (49, 10%), teriflunomide (28, 5%), interferon beta 1b (22, 4%), glatiramer acetate (12, 2%), rituximab (10, 2%), and alemtuzumab (9, 2%).

The total numbers of cases is low, but this may reflect underreporting due to the assumption that “autoimmunity begets autoimmunity” and therefore cases of psoriasis in MS are not alarming, medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study lead author, said in an interview.

The average age of patients – 48-51 – was similar for all of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age 41), which had a very small number of cases. The percentage of cases in females was 71%-77% for most of the drugs, with a few exceptions: rituximab (60%), ocrelizumab (63%), and alemtuzumab (33%).

Other drugs – cladribine, siponimod, and ozanimod – had 1, 1, and 0 reports, respectively, and were not included in the age and gender analyses.

The researchers also found that psoriasis made up about 65% of all skin/cutaneous adverse reports for rituximab, the highest number among DMTs. By comparison, that number was about 30% for ocrelizumab and under 1% for dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab.

Links between psoriasis and MS are murky, Dr. Obeidat said. “Some studies consider the presence of psoriasis as a possible indicator of increased future risk for MS, but there’s no clear association between the two conditions,” he said.

As for DMTs, “a few case reports of psoriasis in association with interferon-beta and rare case reports in association with ocrelizumab therapy have been published. However, the possible association between certain DMTs and psoriasis remains unclear,” he said.

Going forward, “we advise that patients with psoriasis on B cell-depleting agents are monitored more closely,” Dr. Obeidat said. “If the psoriasis worsens, it may be beneficial to think about potential alternative therapies.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Obeidat reports various disclosures; the other authors report no disclosures.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) may be more likely to develop psoriasis if they take certain B cell-depleting therapies, a new study finds. However, overall rates of reported disease are very low, and there’s no confirmation of a connection.

“People with MS and comorbid psoriasis – or those at a known high-risk for developing psoriasis – may benefit from a careful consideration of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), specifically when B cell-depleting therapies are considered,” study coauthor and Medical College of Wisconsin neurologist Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, said in an interview. The findings were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues launched the study after noticing cases of psoriasis that developed months to years after patients started taking ocrelizumab, a B cell-depleting therapy. “We referred to the published literature and only found very scant reports of MS, psoriasis, and B cell-depleting therapy use,” he said. “Thus we decided to pursue an investigation of a large [Food and Drug Administration] database to examine for possible out-of-proportion reports for psoriasis in patients with MS who were receiving B cell-depleting therapy.”

The researchers tracked case reports of psoriasis in patients with MS on DMTs from 2009 to 2020 via the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. They found 517 psoriasis reports among 45,547 reports of skin/cutaneous conditions. The reports were linked to interferon beta 1a (136 reports, 26% of total), natalizumab (107, 21%), fingolimod (75, 15%), dimethyl fumarate (64, 12%), ocrelizumab (49, 10%), teriflunomide (28, 5%), interferon beta 1b (22, 4%), glatiramer acetate (12, 2%), rituximab (10, 2%), and alemtuzumab (9, 2%).

The total numbers of cases is low, but this may reflect underreporting due to the assumption that “autoimmunity begets autoimmunity” and therefore cases of psoriasis in MS are not alarming, medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study lead author, said in an interview.

The average age of patients – 48-51 – was similar for all of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age 41), which had a very small number of cases. The percentage of cases in females was 71%-77% for most of the drugs, with a few exceptions: rituximab (60%), ocrelizumab (63%), and alemtuzumab (33%).

Other drugs – cladribine, siponimod, and ozanimod – had 1, 1, and 0 reports, respectively, and were not included in the age and gender analyses.

The researchers also found that psoriasis made up about 65% of all skin/cutaneous adverse reports for rituximab, the highest number among DMTs. By comparison, that number was about 30% for ocrelizumab and under 1% for dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab.

Links between psoriasis and MS are murky, Dr. Obeidat said. “Some studies consider the presence of psoriasis as a possible indicator of increased future risk for MS, but there’s no clear association between the two conditions,” he said.

As for DMTs, “a few case reports of psoriasis in association with interferon-beta and rare case reports in association with ocrelizumab therapy have been published. However, the possible association between certain DMTs and psoriasis remains unclear,” he said.

Going forward, “we advise that patients with psoriasis on B cell-depleting agents are monitored more closely,” Dr. Obeidat said. “If the psoriasis worsens, it may be beneficial to think about potential alternative therapies.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Obeidat reports various disclosures; the other authors report no disclosures.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When managing seizures, physicians have multiple treatment choices developed over the past half century. Partial-onset seizures, or focal seizures, represent the majority of cases. Neurologists and primary care providers are tasked with choosing the first-, second-, or third-line option for monotherapy, and determining when treatment-refractory cases require adjunct treatment. 

This supplement reviews Eslicarbazepine Acetate and its effectiveness as a first-line or later adjunctive therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures.
 

Click here to read more

When managing seizures, physicians have multiple treatment choices developed over the past half century. Partial-onset seizures, or focal seizures, represent the majority of cases. Neurologists and primary care providers are tasked with choosing the first-, second-, or third-line option for monotherapy, and determining when treatment-refractory cases require adjunct treatment. 

This supplement reviews Eslicarbazepine Acetate and its effectiveness as a first-line or later adjunctive therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures.
 

Click here to read more

When managing seizures, physicians have multiple treatment choices developed over the past half century. Partial-onset seizures, or focal seizures, represent the majority of cases. Neurologists and primary care providers are tasked with choosing the first-, second-, or third-line option for monotherapy, and determining when treatment-refractory cases require adjunct treatment. 

This supplement reviews Eslicarbazepine Acetate and its effectiveness as a first-line or later adjunctive therapy in patients with partial-onset seizures.
 

Click here to read more