Neurology Reviews

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

A new indirect comparison of the three new Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment options for adults with aquaporin4+ (AQP4+) neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), has suggested that eculizumab is far more effective than the other two agents in preventing time to first relapse.

The Alexion-sponsored study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis  (ECTRIMS) by Dean Wingerchuk, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Other experts in the field have highlighted limitations to the analysis and pointed out that all three agents are very effective in treating AQP4+ NMOSD, and many other considerations need to be taken into account as well as time to first relapse when selecting a therapy, leaving the door open for all three agents.

Dr. Wingerchuk explained that NMOSD is a rare severely disabling complement-mediated autoimmune neuroinflammatory disease of the central nervous system, characterized by devastating and unpredictable attacks (relapses) that can cause immediate and irreversible damage.

There are three recently approved monoclonal antibody treatment options in the United States for adults with AQP4+ NMOSD: eculizumab (Soliris, Alexion), inebilizumab (Uplizna, Horizon), and satralizumab (Enspryng, Genentech). A comparison of the relative treatment effects of these drugs would facilitate the treatment selection process, Dr. Wingerchuk said.

The objective of this study was to perform an indirect treatment comparison on the efficacy of these three FDA-approved treatment options for adults with AQP4+ NMOSD, in the absence of any head-to-head studies.

Using published data from randomized controlled trials, which were identified by a systematic literature review in September 2020, the researchers performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate the relative effects between eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab.

Network meta-analyses were performed for clinically relevant subpopulations based on three treatment networks: (1) patients who received monotherapy with one of the monoclonal antibodies or in combination with an immunosuppressant therapy; (2) patients who received monotherapy with the monoclonal antibody alone; and (3) patients who received a combination of both the monoclonal antibody and immunosuppressant therapy.

Time to first relapse was the primary efficacy outcome assessed. Relative treatment effects were expressed as hazard ratios and the probability that a treatment was the best at delaying time to first relapse was also evaluated.

In the systematic literature review, 29 publications from four unique clinical trials were identified and include in the network meta-analysis. These included publications from congress proceedings and peer-reviewed journals.

The four clinical trials were the N-MOmentum trial of inebilizumab versus placebo; the PREVENT trial of eculizumab with or without immunosuppressant therapy versus placebo with or without immunosuppressant therapy; the SAkuraSky trial of satralizumab plus immunosuppressant therapy versus placebo plus immunosuppressant therapy; and the SAkuraStar trial of satralizumab versus placebo.

Results showed that for the first analysis of mono or combination therapy, patients treated with eculizumab with or without immunosuppressant therapy were 76% less likely to experience a first relapse when compared with patients treated with satralizumab with or without immunosuppressant therapy.

In the monotherapy network, patients on eculizumab were 90% less likely to experience a first relapse when compared with patients treated with satralizumab, and patients on eculizumab were 89% less likely to experience a first relapse when compared with patients treated with inebilizumab.

In the third network analysis – a comparison of eculizumab plus immunosuppressant therapy with inebilizumab plus immunosuppressant therapy (Table 1) – the point estimate appeared to favor eculizumab but the confidence intervals were wide and not significant.

Experts respond

Commenting on the study, several experts in the field provided some balancing views.

Bruce Cree, MD, University of California San Francisco, who was the chief investigator of the N-MOmentum study with inebilizumab, said he was skeptical about this new indirect comparison. “The results of this study seem too good to be true; a 90% difference between agents has to be an overestimate,” he said.

“We know from independent studies that all three drugs are very effective. If we take each trial separately, eculizumab reduced attack risk by 90% versus placebo; and the other two drugs by 77% to 78% versus placebo. For eculizumab to be 90% better than inebilizumab or satralizumab its basically like saying these drugs perform like placebo, but we know that is not the case,” Dr. Cree argued.

He pointed out that when comparing results across studies there are many factors that have to be considered, including the different patient populations included in the different studies, with the characteristic of each population in each trial being unique to that dataset.

In addition, Dr. Cree suggested that all the studies included in the comparison were relatively small for this type of analysis. “Normally this type of analysis is done with much larger studies, so the resulting database is closer to a representation of the disease state itself,” he said.

Dr. Cree also questioned the role of the sponsor in this meta-analysis. “The analysis was sponsored by Alexion and several coauthors were employees of Alexion. There was not much description available of how the statistics were done. I am concerned that the company was involved in the analysis, which could introduce bias. I look forward to seeing details of the statistical methodology,” he said.

“This is definitely a provocative study. They have thrown down the gauntlet. If they are so confident in the results they should now do a head-to-head study to back this result up. If they don’t do that, then I think physicians should ignore it as there are just too many problems with this analysis,” Dr. Cree stated.

Dr. Cree acknowledged that when looking at the four trials separately, eculizumab does look a little better than the other two agents in delaying time to first relapse. “But there are some caveats. Despite a larger reduction in relapse rate there was no reduction in disability in the eculizumab trial. Whereas the inebilizumab trial did show a reduction in disability. And while the PREVENT trial with eculizumab was a good study, during the course of the trial the definition of clinical relapse was changed, and as a consequence that increased the product’s performance – that’s a little bit curious,” he added.
 

How to choose?

On how to choose between the three agents, Dr. Cree said they are all “extraordinarily effective” at reducing relapse activity. “They are all ‘home run’ products, but they have differences in safety,” he said.

“Inebilizumab is linked to hypogammaglobulinemia over time – we haven’t seen an increase in infection risk linked to this, but with enough time, I would expect that there probably will be. But inebilizumab is a B-cell-depleting agent like the agents used in MS, and we now have a lot of experiences with this type of product, which gives us more confidence on the safety profile,” Dr. Cree noted.

“Eculizumab was linked to a risk of meningococcal meningitis and other bacterial infections, and satralizumab seems to [be] overall well tolerated with no obvious safety concerns to date, but the studies have been quite small,” he added.

On routes of administration and frequency of dosing, Dr. Cree pointed out that while all three drugs have an intensive loading schedule, for maintenance, eculizumab needs to be given as an IV infusion every 2 weeks. Inebilizumab needs just two infusions per year for maintenance, while satralizumab is given by subcutaneous injection once per month.

“It may be that eculizumab could be used at the time of an acute attack but then treatment could be switched to one of the other two for long-term maintenance,” he suggested.

But Dr. Cree pointed out that the biggest challenge for all three agents is access. “The costs are astronomically high ($200,000-$770,000). They are prohibitively expensive and very few insurance companies are covering them.”

Also commenting, Brian Weinshenker, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was a member of the attack adjudication committee for both PREVENT and N-MOmentum studies, pointed out that as well as differences in the populations enrolled, and study designs, the studies with the three different drugs also had differences in attack adjudication criteria.

“These factors make it very difficult to compare across studies, which is what was done in this analysis, so I would be reluctant to reach many conclusions about differences.”

Dr. Weinshenker added: “All three treatments provided strong benefit. We are still learning about long-term benefits, but emerging data have suggested that all three seem to provide persistent benefits for the length of the open-label extension study. We don’t have much evidence about the severity of the attacks that did occur, although some limited data suggest that both eculizumab and inebilizumab reduce attack severity.”

Dennis Bourdette, MD, professor emeritus, department of neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in any of the studies, said he thought the new analysis was “a worthwhile effort to determine the relative effectiveness of the three different drugs in treating AQP4+ NMOSD.

“Given the rarity of APQ4+ NMOSD, it will be difficult to perform randomized head-to-head clinical trials of the agents, so this type of comparison is the best we can do at this time,” he said.

While Dr. Bourdette feels this study supports the notion that eculizumab is more effective at delaying time to first relapse than inebilizumab and satralizumab, he does not believe the results should have a major impact on decisions about which agent to use in clinical practice.

“A difference in delaying time to first relapse tells us little about the relative effectiveness of the long-term benefit of these [agents], particularly with regards to permanent disability or frequency of relapses. However, it is possible that the difference reflects the efficacy kinetics of the agents with eculizumab working faster than the other two agents, which would be useful in making a decision about a patient with very active NMOSD where one wants to get the disease under control as quickly as possible,” Dr. Bourdette noted.

But he added that neurologists should also consider safety profile, convenience, and contraindications. “Eculizumab is clearly less convenient in terms of dosing schedule than the other two agents, and patient convenience is important for long-term compliance.”

Dr. Bourdette pointed out that another consideration is prior treatment. “Many patients with NMOSD will receive the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab – which depletes B cells – off label. Inebilizumab also depletes B cells, so a patient who has had continued NMOSD disease activity on rituximab probably should not be treated with inebilizumab, making eculizumab or satralizumab preferable,” he suggested.

Finally, Dr. Bourdette highlighted the sponsorship of the current study by the manufacturer of eculizumab, Alexion, and that all of the authors have some financial relationship with Alexion as described in their disclosures. “Whether this resulted in any biases about the design, conduct, or interpretation of the study is uncertain but is always a concern,” he said.

Company statements

The companies selling inebilizumab and satralizumab sent statements on the new analysis and repeated many of the above points.

Genentech noted that new longer-term data presented at ECTRIMS show that satralizumab is effective in significantly reducing relapses over 4 years of treatment in people with AQP4+ NMOSD, with a favorable safety profile both as a monotherapy and in conjunction with immunosuppressive therapy. More than 70% of people treated with satralizumab remained relapse free after 4 years in the SAkuraStar (73%) and SAkuraSky (71%) open-label extension studies, and 90% and 91%, respectively, were free from severe relapse, the company reported.

Horizon said: “We are confident in the efficacy and safety of Uplizna (inebilizumab) – a convenient, twice-annual monotherapy – that was studied in the largest randomized, placebo-controlled, global trial of a monotherapy in NMOSD. The endpoints in this trial were prospectively defined and assessed by an adjudication committee as published in The Lancet, with long-term follow-up data now published in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal that further support the efficacy and safety.”

The current study was funded by Alexion–AstraZeneca Rare Disease. Dr. Wingerchuk has participated on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Roche, Viela Bio, Genentech, Biogen, Reistone, TG Therapeutics, Celgene, Novartis, and Alexion–AstraZeneca Rare Disease. He has received grants for clinical trials through Alexion–AstraZeneca Rare Disease and Terumo BCT, and has been paid consulting fees by Mitsubishi Tanabe. Several coauthors of this study are employees of Alexion Pharmaceutics. Dr. Cree was principal investigator on the N-MOmentum study with inebilizumab. He has a grant from Genentech for MS research, and has consulted for Alexion in the past. Dr. Weinshenker has served as a member of the attack adjudication committee for both PREVENT and N-MOmentum studies and has financial relationships with the manufacturers of all three drugs. Dr. Bourdette has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new indirect comparison of the three new Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment options for adults with aquaporin4+ (AQP4+) neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), has suggested that eculizumab is far more effective than the other two agents in preventing time to first relapse.

The Alexion-sponsored study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis  (ECTRIMS) by Dean Wingerchuk, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Other experts in the field have highlighted limitations to the analysis and pointed out that all three agents are very effective in treating AQP4+ NMOSD, and many other considerations need to be taken into account as well as time to first relapse when selecting a therapy, leaving the door open for all three agents.

Dr. Wingerchuk explained that NMOSD is a rare severely disabling complement-mediated autoimmune neuroinflammatory disease of the central nervous system, characterized by devastating and unpredictable attacks (relapses) that can cause immediate and irreversible damage.

There are three recently approved monoclonal antibody treatment options in the United States for adults with AQP4+ NMOSD: eculizumab (Soliris, Alexion), inebilizumab (Uplizna, Horizon), and satralizumab (Enspryng, Genentech). A comparison of the relative treatment effects of these drugs would facilitate the treatment selection process, Dr. Wingerchuk said.

The objective of this study was to perform an indirect treatment comparison on the efficacy of these three FDA-approved treatment options for adults with AQP4+ NMOSD, in the absence of any head-to-head studies.

Using published data from randomized controlled trials, which were identified by a systematic literature review in September 2020, the researchers performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate the relative effects between eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab.

Network meta-analyses were performed for clinically relevant subpopulations based on three treatment networks: (1) patients who received monotherapy with one of the monoclonal antibodies or in combination with an immunosuppressant therapy; (2) patients who received monotherapy with the monoclonal antibody alone; and (3) patients who received a combination of both the monoclonal antibody and immunosuppressant therapy.

Time to first relapse was the primary efficacy outcome assessed. Relative treatment effects were expressed as hazard ratios and the probability that a treatment was the best at delaying time to first relapse was also evaluated.

In the systematic literature review, 29 publications from four unique clinical trials were identified and include in the network meta-analysis. These included publications from congress proceedings and peer-reviewed journals.

The four clinical trials were the N-MOmentum trial of inebilizumab versus placebo; the PREVENT trial of eculizumab with or without immunosuppressant therapy versus placebo with or without immunosuppressant therapy; the SAkuraSky trial of satralizumab plus immunosuppressant therapy versus placebo plus immunosuppressant therapy; and the SAkuraStar trial of satralizumab versus placebo.

Results showed that for the first analysis of mono or combination therapy, patients treated with eculizumab with or without immunosuppressant therapy were 76% less likely to experience a first relapse when compared with patients treated with satralizumab with or without immunosuppressant therapy.

In the monotherapy network, patients on eculizumab were 90% less likely to experience a first relapse when compared with patients treated with satralizumab, and patients on eculizumab were 89% less likely to experience a first relapse when compared with patients treated with inebilizumab.

In the third network analysis – a comparison of eculizumab plus immunosuppressant therapy with inebilizumab plus immunosuppressant therapy (Table 1) – the point estimate appeared to favor eculizumab but the confidence intervals were wide and not significant.

Experts respond

Commenting on the study, several experts in the field provided some balancing views.

Bruce Cree, MD, University of California San Francisco, who was the chief investigator of the N-MOmentum study with inebilizumab, said he was skeptical about this new indirect comparison. “The results of this study seem too good to be true; a 90% difference between agents has to be an overestimate,” he said.

“We know from independent studies that all three drugs are very effective. If we take each trial separately, eculizumab reduced attack risk by 90% versus placebo; and the other two drugs by 77% to 78% versus placebo. For eculizumab to be 90% better than inebilizumab or satralizumab its basically like saying these drugs perform like placebo, but we know that is not the case,” Dr. Cree argued.

He pointed out that when comparing results across studies there are many factors that have to be considered, including the different patient populations included in the different studies, with the characteristic of each population in each trial being unique to that dataset.

In addition, Dr. Cree suggested that all the studies included in the comparison were relatively small for this type of analysis. “Normally this type of analysis is done with much larger studies, so the resulting database is closer to a representation of the disease state itself,” he said.

Dr. Cree also questioned the role of the sponsor in this meta-analysis. “The analysis was sponsored by Alexion and several coauthors were employees of Alexion. There was not much description available of how the statistics were done. I am concerned that the company was involved in the analysis, which could introduce bias. I look forward to seeing details of the statistical methodology,” he said.

“This is definitely a provocative study. They have thrown down the gauntlet. If they are so confident in the results they should now do a head-to-head study to back this result up. If they don’t do that, then I think physicians should ignore it as there are just too many problems with this analysis,” Dr. Cree stated.

Dr. Cree acknowledged that when looking at the four trials separately, eculizumab does look a little better than the other two agents in delaying time to first relapse. “But there are some caveats. Despite a larger reduction in relapse rate there was no reduction in disability in the eculizumab trial. Whereas the inebilizumab trial did show a reduction in disability. And while the PREVENT trial with eculizumab was a good study, during the course of the trial the definition of clinical relapse was changed, and as a consequence that increased the product’s performance – that’s a little bit curious,” he added.
 

How to choose?

On how to choose between the three agents, Dr. Cree said they are all “extraordinarily effective” at reducing relapse activity. “They are all ‘home run’ products, but they have differences in safety,” he said.

“Inebilizumab is linked to hypogammaglobulinemia over time – we haven’t seen an increase in infection risk linked to this, but with enough time, I would expect that there probably will be. But inebilizumab is a B-cell-depleting agent like the agents used in MS, and we now have a lot of experiences with this type of product, which gives us more confidence on the safety profile,” Dr. Cree noted.

“Eculizumab was linked to a risk of meningococcal meningitis and other bacterial infections, and satralizumab seems to [be] overall well tolerated with no obvious safety concerns to date, but the studies have been quite small,” he added.

On routes of administration and frequency of dosing, Dr. Cree pointed out that while all three drugs have an intensive loading schedule, for maintenance, eculizumab needs to be given as an IV infusion every 2 weeks. Inebilizumab needs just two infusions per year for maintenance, while satralizumab is given by subcutaneous injection once per month.

“It may be that eculizumab could be used at the time of an acute attack but then treatment could be switched to one of the other two for long-term maintenance,” he suggested.

But Dr. Cree pointed out that the biggest challenge for all three agents is access. “The costs are astronomically high ($200,000-$770,000). They are prohibitively expensive and very few insurance companies are covering them.”

Also commenting, Brian Weinshenker, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was a member of the attack adjudication committee for both PREVENT and N-MOmentum studies, pointed out that as well as differences in the populations enrolled, and study designs, the studies with the three different drugs also had differences in attack adjudication criteria.

“These factors make it very difficult to compare across studies, which is what was done in this analysis, so I would be reluctant to reach many conclusions about differences.”

Dr. Weinshenker added: “All three treatments provided strong benefit. We are still learning about long-term benefits, but emerging data have suggested that all three seem to provide persistent benefits for the length of the open-label extension study. We don’t have much evidence about the severity of the attacks that did occur, although some limited data suggest that both eculizumab and inebilizumab reduce attack severity.”

Dennis Bourdette, MD, professor emeritus, department of neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in any of the studies, said he thought the new analysis was “a worthwhile effort to determine the relative effectiveness of the three different drugs in treating AQP4+ NMOSD.

“Given the rarity of APQ4+ NMOSD, it will be difficult to perform randomized head-to-head clinical trials of the agents, so this type of comparison is the best we can do at this time,” he said.

While Dr. Bourdette feels this study supports the notion that eculizumab is more effective at delaying time to first relapse than inebilizumab and satralizumab, he does not believe the results should have a major impact on decisions about which agent to use in clinical practice.

“A difference in delaying time to first relapse tells us little about the relative effectiveness of the long-term benefit of these [agents], particularly with regards to permanent disability or frequency of relapses. However, it is possible that the difference reflects the efficacy kinetics of the agents with eculizumab working faster than the other two agents, which would be useful in making a decision about a patient with very active NMOSD where one wants to get the disease under control as quickly as possible,” Dr. Bourdette noted.

But he added that neurologists should also consider safety profile, convenience, and contraindications. “Eculizumab is clearly less convenient in terms of dosing schedule than the other two agents, and patient convenience is important for long-term compliance.”

Dr. Bourdette pointed out that another consideration is prior treatment. “Many patients with NMOSD will receive the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab – which depletes B cells – off label. Inebilizumab also depletes B cells, so a patient who has had continued NMOSD disease activity on rituximab probably should not be treated with inebilizumab, making eculizumab or satralizumab preferable,” he suggested.

Finally, Dr. Bourdette highlighted the sponsorship of the current study by the manufacturer of eculizumab, Alexion, and that all of the authors have some financial relationship with Alexion as described in their disclosures. “Whether this resulted in any biases about the design, conduct, or interpretation of the study is uncertain but is always a concern,” he said.

Company statements

The companies selling inebilizumab and satralizumab sent statements on the new analysis and repeated many of the above points.

Genentech noted that new longer-term data presented at ECTRIMS show that satralizumab is effective in significantly reducing relapses over 4 years of treatment in people with AQP4+ NMOSD, with a favorable safety profile both as a monotherapy and in conjunction with immunosuppressive therapy. More than 70% of people treated with satralizumab remained relapse free after 4 years in the SAkuraStar (73%) and SAkuraSky (71%) open-label extension studies, and 90% and 91%, respectively, were free from severe relapse, the company reported.

Horizon said: “We are confident in the efficacy and safety of Uplizna (inebilizumab) – a convenient, twice-annual monotherapy – that was studied in the largest randomized, placebo-controlled, global trial of a monotherapy in NMOSD. The endpoints in this trial were prospectively defined and assessed by an adjudication committee as published in The Lancet, with long-term follow-up data now published in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal that further support the efficacy and safety.”

The current study was funded by Alexion–AstraZeneca Rare Disease. Dr. Wingerchuk has participated on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Roche, Viela Bio, Genentech, Biogen, Reistone, TG Therapeutics, Celgene, Novartis, and Alexion–AstraZeneca Rare Disease. He has received grants for clinical trials through Alexion–AstraZeneca Rare Disease and Terumo BCT, and has been paid consulting fees by Mitsubishi Tanabe. Several coauthors of this study are employees of Alexion Pharmaceutics. Dr. Cree was principal investigator on the N-MOmentum study with inebilizumab. He has a grant from Genentech for MS research, and has consulted for Alexion in the past. Dr. Weinshenker has served as a member of the attack adjudication committee for both PREVENT and N-MOmentum studies and has financial relationships with the manufacturers of all three drugs. Dr. Bourdette has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new indirect comparison of the three new Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment options for adults with aquaporin4+ (AQP4+) neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), has suggested that eculizumab is far more effective than the other two agents in preventing time to first relapse.

The Alexion-sponsored study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis  (ECTRIMS) by Dean Wingerchuk, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Other experts in the field have highlighted limitations to the analysis and pointed out that all three agents are very effective in treating AQP4+ NMOSD, and many other considerations need to be taken into account as well as time to first relapse when selecting a therapy, leaving the door open for all three agents.

Dr. Wingerchuk explained that NMOSD is a rare severely disabling complement-mediated autoimmune neuroinflammatory disease of the central nervous system, characterized by devastating and unpredictable attacks (relapses) that can cause immediate and irreversible damage.

There are three recently approved monoclonal antibody treatment options in the United States for adults with AQP4+ NMOSD: eculizumab (Soliris, Alexion), inebilizumab (Uplizna, Horizon), and satralizumab (Enspryng, Genentech). A comparison of the relative treatment effects of these drugs would facilitate the treatment selection process, Dr. Wingerchuk said.

The objective of this study was to perform an indirect treatment comparison on the efficacy of these three FDA-approved treatment options for adults with AQP4+ NMOSD, in the absence of any head-to-head studies.

Using published data from randomized controlled trials, which were identified by a systematic literature review in September 2020, the researchers performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to estimate the relative effects between eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab.

Network meta-analyses were performed for clinically relevant subpopulations based on three treatment networks: (1) patients who received monotherapy with one of the monoclonal antibodies or in combination with an immunosuppressant therapy; (2) patients who received monotherapy with the monoclonal antibody alone; and (3) patients who received a combination of both the monoclonal antibody and immunosuppressant therapy.

Time to first relapse was the primary efficacy outcome assessed. Relative treatment effects were expressed as hazard ratios and the probability that a treatment was the best at delaying time to first relapse was also evaluated.

In the systematic literature review, 29 publications from four unique clinical trials were identified and include in the network meta-analysis. These included publications from congress proceedings and peer-reviewed journals.

The four clinical trials were the N-MOmentum trial of inebilizumab versus placebo; the PREVENT trial of eculizumab with or without immunosuppressant therapy versus placebo with or without immunosuppressant therapy; the SAkuraSky trial of satralizumab plus immunosuppressant therapy versus placebo plus immunosuppressant therapy; and the SAkuraStar trial of satralizumab versus placebo.

Results showed that for the first analysis of mono or combination therapy, patients treated with eculizumab with or without immunosuppressant therapy were 76% less likely to experience a first relapse when compared with patients treated with satralizumab with or without immunosuppressant therapy.

In the monotherapy network, patients on eculizumab were 90% less likely to experience a first relapse when compared with patients treated with satralizumab, and patients on eculizumab were 89% less likely to experience a first relapse when compared with patients treated with inebilizumab.

In the third network analysis – a comparison of eculizumab plus immunosuppressant therapy with inebilizumab plus immunosuppressant therapy (Table 1) – the point estimate appeared to favor eculizumab but the confidence intervals were wide and not significant.

Experts respond

Commenting on the study, several experts in the field provided some balancing views.

Bruce Cree, MD, University of California San Francisco, who was the chief investigator of the N-MOmentum study with inebilizumab, said he was skeptical about this new indirect comparison. “The results of this study seem too good to be true; a 90% difference between agents has to be an overestimate,” he said.

“We know from independent studies that all three drugs are very effective. If we take each trial separately, eculizumab reduced attack risk by 90% versus placebo; and the other two drugs by 77% to 78% versus placebo. For eculizumab to be 90% better than inebilizumab or satralizumab its basically like saying these drugs perform like placebo, but we know that is not the case,” Dr. Cree argued.

He pointed out that when comparing results across studies there are many factors that have to be considered, including the different patient populations included in the different studies, with the characteristic of each population in each trial being unique to that dataset.

In addition, Dr. Cree suggested that all the studies included in the comparison were relatively small for this type of analysis. “Normally this type of analysis is done with much larger studies, so the resulting database is closer to a representation of the disease state itself,” he said.

Dr. Cree also questioned the role of the sponsor in this meta-analysis. “The analysis was sponsored by Alexion and several coauthors were employees of Alexion. There was not much description available of how the statistics were done. I am concerned that the company was involved in the analysis, which could introduce bias. I look forward to seeing details of the statistical methodology,” he said.

“This is definitely a provocative study. They have thrown down the gauntlet. If they are so confident in the results they should now do a head-to-head study to back this result up. If they don’t do that, then I think physicians should ignore it as there are just too many problems with this analysis,” Dr. Cree stated.

Dr. Cree acknowledged that when looking at the four trials separately, eculizumab does look a little better than the other two agents in delaying time to first relapse. “But there are some caveats. Despite a larger reduction in relapse rate there was no reduction in disability in the eculizumab trial. Whereas the inebilizumab trial did show a reduction in disability. And while the PREVENT trial with eculizumab was a good study, during the course of the trial the definition of clinical relapse was changed, and as a consequence that increased the product’s performance – that’s a little bit curious,” he added.
 

How to choose?

On how to choose between the three agents, Dr. Cree said they are all “extraordinarily effective” at reducing relapse activity. “They are all ‘home run’ products, but they have differences in safety,” he said.

“Inebilizumab is linked to hypogammaglobulinemia over time – we haven’t seen an increase in infection risk linked to this, but with enough time, I would expect that there probably will be. But inebilizumab is a B-cell-depleting agent like the agents used in MS, and we now have a lot of experiences with this type of product, which gives us more confidence on the safety profile,” Dr. Cree noted.

“Eculizumab was linked to a risk of meningococcal meningitis and other bacterial infections, and satralizumab seems to [be] overall well tolerated with no obvious safety concerns to date, but the studies have been quite small,” he added.

On routes of administration and frequency of dosing, Dr. Cree pointed out that while all three drugs have an intensive loading schedule, for maintenance, eculizumab needs to be given as an IV infusion every 2 weeks. Inebilizumab needs just two infusions per year for maintenance, while satralizumab is given by subcutaneous injection once per month.

“It may be that eculizumab could be used at the time of an acute attack but then treatment could be switched to one of the other two for long-term maintenance,” he suggested.

But Dr. Cree pointed out that the biggest challenge for all three agents is access. “The costs are astronomically high ($200,000-$770,000). They are prohibitively expensive and very few insurance companies are covering them.”

Also commenting, Brian Weinshenker, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was a member of the attack adjudication committee for both PREVENT and N-MOmentum studies, pointed out that as well as differences in the populations enrolled, and study designs, the studies with the three different drugs also had differences in attack adjudication criteria.

“These factors make it very difficult to compare across studies, which is what was done in this analysis, so I would be reluctant to reach many conclusions about differences.”

Dr. Weinshenker added: “All three treatments provided strong benefit. We are still learning about long-term benefits, but emerging data have suggested that all three seem to provide persistent benefits for the length of the open-label extension study. We don’t have much evidence about the severity of the attacks that did occur, although some limited data suggest that both eculizumab and inebilizumab reduce attack severity.”

Dennis Bourdette, MD, professor emeritus, department of neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in any of the studies, said he thought the new analysis was “a worthwhile effort to determine the relative effectiveness of the three different drugs in treating AQP4+ NMOSD.

“Given the rarity of APQ4+ NMOSD, it will be difficult to perform randomized head-to-head clinical trials of the agents, so this type of comparison is the best we can do at this time,” he said.

While Dr. Bourdette feels this study supports the notion that eculizumab is more effective at delaying time to first relapse than inebilizumab and satralizumab, he does not believe the results should have a major impact on decisions about which agent to use in clinical practice.

“A difference in delaying time to first relapse tells us little about the relative effectiveness of the long-term benefit of these [agents], particularly with regards to permanent disability or frequency of relapses. However, it is possible that the difference reflects the efficacy kinetics of the agents with eculizumab working faster than the other two agents, which would be useful in making a decision about a patient with very active NMOSD where one wants to get the disease under control as quickly as possible,” Dr. Bourdette noted.

But he added that neurologists should also consider safety profile, convenience, and contraindications. “Eculizumab is clearly less convenient in terms of dosing schedule than the other two agents, and patient convenience is important for long-term compliance.”

Dr. Bourdette pointed out that another consideration is prior treatment. “Many patients with NMOSD will receive the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab – which depletes B cells – off label. Inebilizumab also depletes B cells, so a patient who has had continued NMOSD disease activity on rituximab probably should not be treated with inebilizumab, making eculizumab or satralizumab preferable,” he suggested.

Finally, Dr. Bourdette highlighted the sponsorship of the current study by the manufacturer of eculizumab, Alexion, and that all of the authors have some financial relationship with Alexion as described in their disclosures. “Whether this resulted in any biases about the design, conduct, or interpretation of the study is uncertain but is always a concern,” he said.

Company statements

The companies selling inebilizumab and satralizumab sent statements on the new analysis and repeated many of the above points.

Genentech noted that new longer-term data presented at ECTRIMS show that satralizumab is effective in significantly reducing relapses over 4 years of treatment in people with AQP4+ NMOSD, with a favorable safety profile both as a monotherapy and in conjunction with immunosuppressive therapy. More than 70% of people treated with satralizumab remained relapse free after 4 years in the SAkuraStar (73%) and SAkuraSky (71%) open-label extension studies, and 90% and 91%, respectively, were free from severe relapse, the company reported.

Horizon said: “We are confident in the efficacy and safety of Uplizna (inebilizumab) – a convenient, twice-annual monotherapy – that was studied in the largest randomized, placebo-controlled, global trial of a monotherapy in NMOSD. The endpoints in this trial were prospectively defined and assessed by an adjudication committee as published in The Lancet, with long-term follow-up data now published in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal that further support the efficacy and safety.”

The current study was funded by Alexion–AstraZeneca Rare Disease. Dr. Wingerchuk has participated on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Roche, Viela Bio, Genentech, Biogen, Reistone, TG Therapeutics, Celgene, Novartis, and Alexion–AstraZeneca Rare Disease. He has received grants for clinical trials through Alexion–AstraZeneca Rare Disease and Terumo BCT, and has been paid consulting fees by Mitsubishi Tanabe. Several coauthors of this study are employees of Alexion Pharmaceutics. Dr. Cree was principal investigator on the N-MOmentum study with inebilizumab. He has a grant from Genentech for MS research, and has consulted for Alexion in the past. Dr. Weinshenker has served as a member of the attack adjudication committee for both PREVENT and N-MOmentum studies and has financial relationships with the manufacturers of all three drugs. Dr. Bourdette has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A Paleolithic elimination diet (Wahls diet) or a low-saturated fat diet (Swank diet) are associated with improved cognition, among other clinical outcomes, in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), new research suggests.

In a randomized study of patients with RRMS, the group that followed a Wahls diet and the group that followed a Swank diet both showed significant, unique improvement in measures of cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and quality of life.

“Several dietary intervention studies have demonstrated favorable results on MS-related fatigue and quality of life. However, these results are among the first to show favorable reductions in cognitive dysfunction,” said co-investigator Tyler Titcomb, PhD, department of internal medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

The results were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
 

Similar diets

The CMSC findings came from a secondary analysis of a randomized trial published online in July in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal Experimental, Translational, and Clinical (MSJ-ETC).

The primary analysis of the single-blind, parallel group, randomized trial showed the Wahls and Swank diets were linked to significant improvement in outcomes on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), and other measures among participants with RRMS. There were no significant differences between the two dietary regimens.

The Swank diet restricts saturated fat to a maximum of 15 g per day while providing 20 g to 50 g (4 to 10 teaspoons) of unsaturated fat per day, with four servings each of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

The Wahls diet recommends six to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day, in addition to 6 to 12 ounces of meat per day, according to gender. Grains, legumes, eggs, and dairy, with the exception of clarified butter or ghee, are not permitted on this diet. Both diets eschew processed foods.

To further evaluate the diets’ effects on perceived fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, the researchers returned to the trial, which enrolled 95 adults with stable RRMS at the University of Iowa Prevention Intervention Center between August 2016 and May 2019.

After a 12-week run-in period with support and education from registered dietitians, participants were randomly assigned to either the Swank or Wahls diets in a 24-week intervention that did not include dietitian support.

Inclusion criteria included having moderate to severe fatigue, as shown by an FSS score of at least 4.0, while not having severe mental impairment, an eating disorder, or liver or kidney disease. There were no significant differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics between the groups.

Of the patients, 77 completed the 12-week run-in (38 in the Swank diet group and 39 in the Wahls group). A total of 72 participants completed the 24-week follow-up (37 and 35, respectively).
 

Reduction in fatigue, cognitive dysfunction

After the researchers controlled for smoking, alcohol consumption, age, sex, baseline distance 6-minute walk test, body mass index, serum vitamin D, and years with MS, results at 12 and 24 weeks showed significant improvements from baseline in the key outcomes of fatigue and cognitive function, as measured by the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Function (FSMC).

Scores were −5.7 and −9.0, respectively, for the Swank diet group and −9.3 and −14.9 for the Wahls group (P ≤ .001 for all comparisons).

In addition, there was a significant reduction in both groups on the total Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ) at 12 and 24 weeks (Swank, −7.4 and −6.3, respectively; Wahls, −6.8 and −10.8; P ≤ .001 for all).

There were similar improvements for both diets in an analysis of the mental and physical scores on FSMC and on the subscales on PDQ of attention, retrospective memory, prospective memory, and planning.

As observed in the primary analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups in absolute mean scores on FSMC, PDQ, or their subscales at any timepoint.

“Both diets led to significant reductions in fatigue and cognitive dysfunction,” Dr. Titcomb said.

Of note, the primary analysis further showed statistically and clinically significant increases in the 6-minute walk test at 24-weeks of 6% in the Wahls group (P = .007). After removal of nonadherent participants, the improvement was still significant at 24 weeks in the Wahls group (P = .02), as well as in the Swank group (P = .001).

Dr. Titcomb noted that the majority of study participants were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, there were no interactions between any specific DMTs and dietary benefits.
 

Potential mechanisms

Although the similar outcomes between the diets point to a common mechanism, there are also various other possibilities, said Dr. Titcomb. These include modulation of the microbiome, inflammation, immune system, or micronutrient optimization, he said.

Previous research has shown reduced mass and diversity in the gut microbiota among patients with MS compared with those without MS, potentially promoting inflammation. Other research has shown improvements in those factors with dietary modification.

While there is no evidence of gut microbiota changes with the Wahls and Swank diets, each is rich in fiber and plant-derived phytochemicals, which are known to be associated with improvements in gut microbiota and neuroinflammation, the investigators noted.

Dr. Titcomb reported that research into the diets is continuing as they evaluate longer-term and other effects. “This trial was a short-term parallel arm trial that did not include MRI or a control group,” he said, adding that the investigators will soon start recruiting for a follow-up study that will include a control group, long-term follow-up, and MRIs.

That upcoming study “has the potential to answer several of the unknown questions regarding the effect of diet on MS,” Dr. Titcomb said.
 

Notable research with limitations

Commenting on the study, Rebecca Spain, MD, MSPH, associate professor of neurology at the Oregon Health & Science University, and associate director of clinical care at VA MS Center of Excellence West in Portland, said there were several notable findings.

This includes that most people with MS “were able to adhere to the protocols for significant lengths of time, even without the support of dietitians for the final 12 weeks of the study,” said Spain, who was not involved with the research.

A significant limitation was the lack of a control group. Without that, “it’s hard to know for sure if the improvements in fatigue and cognition were from the diets or were simply from the social support of participating in a research study,” she said

Nevertheless, trials reporting on dietary effects in MS such as the current study are important, Dr. Spain noted. They demonstrate “that it is feasible and safe to conduct dietary studies and suggest which key MS symptoms may benefit and should be evaluated in future studies.”

“Critically, diet studies address one of the most frequent concerns of people with MS, promoting self-management and empowerment,” Dr. Spain concluded.

General guidelines for common dietary elements with evidence of improving fatigue, cognition, and mood are available on the National MS Society’s website.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Titcomb and Dr. Spain have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Terry L. Wahls, MD, who developed the Wahls diet, was a senior author of the study.

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

A Paleolithic elimination diet (Wahls diet) or a low-saturated fat diet (Swank diet) are associated with improved cognition, among other clinical outcomes, in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), new research suggests.

In a randomized study of patients with RRMS, the group that followed a Wahls diet and the group that followed a Swank diet both showed significant, unique improvement in measures of cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and quality of life.

“Several dietary intervention studies have demonstrated favorable results on MS-related fatigue and quality of life. However, these results are among the first to show favorable reductions in cognitive dysfunction,” said co-investigator Tyler Titcomb, PhD, department of internal medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

The results were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
 

Similar diets

The CMSC findings came from a secondary analysis of a randomized trial published online in July in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal Experimental, Translational, and Clinical (MSJ-ETC).

The primary analysis of the single-blind, parallel group, randomized trial showed the Wahls and Swank diets were linked to significant improvement in outcomes on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), and other measures among participants with RRMS. There were no significant differences between the two dietary regimens.

The Swank diet restricts saturated fat to a maximum of 15 g per day while providing 20 g to 50 g (4 to 10 teaspoons) of unsaturated fat per day, with four servings each of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

The Wahls diet recommends six to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day, in addition to 6 to 12 ounces of meat per day, according to gender. Grains, legumes, eggs, and dairy, with the exception of clarified butter or ghee, are not permitted on this diet. Both diets eschew processed foods.

To further evaluate the diets’ effects on perceived fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, the researchers returned to the trial, which enrolled 95 adults with stable RRMS at the University of Iowa Prevention Intervention Center between August 2016 and May 2019.

After a 12-week run-in period with support and education from registered dietitians, participants were randomly assigned to either the Swank or Wahls diets in a 24-week intervention that did not include dietitian support.

Inclusion criteria included having moderate to severe fatigue, as shown by an FSS score of at least 4.0, while not having severe mental impairment, an eating disorder, or liver or kidney disease. There were no significant differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics between the groups.

Of the patients, 77 completed the 12-week run-in (38 in the Swank diet group and 39 in the Wahls group). A total of 72 participants completed the 24-week follow-up (37 and 35, respectively).
 

Reduction in fatigue, cognitive dysfunction

After the researchers controlled for smoking, alcohol consumption, age, sex, baseline distance 6-minute walk test, body mass index, serum vitamin D, and years with MS, results at 12 and 24 weeks showed significant improvements from baseline in the key outcomes of fatigue and cognitive function, as measured by the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Function (FSMC).

Scores were −5.7 and −9.0, respectively, for the Swank diet group and −9.3 and −14.9 for the Wahls group (P ≤ .001 for all comparisons).

In addition, there was a significant reduction in both groups on the total Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ) at 12 and 24 weeks (Swank, −7.4 and −6.3, respectively; Wahls, −6.8 and −10.8; P ≤ .001 for all).

There were similar improvements for both diets in an analysis of the mental and physical scores on FSMC and on the subscales on PDQ of attention, retrospective memory, prospective memory, and planning.

As observed in the primary analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups in absolute mean scores on FSMC, PDQ, or their subscales at any timepoint.

“Both diets led to significant reductions in fatigue and cognitive dysfunction,” Dr. Titcomb said.

Of note, the primary analysis further showed statistically and clinically significant increases in the 6-minute walk test at 24-weeks of 6% in the Wahls group (P = .007). After removal of nonadherent participants, the improvement was still significant at 24 weeks in the Wahls group (P = .02), as well as in the Swank group (P = .001).

Dr. Titcomb noted that the majority of study participants were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, there were no interactions between any specific DMTs and dietary benefits.
 

Potential mechanisms

Although the similar outcomes between the diets point to a common mechanism, there are also various other possibilities, said Dr. Titcomb. These include modulation of the microbiome, inflammation, immune system, or micronutrient optimization, he said.

Previous research has shown reduced mass and diversity in the gut microbiota among patients with MS compared with those without MS, potentially promoting inflammation. Other research has shown improvements in those factors with dietary modification.

While there is no evidence of gut microbiota changes with the Wahls and Swank diets, each is rich in fiber and plant-derived phytochemicals, which are known to be associated with improvements in gut microbiota and neuroinflammation, the investigators noted.

Dr. Titcomb reported that research into the diets is continuing as they evaluate longer-term and other effects. “This trial was a short-term parallel arm trial that did not include MRI or a control group,” he said, adding that the investigators will soon start recruiting for a follow-up study that will include a control group, long-term follow-up, and MRIs.

That upcoming study “has the potential to answer several of the unknown questions regarding the effect of diet on MS,” Dr. Titcomb said.
 

Notable research with limitations

Commenting on the study, Rebecca Spain, MD, MSPH, associate professor of neurology at the Oregon Health & Science University, and associate director of clinical care at VA MS Center of Excellence West in Portland, said there were several notable findings.

This includes that most people with MS “were able to adhere to the protocols for significant lengths of time, even without the support of dietitians for the final 12 weeks of the study,” said Spain, who was not involved with the research.

A significant limitation was the lack of a control group. Without that, “it’s hard to know for sure if the improvements in fatigue and cognition were from the diets or were simply from the social support of participating in a research study,” she said

Nevertheless, trials reporting on dietary effects in MS such as the current study are important, Dr. Spain noted. They demonstrate “that it is feasible and safe to conduct dietary studies and suggest which key MS symptoms may benefit and should be evaluated in future studies.”

“Critically, diet studies address one of the most frequent concerns of people with MS, promoting self-management and empowerment,” Dr. Spain concluded.

General guidelines for common dietary elements with evidence of improving fatigue, cognition, and mood are available on the National MS Society’s website.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Titcomb and Dr. Spain have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Terry L. Wahls, MD, who developed the Wahls diet, was a senior author of the study.

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

A Paleolithic elimination diet (Wahls diet) or a low-saturated fat diet (Swank diet) are associated with improved cognition, among other clinical outcomes, in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), new research suggests.

In a randomized study of patients with RRMS, the group that followed a Wahls diet and the group that followed a Swank diet both showed significant, unique improvement in measures of cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and quality of life.

“Several dietary intervention studies have demonstrated favorable results on MS-related fatigue and quality of life. However, these results are among the first to show favorable reductions in cognitive dysfunction,” said co-investigator Tyler Titcomb, PhD, department of internal medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

The results were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
 

Similar diets

The CMSC findings came from a secondary analysis of a randomized trial published online in July in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal Experimental, Translational, and Clinical (MSJ-ETC).

The primary analysis of the single-blind, parallel group, randomized trial showed the Wahls and Swank diets were linked to significant improvement in outcomes on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), and other measures among participants with RRMS. There were no significant differences between the two dietary regimens.

The Swank diet restricts saturated fat to a maximum of 15 g per day while providing 20 g to 50 g (4 to 10 teaspoons) of unsaturated fat per day, with four servings each of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

The Wahls diet recommends six to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day, in addition to 6 to 12 ounces of meat per day, according to gender. Grains, legumes, eggs, and dairy, with the exception of clarified butter or ghee, are not permitted on this diet. Both diets eschew processed foods.

To further evaluate the diets’ effects on perceived fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, the researchers returned to the trial, which enrolled 95 adults with stable RRMS at the University of Iowa Prevention Intervention Center between August 2016 and May 2019.

After a 12-week run-in period with support and education from registered dietitians, participants were randomly assigned to either the Swank or Wahls diets in a 24-week intervention that did not include dietitian support.

Inclusion criteria included having moderate to severe fatigue, as shown by an FSS score of at least 4.0, while not having severe mental impairment, an eating disorder, or liver or kidney disease. There were no significant differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics between the groups.

Of the patients, 77 completed the 12-week run-in (38 in the Swank diet group and 39 in the Wahls group). A total of 72 participants completed the 24-week follow-up (37 and 35, respectively).
 

Reduction in fatigue, cognitive dysfunction

After the researchers controlled for smoking, alcohol consumption, age, sex, baseline distance 6-minute walk test, body mass index, serum vitamin D, and years with MS, results at 12 and 24 weeks showed significant improvements from baseline in the key outcomes of fatigue and cognitive function, as measured by the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Function (FSMC).

Scores were −5.7 and −9.0, respectively, for the Swank diet group and −9.3 and −14.9 for the Wahls group (P ≤ .001 for all comparisons).

In addition, there was a significant reduction in both groups on the total Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ) at 12 and 24 weeks (Swank, −7.4 and −6.3, respectively; Wahls, −6.8 and −10.8; P ≤ .001 for all).

There were similar improvements for both diets in an analysis of the mental and physical scores on FSMC and on the subscales on PDQ of attention, retrospective memory, prospective memory, and planning.

As observed in the primary analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups in absolute mean scores on FSMC, PDQ, or their subscales at any timepoint.

“Both diets led to significant reductions in fatigue and cognitive dysfunction,” Dr. Titcomb said.

Of note, the primary analysis further showed statistically and clinically significant increases in the 6-minute walk test at 24-weeks of 6% in the Wahls group (P = .007). After removal of nonadherent participants, the improvement was still significant at 24 weeks in the Wahls group (P = .02), as well as in the Swank group (P = .001).

Dr. Titcomb noted that the majority of study participants were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, there were no interactions between any specific DMTs and dietary benefits.
 

Potential mechanisms

Although the similar outcomes between the diets point to a common mechanism, there are also various other possibilities, said Dr. Titcomb. These include modulation of the microbiome, inflammation, immune system, or micronutrient optimization, he said.

Previous research has shown reduced mass and diversity in the gut microbiota among patients with MS compared with those without MS, potentially promoting inflammation. Other research has shown improvements in those factors with dietary modification.

While there is no evidence of gut microbiota changes with the Wahls and Swank diets, each is rich in fiber and plant-derived phytochemicals, which are known to be associated with improvements in gut microbiota and neuroinflammation, the investigators noted.

Dr. Titcomb reported that research into the diets is continuing as they evaluate longer-term and other effects. “This trial was a short-term parallel arm trial that did not include MRI or a control group,” he said, adding that the investigators will soon start recruiting for a follow-up study that will include a control group, long-term follow-up, and MRIs.

That upcoming study “has the potential to answer several of the unknown questions regarding the effect of diet on MS,” Dr. Titcomb said.
 

Notable research with limitations

Commenting on the study, Rebecca Spain, MD, MSPH, associate professor of neurology at the Oregon Health & Science University, and associate director of clinical care at VA MS Center of Excellence West in Portland, said there were several notable findings.

This includes that most people with MS “were able to adhere to the protocols for significant lengths of time, even without the support of dietitians for the final 12 weeks of the study,” said Spain, who was not involved with the research.

A significant limitation was the lack of a control group. Without that, “it’s hard to know for sure if the improvements in fatigue and cognition were from the diets or were simply from the social support of participating in a research study,” she said

Nevertheless, trials reporting on dietary effects in MS such as the current study are important, Dr. Spain noted. They demonstrate “that it is feasible and safe to conduct dietary studies and suggest which key MS symptoms may benefit and should be evaluated in future studies.”

“Critically, diet studies address one of the most frequent concerns of people with MS, promoting self-management and empowerment,” Dr. Spain concluded.

General guidelines for common dietary elements with evidence of improving fatigue, cognition, and mood are available on the National MS Society’s website.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Titcomb and Dr. Spain have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Terry L. Wahls, MD, who developed the Wahls diet, was a senior author of the study.

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

Most U.S. medical professionals who treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have adjusted drug regimens during the pandemic’s early months to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection. But they actually didn’t need to make changes then – or now. These are the messages of a pair of new studies that examine the impact of the pandemic on the treatment of MS.

One report finds that 80% of specialists surveyed in the summer of 2020 said the pandemic may have changed how they prescribe disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the other report finds no evidence that choice of DMT affects risk of COVID-19 infection. Both studies were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

For the survey, researchers led by neurologist Elizabeth H. Morrison-Banks, MD, of the University of California, Riverside, sent questions to 188 clinicians who serve on regional National Multiple Sclerosis Society Healthcare Provider Councils. A total of 86 people responded: 45 physicians, 18 rehabilitation therapists, 7 psychologists, 8 advanced practice clinicians, 4 social workers, 2 nurses, a pharmacist, and a researcher.

The results, which were published earlier in 2021 in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, revealed that the survey participants were prescribing certain DMTs more often: beta-interferons (prescribed more by 28.6% of prescribers), natalizumab (23.8%), and glatiramer acetate (21.4%). Those prescribed less included alemtuzumab (64.2% prescribed it less), cladribine (52.4%), and B cell–depleting agents including ocrelizumab and rituximab (50%). Some specialists suspended drugs entirely (21.4% for alemtuzumab, 16.7% for B cell–depleting agents) or extending dosing intervals (38.1% for natalizumab, 11.9% for fingolimod and siponimod).

“We suspect that some of the lower-efficacy therapies were prescribed more often because these therapies were much less immunosuppressive, and because they did not require in-person visits that would increase risk of viral exposure from infusion center staff, or from other infusion patients,” Dr. Morrison-Banks said in an interview. “We also suspect that some of our survey respondents may have increased the dosing intervals for higher-efficacy therapies such as B cell–modulating agents – or even avoided these therapies altogether – because they were concerned that immunosuppressive agents might trigger severe complications from COVID-19.”

As she noted, “in retrospect, at least some of the concerns expressed in our survey may not have been entirely warranted, but then again, we all knew even less then about COVID-19.”

Indeed, researchers led by neurologist Tyler E. Smith, MD, of New York University Langone Multiple Sclerosis Care Center are reporting that they couldn’t find any link between the following DMTs and higher rates of COVID-19 at the New York City center: rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumerate (dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate), sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators (fingolimod, siponimod), and natalizumab.

The researchers tracked 1,439 patients with MS who were taking the DMTs from March 2020 to March 2021. Of those, 16.0% were infected with COVID-19 (75% lab confirmed), 6.5% were hospitalized, and 0.9% died.

“We did not find an association between the choice of disease-modifying therapy and developing COVID-19 infection, nor having increased disease severity,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “We are still analyzing data and hope to publish an updated analysis, but at this point, we don’t have conclusive evidence that DMTs, including anti-CD20 agents, need to be changed to lower the risk of COVID-19.”

Instead, he said, “at this point, we feel our energies should be spent on educating our patients on importance of vaccines and boosters. I don’t think it is necessary to switch DMTs because of COVID-19 concerns. However, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

No funding is reported for the survey study, and the authors reported various disclosures. The DMT study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, and the authors reported various disclosures.
 

Most U.S. medical professionals who treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have adjusted drug regimens during the pandemic’s early months to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection. But they actually didn’t need to make changes then – or now. These are the messages of a pair of new studies that examine the impact of the pandemic on the treatment of MS.

One report finds that 80% of specialists surveyed in the summer of 2020 said the pandemic may have changed how they prescribe disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the other report finds no evidence that choice of DMT affects risk of COVID-19 infection. Both studies were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

For the survey, researchers led by neurologist Elizabeth H. Morrison-Banks, MD, of the University of California, Riverside, sent questions to 188 clinicians who serve on regional National Multiple Sclerosis Society Healthcare Provider Councils. A total of 86 people responded: 45 physicians, 18 rehabilitation therapists, 7 psychologists, 8 advanced practice clinicians, 4 social workers, 2 nurses, a pharmacist, and a researcher.

The results, which were published earlier in 2021 in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, revealed that the survey participants were prescribing certain DMTs more often: beta-interferons (prescribed more by 28.6% of prescribers), natalizumab (23.8%), and glatiramer acetate (21.4%). Those prescribed less included alemtuzumab (64.2% prescribed it less), cladribine (52.4%), and B cell–depleting agents including ocrelizumab and rituximab (50%). Some specialists suspended drugs entirely (21.4% for alemtuzumab, 16.7% for B cell–depleting agents) or extending dosing intervals (38.1% for natalizumab, 11.9% for fingolimod and siponimod).

“We suspect that some of the lower-efficacy therapies were prescribed more often because these therapies were much less immunosuppressive, and because they did not require in-person visits that would increase risk of viral exposure from infusion center staff, or from other infusion patients,” Dr. Morrison-Banks said in an interview. “We also suspect that some of our survey respondents may have increased the dosing intervals for higher-efficacy therapies such as B cell–modulating agents – or even avoided these therapies altogether – because they were concerned that immunosuppressive agents might trigger severe complications from COVID-19.”

As she noted, “in retrospect, at least some of the concerns expressed in our survey may not have been entirely warranted, but then again, we all knew even less then about COVID-19.”

Indeed, researchers led by neurologist Tyler E. Smith, MD, of New York University Langone Multiple Sclerosis Care Center are reporting that they couldn’t find any link between the following DMTs and higher rates of COVID-19 at the New York City center: rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumerate (dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate), sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators (fingolimod, siponimod), and natalizumab.

The researchers tracked 1,439 patients with MS who were taking the DMTs from March 2020 to March 2021. Of those, 16.0% were infected with COVID-19 (75% lab confirmed), 6.5% were hospitalized, and 0.9% died.

“We did not find an association between the choice of disease-modifying therapy and developing COVID-19 infection, nor having increased disease severity,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “We are still analyzing data and hope to publish an updated analysis, but at this point, we don’t have conclusive evidence that DMTs, including anti-CD20 agents, need to be changed to lower the risk of COVID-19.”

Instead, he said, “at this point, we feel our energies should be spent on educating our patients on importance of vaccines and boosters. I don’t think it is necessary to switch DMTs because of COVID-19 concerns. However, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

No funding is reported for the survey study, and the authors reported various disclosures. The DMT study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, and the authors reported various disclosures.
 

Most U.S. medical professionals who treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have adjusted drug regimens during the pandemic’s early months to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection. But they actually didn’t need to make changes then – or now. These are the messages of a pair of new studies that examine the impact of the pandemic on the treatment of MS.

One report finds that 80% of specialists surveyed in the summer of 2020 said the pandemic may have changed how they prescribe disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the other report finds no evidence that choice of DMT affects risk of COVID-19 infection. Both studies were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

For the survey, researchers led by neurologist Elizabeth H. Morrison-Banks, MD, of the University of California, Riverside, sent questions to 188 clinicians who serve on regional National Multiple Sclerosis Society Healthcare Provider Councils. A total of 86 people responded: 45 physicians, 18 rehabilitation therapists, 7 psychologists, 8 advanced practice clinicians, 4 social workers, 2 nurses, a pharmacist, and a researcher.

The results, which were published earlier in 2021 in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, revealed that the survey participants were prescribing certain DMTs more often: beta-interferons (prescribed more by 28.6% of prescribers), natalizumab (23.8%), and glatiramer acetate (21.4%). Those prescribed less included alemtuzumab (64.2% prescribed it less), cladribine (52.4%), and B cell–depleting agents including ocrelizumab and rituximab (50%). Some specialists suspended drugs entirely (21.4% for alemtuzumab, 16.7% for B cell–depleting agents) or extending dosing intervals (38.1% for natalizumab, 11.9% for fingolimod and siponimod).

“We suspect that some of the lower-efficacy therapies were prescribed more often because these therapies were much less immunosuppressive, and because they did not require in-person visits that would increase risk of viral exposure from infusion center staff, or from other infusion patients,” Dr. Morrison-Banks said in an interview. “We also suspect that some of our survey respondents may have increased the dosing intervals for higher-efficacy therapies such as B cell–modulating agents – or even avoided these therapies altogether – because they were concerned that immunosuppressive agents might trigger severe complications from COVID-19.”

As she noted, “in retrospect, at least some of the concerns expressed in our survey may not have been entirely warranted, but then again, we all knew even less then about COVID-19.”

Indeed, researchers led by neurologist Tyler E. Smith, MD, of New York University Langone Multiple Sclerosis Care Center are reporting that they couldn’t find any link between the following DMTs and higher rates of COVID-19 at the New York City center: rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumerate (dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate), sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators (fingolimod, siponimod), and natalizumab.

The researchers tracked 1,439 patients with MS who were taking the DMTs from March 2020 to March 2021. Of those, 16.0% were infected with COVID-19 (75% lab confirmed), 6.5% were hospitalized, and 0.9% died.

“We did not find an association between the choice of disease-modifying therapy and developing COVID-19 infection, nor having increased disease severity,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “We are still analyzing data and hope to publish an updated analysis, but at this point, we don’t have conclusive evidence that DMTs, including anti-CD20 agents, need to be changed to lower the risk of COVID-19.”

Instead, he said, “at this point, we feel our energies should be spent on educating our patients on importance of vaccines and boosters. I don’t think it is necessary to switch DMTs because of COVID-19 concerns. However, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

No funding is reported for the survey study, and the authors reported various disclosures. The DMT study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, and the authors reported various disclosures.
 

Fundraising walks for multiple sclerosis (MS) should be familiar to everyone nationwide. They serve to raise money for MS, bolster public awareness of the disease, and build a sense of community. But such in-person events took a big hit during the pandemic.

Recently, this news organization spoke with Kristin Gibbs, vice president of Walk MS for the National MS Society. She described the challenges posed by the COVID pandemic on the National MS Society’s efforts to fundraise on behalf of the MS community.
 

How has the National MS Society raised money before the pandemic?

We are a peer-to-peer fundraising event. That means our registered participants ask their family, friends and coworkers to support them by donating. More than 90% of our participants are friends-and-family teams, and nearly everyone who participates in Walk MS has a connection to MS. We do also have corporate and national teams that fundraise, as well as national and local sponsors that provide monetary support of Walk MS.



About how many Walk MS events were held nationally in an average prepandemic year?

Going back to 2019, we held almost 400 Walk MS events. Next year, the Society will host 234 events, with at least one in each state. The reduction in the number of events reflects a prepandemic strategy of focusing our limited resources in areas where we can have the biggest impact.



How has the pandemic impacted fundraising and community building/outreach?

Fewer people registered and participated in our virtual events in 2020 and 2021, and the pandemic made it challenging for participants to fundraise. While normally we might see more than 200,000 participants nationally, in 2021 we attracted 40,000. Our fundraising decreased from nearly $40 million in prepandemic years to around $20 million in 2021. Our experience is similar to that of most nonprofit peer-to-peer events. However, we were encouraged by the individuals who did support Walk MS during the pandemic, as their fundraising averages were higher than prepandemic campaigns.



What kinds of ‘virtual events’ were held during the pandemic lockdowns?

When it comes to building community, during the pandemic we innovatively utilized online gathering technology, especially Teams, to bring our Walk MS participants together. We held numerous meetings for Team Captains and conducted pre-event pep rallies online to help share information and generate excitement. We produced Facebook Live broadcasts and launched a cutting-edge online version of a Walk MS event called Walk MS On Demand. On Demand visitors could create a virtual bib, learn about the Society, watch inspirational videos, and secure information from national and local sponsors.

 

How is fundraising handled nationally and locally?

In 2022 we will have 234 Walk MS events spread across the country. We are anticipating 100,000 participants will register and our goal is to raise $24 million. Our fundraising will come from individuals, teams, and corporations who contribute at the local and national levels. We are hopeful the excitement surrounding safely being back in person will allow the Walk MS campaign to quickly regain its financial and community-building impact.



Has the pandemic impacted corporate contributions?

We were extremely lucky to maintain support of our national sponsors, and to engage a strong number of local partners. Because we offered the Walk MS On Demand online experience where sponsors could showcase their companies in innovative ways, even though we were virtual we could provide our important partners with a unique way to connect to our constituents. That made a tremendous difference. Also, our partners are strongly committed to the mission and knew their continued support during the pandemic was critical to our organization.



How is the money distributed? Who benefits and how? 

Walk MS is the United States’ 7^th-largest nonprofit walk series, and the 12^th-largest nonprofit event overall. Our Walk MS funds help provide support, programming, and research for individuals diagnosed with MS. Over the history of Walk MS, participants and sponsors have generated more than $1 billion to support those who live with MS.

Courtesy of National MS Society

Fundraising walks for multiple sclerosis (MS) should be familiar to everyone nationwide. They serve to raise money for MS, bolster public awareness of the disease, and build a sense of community. But such in-person events took a big hit during the pandemic.

Recently, this news organization spoke with Kristin Gibbs, vice president of Walk MS for the National MS Society. She described the challenges posed by the COVID pandemic on the National MS Society’s efforts to fundraise on behalf of the MS community.
 

How has the National MS Society raised money before the pandemic?

We are a peer-to-peer fundraising event. That means our registered participants ask their family, friends and coworkers to support them by donating. More than 90% of our participants are friends-and-family teams, and nearly everyone who participates in Walk MS has a connection to MS. We do also have corporate and national teams that fundraise, as well as national and local sponsors that provide monetary support of Walk MS.



About how many Walk MS events were held nationally in an average prepandemic year?

Going back to 2019, we held almost 400 Walk MS events. Next year, the Society will host 234 events, with at least one in each state. The reduction in the number of events reflects a prepandemic strategy of focusing our limited resources in areas where we can have the biggest impact.



How has the pandemic impacted fundraising and community building/outreach?

Fewer people registered and participated in our virtual events in 2020 and 2021, and the pandemic made it challenging for participants to fundraise. While normally we might see more than 200,000 participants nationally, in 2021 we attracted 40,000. Our fundraising decreased from nearly $40 million in prepandemic years to around $20 million in 2021. Our experience is similar to that of most nonprofit peer-to-peer events. However, we were encouraged by the individuals who did support Walk MS during the pandemic, as their fundraising averages were higher than prepandemic campaigns.



What kinds of ‘virtual events’ were held during the pandemic lockdowns?

When it comes to building community, during the pandemic we innovatively utilized online gathering technology, especially Teams, to bring our Walk MS participants together. We held numerous meetings for Team Captains and conducted pre-event pep rallies online to help share information and generate excitement. We produced Facebook Live broadcasts and launched a cutting-edge online version of a Walk MS event called Walk MS On Demand. On Demand visitors could create a virtual bib, learn about the Society, watch inspirational videos, and secure information from national and local sponsors.

 

How is fundraising handled nationally and locally?

In 2022 we will have 234 Walk MS events spread across the country. We are anticipating 100,000 participants will register and our goal is to raise $24 million. Our fundraising will come from individuals, teams, and corporations who contribute at the local and national levels. We are hopeful the excitement surrounding safely being back in person will allow the Walk MS campaign to quickly regain its financial and community-building impact.



Has the pandemic impacted corporate contributions?

We were extremely lucky to maintain support of our national sponsors, and to engage a strong number of local partners. Because we offered the Walk MS On Demand online experience where sponsors could showcase their companies in innovative ways, even though we were virtual we could provide our important partners with a unique way to connect to our constituents. That made a tremendous difference. Also, our partners are strongly committed to the mission and knew their continued support during the pandemic was critical to our organization.



How is the money distributed? Who benefits and how? 

Walk MS is the United States’ 7^th-largest nonprofit walk series, and the 12^th-largest nonprofit event overall. Our Walk MS funds help provide support, programming, and research for individuals diagnosed with MS. Over the history of Walk MS, participants and sponsors have generated more than $1 billion to support those who live with MS.

Courtesy of National MS Society

Fundraising walks for multiple sclerosis (MS) should be familiar to everyone nationwide. They serve to raise money for MS, bolster public awareness of the disease, and build a sense of community. But such in-person events took a big hit during the pandemic.

Recently, this news organization spoke with Kristin Gibbs, vice president of Walk MS for the National MS Society. She described the challenges posed by the COVID pandemic on the National MS Society’s efforts to fundraise on behalf of the MS community.
 

How has the National MS Society raised money before the pandemic?

We are a peer-to-peer fundraising event. That means our registered participants ask their family, friends and coworkers to support them by donating. More than 90% of our participants are friends-and-family teams, and nearly everyone who participates in Walk MS has a connection to MS. We do also have corporate and national teams that fundraise, as well as national and local sponsors that provide monetary support of Walk MS.



About how many Walk MS events were held nationally in an average prepandemic year?

Going back to 2019, we held almost 400 Walk MS events. Next year, the Society will host 234 events, with at least one in each state. The reduction in the number of events reflects a prepandemic strategy of focusing our limited resources in areas where we can have the biggest impact.



How has the pandemic impacted fundraising and community building/outreach?

Fewer people registered and participated in our virtual events in 2020 and 2021, and the pandemic made it challenging for participants to fundraise. While normally we might see more than 200,000 participants nationally, in 2021 we attracted 40,000. Our fundraising decreased from nearly $40 million in prepandemic years to around $20 million in 2021. Our experience is similar to that of most nonprofit peer-to-peer events. However, we were encouraged by the individuals who did support Walk MS during the pandemic, as their fundraising averages were higher than prepandemic campaigns.



What kinds of ‘virtual events’ were held during the pandemic lockdowns?

When it comes to building community, during the pandemic we innovatively utilized online gathering technology, especially Teams, to bring our Walk MS participants together. We held numerous meetings for Team Captains and conducted pre-event pep rallies online to help share information and generate excitement. We produced Facebook Live broadcasts and launched a cutting-edge online version of a Walk MS event called Walk MS On Demand. On Demand visitors could create a virtual bib, learn about the Society, watch inspirational videos, and secure information from national and local sponsors.

 

How is fundraising handled nationally and locally?

In 2022 we will have 234 Walk MS events spread across the country. We are anticipating 100,000 participants will register and our goal is to raise $24 million. Our fundraising will come from individuals, teams, and corporations who contribute at the local and national levels. We are hopeful the excitement surrounding safely being back in person will allow the Walk MS campaign to quickly regain its financial and community-building impact.



Has the pandemic impacted corporate contributions?

We were extremely lucky to maintain support of our national sponsors, and to engage a strong number of local partners. Because we offered the Walk MS On Demand online experience where sponsors could showcase their companies in innovative ways, even though we were virtual we could provide our important partners with a unique way to connect to our constituents. That made a tremendous difference. Also, our partners are strongly committed to the mission and knew their continued support during the pandemic was critical to our organization.



How is the money distributed? Who benefits and how? 

Walk MS is the United States’ 7^th-largest nonprofit walk series, and the 12^th-largest nonprofit event overall. Our Walk MS funds help provide support, programming, and research for individuals diagnosed with MS. Over the history of Walk MS, participants and sponsors have generated more than $1 billion to support those who live with MS.

Courtesy of National MS Society

Personalized medicine is just about the biggest buzzword in health. But neurologist Ellen M. Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steers patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) away from the concept when she first starts talking to them about initial therapy options and possible ways to forestall disability down the line.

“I try to be quite honest,” she told colleagues at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). “I describe the escalation and early intensive-therapy paradigms very broadly, and I tell them that we don’t have a great way of individualizing their treatment decisions at this point.”

Observational and clinical trials offer extremely limited insight, she said in a keynote address, so there aren’t any simple answers about the best strategies. However, she highlighted new research projects that aim to provide more reliable answers.

As Dr. Mowry noted, patients tend to do well early on regardless of the choice of drug, so the question isn’t how to immediately control MS. “I personally find that most people can have control of relapses and the development of new lesions. I don’t find that there are too many individuals these days who don’t achieve control of their inflammatory activity,” she said. “I’m really interested in understanding whether the treatment choices a person with MS and myself make – at the time of their diagnosis – matters with respect to how they’re doing several years down the road. One major question is: Should I be using higher-efficacy therapy right out of the gate to better impact long-term disability?”

Research suggests that disability in MS is declining dramatically, she said, although it’s not quite clear if this is caused by evolving definitions of the disease or better medications. If the latter is the case, it’s useful to know that “there have been several publications suggesting that using stronger therapies right out of the gate may have an even greater impact on the long-term disability trajectory [than lower-efficacy treatments],” she said.

But some studies in this area are observational and come with various weaknesses, she said. Clinical trials offer data of their own, but “the conditions of clinical trials are also not real world or generalizable.” They often have healthier subjects than physicians actually see, and their requirements – such as requiring patients to have failed certain therapies – can muddy the messages of their outcomes. And, she added, people are more complicated in real life than in these trials, with many having a mix of both higher- and lower-risk features.

So how can physicians make the best decisions? Dr. Mowry recommends considering several factors, such patient comorbidities and reproductive status, the way drugs are administered, monitoring requirements, and cost. Safety is crucial too. She noted that newly diagnosed patients with MS are very concerned about safety – “they’re very much afraid of risks of stronger medications” – and many choose escalation therapy instead of immediately embracing higher-efficacy therapy for that reason.

At her clinic, she doesn’t push quick decisions. “I find that the treatment-decision discussion with individuals with MS takes several appointments, which we offer typically in quick succession. If we go with the escalation route, we are very strongly conscientious about escalating if there’s breakthrough disease. For me, that means after the medication should have kicked in, we may indeed escalate that therapy right away if there’s a new relapse or more than one new lesion.”

As for the future, Dr. Mowry highlighted two ongoing clinical trials that are expected to provide guidance about first-line therapy options. One is TREAT-MS, which will track intermediate-term risk of disability based on choices regarding first-line and later therapy. The pragmatic trial aims to enroll 900 subjects for up to 5 years. The other is DELIVER-MS, which aims to track how treatment choices affect brain volume.

“We really do need more definitive data to support the early treatment choices that people need to make,” she said.

Dr. Mowry disclosed grant/research support from Biogen, Teva, and Genentech, as welll as honoraria (editorial royalties) from UpToDate.

Personalized medicine is just about the biggest buzzword in health. But neurologist Ellen M. Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steers patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) away from the concept when she first starts talking to them about initial therapy options and possible ways to forestall disability down the line.

“I try to be quite honest,” she told colleagues at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). “I describe the escalation and early intensive-therapy paradigms very broadly, and I tell them that we don’t have a great way of individualizing their treatment decisions at this point.”

Observational and clinical trials offer extremely limited insight, she said in a keynote address, so there aren’t any simple answers about the best strategies. However, she highlighted new research projects that aim to provide more reliable answers.

As Dr. Mowry noted, patients tend to do well early on regardless of the choice of drug, so the question isn’t how to immediately control MS. “I personally find that most people can have control of relapses and the development of new lesions. I don’t find that there are too many individuals these days who don’t achieve control of their inflammatory activity,” she said. “I’m really interested in understanding whether the treatment choices a person with MS and myself make – at the time of their diagnosis – matters with respect to how they’re doing several years down the road. One major question is: Should I be using higher-efficacy therapy right out of the gate to better impact long-term disability?”

Research suggests that disability in MS is declining dramatically, she said, although it’s not quite clear if this is caused by evolving definitions of the disease or better medications. If the latter is the case, it’s useful to know that “there have been several publications suggesting that using stronger therapies right out of the gate may have an even greater impact on the long-term disability trajectory [than lower-efficacy treatments],” she said.

But some studies in this area are observational and come with various weaknesses, she said. Clinical trials offer data of their own, but “the conditions of clinical trials are also not real world or generalizable.” They often have healthier subjects than physicians actually see, and their requirements – such as requiring patients to have failed certain therapies – can muddy the messages of their outcomes. And, she added, people are more complicated in real life than in these trials, with many having a mix of both higher- and lower-risk features.

So how can physicians make the best decisions? Dr. Mowry recommends considering several factors, such patient comorbidities and reproductive status, the way drugs are administered, monitoring requirements, and cost. Safety is crucial too. She noted that newly diagnosed patients with MS are very concerned about safety – “they’re very much afraid of risks of stronger medications” – and many choose escalation therapy instead of immediately embracing higher-efficacy therapy for that reason.

At her clinic, she doesn’t push quick decisions. “I find that the treatment-decision discussion with individuals with MS takes several appointments, which we offer typically in quick succession. If we go with the escalation route, we are very strongly conscientious about escalating if there’s breakthrough disease. For me, that means after the medication should have kicked in, we may indeed escalate that therapy right away if there’s a new relapse or more than one new lesion.”

As for the future, Dr. Mowry highlighted two ongoing clinical trials that are expected to provide guidance about first-line therapy options. One is TREAT-MS, which will track intermediate-term risk of disability based on choices regarding first-line and later therapy. The pragmatic trial aims to enroll 900 subjects for up to 5 years. The other is DELIVER-MS, which aims to track how treatment choices affect brain volume.

“We really do need more definitive data to support the early treatment choices that people need to make,” she said.

Dr. Mowry disclosed grant/research support from Biogen, Teva, and Genentech, as welll as honoraria (editorial royalties) from UpToDate.

Personalized medicine is just about the biggest buzzword in health. But neurologist Ellen M. Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steers patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) away from the concept when she first starts talking to them about initial therapy options and possible ways to forestall disability down the line.

“I try to be quite honest,” she told colleagues at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). “I describe the escalation and early intensive-therapy paradigms very broadly, and I tell them that we don’t have a great way of individualizing their treatment decisions at this point.”

Observational and clinical trials offer extremely limited insight, she said in a keynote address, so there aren’t any simple answers about the best strategies. However, she highlighted new research projects that aim to provide more reliable answers.

As Dr. Mowry noted, patients tend to do well early on regardless of the choice of drug, so the question isn’t how to immediately control MS. “I personally find that most people can have control of relapses and the development of new lesions. I don’t find that there are too many individuals these days who don’t achieve control of their inflammatory activity,” she said. “I’m really interested in understanding whether the treatment choices a person with MS and myself make – at the time of their diagnosis – matters with respect to how they’re doing several years down the road. One major question is: Should I be using higher-efficacy therapy right out of the gate to better impact long-term disability?”

Research suggests that disability in MS is declining dramatically, she said, although it’s not quite clear if this is caused by evolving definitions of the disease or better medications. If the latter is the case, it’s useful to know that “there have been several publications suggesting that using stronger therapies right out of the gate may have an even greater impact on the long-term disability trajectory [than lower-efficacy treatments],” she said.

But some studies in this area are observational and come with various weaknesses, she said. Clinical trials offer data of their own, but “the conditions of clinical trials are also not real world or generalizable.” They often have healthier subjects than physicians actually see, and their requirements – such as requiring patients to have failed certain therapies – can muddy the messages of their outcomes. And, she added, people are more complicated in real life than in these trials, with many having a mix of both higher- and lower-risk features.

So how can physicians make the best decisions? Dr. Mowry recommends considering several factors, such patient comorbidities and reproductive status, the way drugs are administered, monitoring requirements, and cost. Safety is crucial too. She noted that newly diagnosed patients with MS are very concerned about safety – “they’re very much afraid of risks of stronger medications” – and many choose escalation therapy instead of immediately embracing higher-efficacy therapy for that reason.

At her clinic, she doesn’t push quick decisions. “I find that the treatment-decision discussion with individuals with MS takes several appointments, which we offer typically in quick succession. If we go with the escalation route, we are very strongly conscientious about escalating if there’s breakthrough disease. For me, that means after the medication should have kicked in, we may indeed escalate that therapy right away if there’s a new relapse or more than one new lesion.”

As for the future, Dr. Mowry highlighted two ongoing clinical trials that are expected to provide guidance about first-line therapy options. One is TREAT-MS, which will track intermediate-term risk of disability based on choices regarding first-line and later therapy. The pragmatic trial aims to enroll 900 subjects for up to 5 years. The other is DELIVER-MS, which aims to track how treatment choices affect brain volume.

“We really do need more definitive data to support the early treatment choices that people need to make,” she said.

Dr. Mowry disclosed grant/research support from Biogen, Teva, and Genentech, as welll as honoraria (editorial royalties) from UpToDate.

The Devil’s own face covering?

It’s been over a year and a half since the COVID-19 emergency was declared in the United States, and we’ve been starting to wonder what our good friend SARS-CoV-2 has left to give. The collective cynic/optimist in us figures that the insanity can’t last forever, right?

Tatyana Kolchugina/Getty

Maybe not forever, but …

A group of parents is suing the Central Bucks (Pa.) School District over school mask mandates, suggesting that the district has no legal authority to enforce such measures. Most of their arguments, Philadelphia Magazine says, are pretty standard stuff: Masks are causing depression, anxiety, and discomfort in their children; masks are a violation of their constitutional rights; and “masks are being used as a control mechanism over the population.”

There are some unusual claims, though. One of the parents, Shannon Harris, said that “wearing masks interferes with their religious duty to spread the word of God and forces them to participate in a satanic ritual,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Philadelphia Magazine decided to check on that “satanic ritual” claim by asking an expert, in this case a spokesperson for the Church of Satan. The Reverend Raul Antony said that “simply ‘wearing a mask’ is not a Satanic ritual, and anyone that genuinely thinks otherwise is a blithering idiot,” adding that the group’s rituals were available on its website.

COVID, you never let us down.
 

You’re the (hurricane) wind beneath my wings

Marriage isn’t easy. From finances to everyday stressors like work and children, maintaining a solid relationship is tough. Then a natural disaster shows up on top of everything else, and marriages actually improve, researchers found.

pxfuel

In a study published by Psychological Science, researchers surveyed 231 newlywed couples about the satisfaction of their marriage before and after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. They found after the hurricane couples had a “significant boost” in the satisfaction of their relationship.

One would think something like this would create what researchers call a “stress spillover,” creating a decrease in relationship satisfaction. Destruction to your home or even displacement after a natural disaster seems pretty stressful. But, “a natural disaster can really put things in perspective. People realize how important their partner is to them when they are jolted out of the day-to-day stress of life,” said Hannah Williamson, PhD, the lead author of the study.

And although everyone saw an increase, the biggest jumps in relationship satisfaction belonged to the people who were most unhappy before the hurricane. Unfortunately, the researchers also found that the effects were only temporary and the dissatisfaction came back within a year.

Dr. Williamson thinks there may be something to these findings that can be beneficial from a therapy standpoint where “couples can shift their perspective in a similar way without having to go through a natural disaster.”

Let’s hope she’s right, because the alternative is to seek out a rampaging hurricane every time your relationship is on the rocks, and that just seems impractical after the second or third year.
 

Not-so-essential oils

Many people use essential oils as a way to unwind and relax. Stressed? Can’t sleep? There’s probably an essential oil for that. However, it seems like these days a lot of things we love and/or think are good for us have a side that’s not so.

pxfuel

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a woman from Georgia died from a rare bacteria called Burkholderia pseudomallei. There have been three previous infections in Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas throughout 2021; two of the four infections were in children. Melioidosis, the disease caused by B. pseudomallei, is usually found in southeast Asia and isn’t obvious or easy to diagnose, especially in places like decidedly untropical Minnesota.

The Georgia case was the real break in this medical mystery, as the infection was traced back to a Walmart product called “Better Homes and Gardens Essential Oil Infused Aromatherapy Room Spray with Gemstones” (a very pithy name). The bacteria were in the lavender and chamomile scent. The CDC is investigating all other product scents, and Walmart has recalled all lots of the product.

If you’ve got that particular essential oil, it’s probably for the best that you stop using it. Don’t worry, we’re sure there’s plenty of other essential oil–infused aromatherapy room sprays with gemstones out there for your scent-based needs.
 

Welcome to the Ministry of Sleep-Deprived Walks

Walking is simple, right? You put one foot in front of the other, and soon you’re walking out the door. Little kids can do it. Even zombies can walk, and they don’t even have brains.

riskms/Getty

Research from MIT and the University of São Paulo has shown that walking is a little trickier than we might think. One researcher in particular noticed that student volunteers tended to perform worse toward the end of semesters, as project deadlines and multiple exams crashed over their heads and they were deprived of solid sleep schedules.

In a study published in Scientific Reports, our intrepid walking researchers had a collection of students monitor their sleep patterns for 2 weeks; on average, the students got 6 hours per night, though some were able to compensate on weekends. On the final day of a 14-day period, some students pulled all-nighters while the rest were allowed to sleep as usual. Then all students performed a walking test involving keeping time with a metronome.

To absolutely no one’s surprise, the students who performed all-nighters before being tested walked the worst, but between the other students, the ones who compensated for sleep deprivation on weekends did better than those who got 6 hours every night, despite getting a similar amount of sleep overall. This effect persisted even when the compensating students performed their walking tests late in the week, just before they got their weekend beauty sleep.

The moral of the story? Sleep is good, and you should get more of it. But if you can’t, sleep in on weekends. Science has given you permission. All those suburban dads looking to get their teenagers up at 8 in the morning must be sweating right now.

The Devil’s own face covering?

It’s been over a year and a half since the COVID-19 emergency was declared in the United States, and we’ve been starting to wonder what our good friend SARS-CoV-2 has left to give. The collective cynic/optimist in us figures that the insanity can’t last forever, right?

Tatyana Kolchugina/Getty

Maybe not forever, but …

A group of parents is suing the Central Bucks (Pa.) School District over school mask mandates, suggesting that the district has no legal authority to enforce such measures. Most of their arguments, Philadelphia Magazine says, are pretty standard stuff: Masks are causing depression, anxiety, and discomfort in their children; masks are a violation of their constitutional rights; and “masks are being used as a control mechanism over the population.”

There are some unusual claims, though. One of the parents, Shannon Harris, said that “wearing masks interferes with their religious duty to spread the word of God and forces them to participate in a satanic ritual,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Philadelphia Magazine decided to check on that “satanic ritual” claim by asking an expert, in this case a spokesperson for the Church of Satan. The Reverend Raul Antony said that “simply ‘wearing a mask’ is not a Satanic ritual, and anyone that genuinely thinks otherwise is a blithering idiot,” adding that the group’s rituals were available on its website.

COVID, you never let us down.
 

You’re the (hurricane) wind beneath my wings

Marriage isn’t easy. From finances to everyday stressors like work and children, maintaining a solid relationship is tough. Then a natural disaster shows up on top of everything else, and marriages actually improve, researchers found.

pxfuel

In a study published by Psychological Science, researchers surveyed 231 newlywed couples about the satisfaction of their marriage before and after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. They found after the hurricane couples had a “significant boost” in the satisfaction of their relationship.

One would think something like this would create what researchers call a “stress spillover,” creating a decrease in relationship satisfaction. Destruction to your home or even displacement after a natural disaster seems pretty stressful. But, “a natural disaster can really put things in perspective. People realize how important their partner is to them when they are jolted out of the day-to-day stress of life,” said Hannah Williamson, PhD, the lead author of the study.

And although everyone saw an increase, the biggest jumps in relationship satisfaction belonged to the people who were most unhappy before the hurricane. Unfortunately, the researchers also found that the effects were only temporary and the dissatisfaction came back within a year.

Dr. Williamson thinks there may be something to these findings that can be beneficial from a therapy standpoint where “couples can shift their perspective in a similar way without having to go through a natural disaster.”

Let’s hope she’s right, because the alternative is to seek out a rampaging hurricane every time your relationship is on the rocks, and that just seems impractical after the second or third year.
 

Not-so-essential oils

Many people use essential oils as a way to unwind and relax. Stressed? Can’t sleep? There’s probably an essential oil for that. However, it seems like these days a lot of things we love and/or think are good for us have a side that’s not so.

pxfuel

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a woman from Georgia died from a rare bacteria called Burkholderia pseudomallei. There have been three previous infections in Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas throughout 2021; two of the four infections were in children. Melioidosis, the disease caused by B. pseudomallei, is usually found in southeast Asia and isn’t obvious or easy to diagnose, especially in places like decidedly untropical Minnesota.

The Georgia case was the real break in this medical mystery, as the infection was traced back to a Walmart product called “Better Homes and Gardens Essential Oil Infused Aromatherapy Room Spray with Gemstones” (a very pithy name). The bacteria were in the lavender and chamomile scent. The CDC is investigating all other product scents, and Walmart has recalled all lots of the product.

If you’ve got that particular essential oil, it’s probably for the best that you stop using it. Don’t worry, we’re sure there’s plenty of other essential oil–infused aromatherapy room sprays with gemstones out there for your scent-based needs.
 

Welcome to the Ministry of Sleep-Deprived Walks

Walking is simple, right? You put one foot in front of the other, and soon you’re walking out the door. Little kids can do it. Even zombies can walk, and they don’t even have brains.

riskms/Getty

Research from MIT and the University of São Paulo has shown that walking is a little trickier than we might think. One researcher in particular noticed that student volunteers tended to perform worse toward the end of semesters, as project deadlines and multiple exams crashed over their heads and they were deprived of solid sleep schedules.

In a study published in Scientific Reports, our intrepid walking researchers had a collection of students monitor their sleep patterns for 2 weeks; on average, the students got 6 hours per night, though some were able to compensate on weekends. On the final day of a 14-day period, some students pulled all-nighters while the rest were allowed to sleep as usual. Then all students performed a walking test involving keeping time with a metronome.

To absolutely no one’s surprise, the students who performed all-nighters before being tested walked the worst, but between the other students, the ones who compensated for sleep deprivation on weekends did better than those who got 6 hours every night, despite getting a similar amount of sleep overall. This effect persisted even when the compensating students performed their walking tests late in the week, just before they got their weekend beauty sleep.

The moral of the story? Sleep is good, and you should get more of it. But if you can’t, sleep in on weekends. Science has given you permission. All those suburban dads looking to get their teenagers up at 8 in the morning must be sweating right now.

The Devil’s own face covering?

It’s been over a year and a half since the COVID-19 emergency was declared in the United States, and we’ve been starting to wonder what our good friend SARS-CoV-2 has left to give. The collective cynic/optimist in us figures that the insanity can’t last forever, right?

Tatyana Kolchugina/Getty

Maybe not forever, but …

A group of parents is suing the Central Bucks (Pa.) School District over school mask mandates, suggesting that the district has no legal authority to enforce such measures. Most of their arguments, Philadelphia Magazine says, are pretty standard stuff: Masks are causing depression, anxiety, and discomfort in their children; masks are a violation of their constitutional rights; and “masks are being used as a control mechanism over the population.”

There are some unusual claims, though. One of the parents, Shannon Harris, said that “wearing masks interferes with their religious duty to spread the word of God and forces them to participate in a satanic ritual,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Philadelphia Magazine decided to check on that “satanic ritual” claim by asking an expert, in this case a spokesperson for the Church of Satan. The Reverend Raul Antony said that “simply ‘wearing a mask’ is not a Satanic ritual, and anyone that genuinely thinks otherwise is a blithering idiot,” adding that the group’s rituals were available on its website.

COVID, you never let us down.
 

You’re the (hurricane) wind beneath my wings

Marriage isn’t easy. From finances to everyday stressors like work and children, maintaining a solid relationship is tough. Then a natural disaster shows up on top of everything else, and marriages actually improve, researchers found.

pxfuel

In a study published by Psychological Science, researchers surveyed 231 newlywed couples about the satisfaction of their marriage before and after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. They found after the hurricane couples had a “significant boost” in the satisfaction of their relationship.

One would think something like this would create what researchers call a “stress spillover,” creating a decrease in relationship satisfaction. Destruction to your home or even displacement after a natural disaster seems pretty stressful. But, “a natural disaster can really put things in perspective. People realize how important their partner is to them when they are jolted out of the day-to-day stress of life,” said Hannah Williamson, PhD, the lead author of the study.

And although everyone saw an increase, the biggest jumps in relationship satisfaction belonged to the people who were most unhappy before the hurricane. Unfortunately, the researchers also found that the effects were only temporary and the dissatisfaction came back within a year.

Dr. Williamson thinks there may be something to these findings that can be beneficial from a therapy standpoint where “couples can shift their perspective in a similar way without having to go through a natural disaster.”

Let’s hope she’s right, because the alternative is to seek out a rampaging hurricane every time your relationship is on the rocks, and that just seems impractical after the second or third year.
 

Not-so-essential oils

Many people use essential oils as a way to unwind and relax. Stressed? Can’t sleep? There’s probably an essential oil for that. However, it seems like these days a lot of things we love and/or think are good for us have a side that’s not so.

pxfuel

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a woman from Georgia died from a rare bacteria called Burkholderia pseudomallei. There have been three previous infections in Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas throughout 2021; two of the four infections were in children. Melioidosis, the disease caused by B. pseudomallei, is usually found in southeast Asia and isn’t obvious or easy to diagnose, especially in places like decidedly untropical Minnesota.

The Georgia case was the real break in this medical mystery, as the infection was traced back to a Walmart product called “Better Homes and Gardens Essential Oil Infused Aromatherapy Room Spray with Gemstones” (a very pithy name). The bacteria were in the lavender and chamomile scent. The CDC is investigating all other product scents, and Walmart has recalled all lots of the product.

If you’ve got that particular essential oil, it’s probably for the best that you stop using it. Don’t worry, we’re sure there’s plenty of other essential oil–infused aromatherapy room sprays with gemstones out there for your scent-based needs.
 

Welcome to the Ministry of Sleep-Deprived Walks

Walking is simple, right? You put one foot in front of the other, and soon you’re walking out the door. Little kids can do it. Even zombies can walk, and they don’t even have brains.

riskms/Getty

Research from MIT and the University of São Paulo has shown that walking is a little trickier than we might think. One researcher in particular noticed that student volunteers tended to perform worse toward the end of semesters, as project deadlines and multiple exams crashed over their heads and they were deprived of solid sleep schedules.

In a study published in Scientific Reports, our intrepid walking researchers had a collection of students monitor their sleep patterns for 2 weeks; on average, the students got 6 hours per night, though some were able to compensate on weekends. On the final day of a 14-day period, some students pulled all-nighters while the rest were allowed to sleep as usual. Then all students performed a walking test involving keeping time with a metronome.

To absolutely no one’s surprise, the students who performed all-nighters before being tested walked the worst, but between the other students, the ones who compensated for sleep deprivation on weekends did better than those who got 6 hours every night, despite getting a similar amount of sleep overall. This effect persisted even when the compensating students performed their walking tests late in the week, just before they got their weekend beauty sleep.

The moral of the story? Sleep is good, and you should get more of it. But if you can’t, sleep in on weekends. Science has given you permission. All those suburban dads looking to get their teenagers up at 8 in the morning must be sweating right now.

Patient samples in outdoor courier lockboxes exposed to hot temperatures for as little as 4 hours are at risk of preanalytical error, according to results from a recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

“Our findings indicate that samples (centrifuged or not centrifuged) were impacted by extreme summer temperatures when stored for short periods of time inside commonly used steel lockboxes,” Joseph R. Wiencek, PhD, medical director of clinical chemistry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Core Laboratory in Nashville, said in an interview.

Dr. Wiencek and colleagues picked two dates during the summer of 2019 in a mid-Atlantic state to place two courier lockboxes (LabLocker-KF300) outside in hot temperatures (32º C) starting at 11 a.m., with one lockbox containing two 24-oz cold packs (Nordic NI24) and the other containing no cold packs. The researchers monitored the temperatures of each lockbox over the course of 4 hours.

Overall, eight participants had seven samples in lithium heparin drawn for two studies evaluating centrifuged or not centrifuged samples. In the first study, four participants had seven samples drawn, with one centrifuged sample serving as a control for each patient. The other six samples were wrapped in paper towels, placed in resealable plastic bags, and distributed evenly in the warm and cold lockboxes. The samples did not directly touch the cold packs in the cold lockbox. At 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours, a participant’s sample was removed from each lockbox and centrifuged.

In the second study, another four participants had seven samples drawn. As in the first study, all samples were centrifuged and placed in the lockboxes. For both studies, when samples were centrifuged, plasma from samples was left on the gel barrier when analyzed for concentrations of C-reactive protein, a comprehensive metabolic panel, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), a lipid panel, magnesium, and phosphorus (Abbott Architect c16000).

In the study of uncentrifuged samples, Dr. Wiencek and colleagues found that when the temperature outside ranged from 28.2º to 44.0º C (mean 40.4º C), the temperature of the cold lockbox was between 16.5º to 22.3º C (mean 22.3º C). The temperature ranged between 34.4º to 46.9º C (mean 42.6º C) in the warm lockbox. For centrifuged samples, the cold lockbox temperature was between 12.2º to 23.0º C (mean 18.0º C) and the warm lockbox was between 25. to 40.8º C (mean 35.2º C) when the outdoor temperature ranged from 27.2º to 46.3º C (mean 37.9º C).

The researchers also calculated the significant change limit (SCL) for each analyte in each sample, finding that aspartate aminotransferase, glucose, LDH, and potassium significantly exceeded the SCL in both the centrifuged and uncentrifuged samples, with the greatest changes seen at the 4-hour timepoint for samples in the warm lockbox (P < .05 for all).
 

Lockbox instructions are “consistently inconsistent”

In viewing instructions for lockboxes across institutions, Dr. Wiencek said the “outdoor courier lockbox instructions among private, academic and reference laboratories were consistently inconsistent.” For example, no laboratories cited time restrictions for samples in lockboxes, and their descriptions on the number of cold packs a laboratory should use and where the lockbox should be placed varied. The inconsistencies “highlighted the emergent need for standardization and guidance documents for institutions to implement,” Dr. Wiencek said.

One unanswered question is how widespread the problem is. It is unclear how many outdoor courier lockboxes are currently in use in the United States or globally; however, experts agreed it was a common occurrence, with some of the largest laboratory service providers offering outdoor courier lockboxes to their clients.

“Courier lockboxes are everywhere. All you need to do is walk around your clinics that are at your hospitals or clinics located around your grocery store to find them,” Dr. Wiencek said. “Some hang on doors, while others can be found on the ground in direct sunlight on a hot summer day.”

What’s more, institutions may not realize how leaving samples outdoors for extended periods can affect results. “Care teams are commonly unaware that samples placed in these poorly designed lockboxes can experience extreme summer or winter temperatures that may lead to incorrect results,” Dr. Wiencek said. “Healthcare providers need to understand the hidden dangers courier lockboxes have on the quality of their patient’s test results.”

Amy L. Pyle-Eilola, PhD, clinical chemistry director at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said a major strength of the study by Dr. Wiencek and colleagues “is just that it was done at all.”

“I appreciate the real-world nature of this study and that it provides a snapshot of what conditions are really like in a lockbox in the summer,” she said in an interview.

In the clinical lab, receiving samples that had been sitting in a courier lockbox “is not uncommon,” Dr. Pyle-Eilola said.

“When I have encountered these situations, I have struggled to decide if it is still appropriate to run the tests. I always look to the medical literature for assistance with these situations, but there has been a paucity of information available on the impact of lockbox storage,” she explained.

The study by Dr. Wiencek and colleagues “provides some much-needed evidence for what is acceptable for lockbox storage conditions,” she said.
 

Areas of future research

Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, university distinguished chair and professor of the Clinical Laboratory Science (CLS) Program at Texas State University in San Marcos, said in an interview that the study “does a nice job of looking at multiple analytes and controlling for several variables,” but the sample size is small and the results may be difficult to generalize.

Dr. Pyle-Eilola highlighted another limitation — “a common shortcoming of these kinds of studies” — in the use of healthy donors for patient samples, which narrows the range of assay results.

“It is possible that more significant variation in results may be observed in additional analytes if the samples had higher concentrations of those analytes,” she said. “Moreover, this is clinically relevant as the samples stored in such lockboxes are not always from healthy individuals and have abnormal concentrations of analytes.”

Mario Plebani, MD, professor of clinical biochemistry and clinical molecular biology and chief of the department of laboratory medicine at University Hospital of Padova in Padova, Italy, agreed with that assessment.

“[T]he risks for errors and patient safety are higher for values near to the upper or lower reference value, and in general for samples collected in patients with particular diseases and clinical conditions,” he said in an interview.

“This paper deserves a commenting editorial to better highlight the urgent need for further studies on the same issue and in general on the risk in the pre-pre-analytical phase, including sample storage and transportation,” he noted.

Another area of future research is studying patient samples exposed to hotter or colder temperatures in outdoor courier lockboxes outside the mid-Atlantic area. “Here in Texas, temperatures can reach extreme heat levels,” Dr. Rohde said, who added that use of outdoor lockboxes is “very common in my region.”

Dr. Wiencek disclosed he has been a consultant on this research topic for Roche Diagnostics and received an honorarium for speaking on the subject from the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and American Society of Clinical Pathology. The other authors have no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Pyle-Eilola, Dr. Rohde, and Dr. Plebani have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patient samples in outdoor courier lockboxes exposed to hot temperatures for as little as 4 hours are at risk of preanalytical error, according to results from a recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

“Our findings indicate that samples (centrifuged or not centrifuged) were impacted by extreme summer temperatures when stored for short periods of time inside commonly used steel lockboxes,” Joseph R. Wiencek, PhD, medical director of clinical chemistry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Core Laboratory in Nashville, said in an interview.

Dr. Wiencek and colleagues picked two dates during the summer of 2019 in a mid-Atlantic state to place two courier lockboxes (LabLocker-KF300) outside in hot temperatures (32º C) starting at 11 a.m., with one lockbox containing two 24-oz cold packs (Nordic NI24) and the other containing no cold packs. The researchers monitored the temperatures of each lockbox over the course of 4 hours.

Overall, eight participants had seven samples in lithium heparin drawn for two studies evaluating centrifuged or not centrifuged samples. In the first study, four participants had seven samples drawn, with one centrifuged sample serving as a control for each patient. The other six samples were wrapped in paper towels, placed in resealable plastic bags, and distributed evenly in the warm and cold lockboxes. The samples did not directly touch the cold packs in the cold lockbox. At 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours, a participant’s sample was removed from each lockbox and centrifuged.

In the second study, another four participants had seven samples drawn. As in the first study, all samples were centrifuged and placed in the lockboxes. For both studies, when samples were centrifuged, plasma from samples was left on the gel barrier when analyzed for concentrations of C-reactive protein, a comprehensive metabolic panel, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), a lipid panel, magnesium, and phosphorus (Abbott Architect c16000).

In the study of uncentrifuged samples, Dr. Wiencek and colleagues found that when the temperature outside ranged from 28.2º to 44.0º C (mean 40.4º C), the temperature of the cold lockbox was between 16.5º to 22.3º C (mean 22.3º C). The temperature ranged between 34.4º to 46.9º C (mean 42.6º C) in the warm lockbox. For centrifuged samples, the cold lockbox temperature was between 12.2º to 23.0º C (mean 18.0º C) and the warm lockbox was between 25. to 40.8º C (mean 35.2º C) when the outdoor temperature ranged from 27.2º to 46.3º C (mean 37.9º C).

The researchers also calculated the significant change limit (SCL) for each analyte in each sample, finding that aspartate aminotransferase, glucose, LDH, and potassium significantly exceeded the SCL in both the centrifuged and uncentrifuged samples, with the greatest changes seen at the 4-hour timepoint for samples in the warm lockbox (P < .05 for all).
 

Lockbox instructions are “consistently inconsistent”

In viewing instructions for lockboxes across institutions, Dr. Wiencek said the “outdoor courier lockbox instructions among private, academic and reference laboratories were consistently inconsistent.” For example, no laboratories cited time restrictions for samples in lockboxes, and their descriptions on the number of cold packs a laboratory should use and where the lockbox should be placed varied. The inconsistencies “highlighted the emergent need for standardization and guidance documents for institutions to implement,” Dr. Wiencek said.

One unanswered question is how widespread the problem is. It is unclear how many outdoor courier lockboxes are currently in use in the United States or globally; however, experts agreed it was a common occurrence, with some of the largest laboratory service providers offering outdoor courier lockboxes to their clients.

“Courier lockboxes are everywhere. All you need to do is walk around your clinics that are at your hospitals or clinics located around your grocery store to find them,” Dr. Wiencek said. “Some hang on doors, while others can be found on the ground in direct sunlight on a hot summer day.”

What’s more, institutions may not realize how leaving samples outdoors for extended periods can affect results. “Care teams are commonly unaware that samples placed in these poorly designed lockboxes can experience extreme summer or winter temperatures that may lead to incorrect results,” Dr. Wiencek said. “Healthcare providers need to understand the hidden dangers courier lockboxes have on the quality of their patient’s test results.”

Amy L. Pyle-Eilola, PhD, clinical chemistry director at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said a major strength of the study by Dr. Wiencek and colleagues “is just that it was done at all.”

“I appreciate the real-world nature of this study and that it provides a snapshot of what conditions are really like in a lockbox in the summer,” she said in an interview.

In the clinical lab, receiving samples that had been sitting in a courier lockbox “is not uncommon,” Dr. Pyle-Eilola said.

“When I have encountered these situations, I have struggled to decide if it is still appropriate to run the tests. I always look to the medical literature for assistance with these situations, but there has been a paucity of information available on the impact of lockbox storage,” she explained.

The study by Dr. Wiencek and colleagues “provides some much-needed evidence for what is acceptable for lockbox storage conditions,” she said.
 

Areas of future research

Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, university distinguished chair and professor of the Clinical Laboratory Science (CLS) Program at Texas State University in San Marcos, said in an interview that the study “does a nice job of looking at multiple analytes and controlling for several variables,” but the sample size is small and the results may be difficult to generalize.

Dr. Pyle-Eilola highlighted another limitation — “a common shortcoming of these kinds of studies” — in the use of healthy donors for patient samples, which narrows the range of assay results.

“It is possible that more significant variation in results may be observed in additional analytes if the samples had higher concentrations of those analytes,” she said. “Moreover, this is clinically relevant as the samples stored in such lockboxes are not always from healthy individuals and have abnormal concentrations of analytes.”

Mario Plebani, MD, professor of clinical biochemistry and clinical molecular biology and chief of the department of laboratory medicine at University Hospital of Padova in Padova, Italy, agreed with that assessment.

“[T]he risks for errors and patient safety are higher for values near to the upper or lower reference value, and in general for samples collected in patients with particular diseases and clinical conditions,” he said in an interview.

“This paper deserves a commenting editorial to better highlight the urgent need for further studies on the same issue and in general on the risk in the pre-pre-analytical phase, including sample storage and transportation,” he noted.

Another area of future research is studying patient samples exposed to hotter or colder temperatures in outdoor courier lockboxes outside the mid-Atlantic area. “Here in Texas, temperatures can reach extreme heat levels,” Dr. Rohde said, who added that use of outdoor lockboxes is “very common in my region.”

Dr. Wiencek disclosed he has been a consultant on this research topic for Roche Diagnostics and received an honorarium for speaking on the subject from the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and American Society of Clinical Pathology. The other authors have no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Pyle-Eilola, Dr. Rohde, and Dr. Plebani have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patient samples in outdoor courier lockboxes exposed to hot temperatures for as little as 4 hours are at risk of preanalytical error, according to results from a recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

“Our findings indicate that samples (centrifuged or not centrifuged) were impacted by extreme summer temperatures when stored for short periods of time inside commonly used steel lockboxes,” Joseph R. Wiencek, PhD, medical director of clinical chemistry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Core Laboratory in Nashville, said in an interview.

Dr. Wiencek and colleagues picked two dates during the summer of 2019 in a mid-Atlantic state to place two courier lockboxes (LabLocker-KF300) outside in hot temperatures (32º C) starting at 11 a.m., with one lockbox containing two 24-oz cold packs (Nordic NI24) and the other containing no cold packs. The researchers monitored the temperatures of each lockbox over the course of 4 hours.

Overall, eight participants had seven samples in lithium heparin drawn for two studies evaluating centrifuged or not centrifuged samples. In the first study, four participants had seven samples drawn, with one centrifuged sample serving as a control for each patient. The other six samples were wrapped in paper towels, placed in resealable plastic bags, and distributed evenly in the warm and cold lockboxes. The samples did not directly touch the cold packs in the cold lockbox. At 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours, a participant’s sample was removed from each lockbox and centrifuged.

In the second study, another four participants had seven samples drawn. As in the first study, all samples were centrifuged and placed in the lockboxes. For both studies, when samples were centrifuged, plasma from samples was left on the gel barrier when analyzed for concentrations of C-reactive protein, a comprehensive metabolic panel, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), a lipid panel, magnesium, and phosphorus (Abbott Architect c16000).

In the study of uncentrifuged samples, Dr. Wiencek and colleagues found that when the temperature outside ranged from 28.2º to 44.0º C (mean 40.4º C), the temperature of the cold lockbox was between 16.5º to 22.3º C (mean 22.3º C). The temperature ranged between 34.4º to 46.9º C (mean 42.6º C) in the warm lockbox. For centrifuged samples, the cold lockbox temperature was between 12.2º to 23.0º C (mean 18.0º C) and the warm lockbox was between 25. to 40.8º C (mean 35.2º C) when the outdoor temperature ranged from 27.2º to 46.3º C (mean 37.9º C).

The researchers also calculated the significant change limit (SCL) for each analyte in each sample, finding that aspartate aminotransferase, glucose, LDH, and potassium significantly exceeded the SCL in both the centrifuged and uncentrifuged samples, with the greatest changes seen at the 4-hour timepoint for samples in the warm lockbox (P < .05 for all).
 

Lockbox instructions are “consistently inconsistent”

In viewing instructions for lockboxes across institutions, Dr. Wiencek said the “outdoor courier lockbox instructions among private, academic and reference laboratories were consistently inconsistent.” For example, no laboratories cited time restrictions for samples in lockboxes, and their descriptions on the number of cold packs a laboratory should use and where the lockbox should be placed varied. The inconsistencies “highlighted the emergent need for standardization and guidance documents for institutions to implement,” Dr. Wiencek said.

One unanswered question is how widespread the problem is. It is unclear how many outdoor courier lockboxes are currently in use in the United States or globally; however, experts agreed it was a common occurrence, with some of the largest laboratory service providers offering outdoor courier lockboxes to their clients.

“Courier lockboxes are everywhere. All you need to do is walk around your clinics that are at your hospitals or clinics located around your grocery store to find them,” Dr. Wiencek said. “Some hang on doors, while others can be found on the ground in direct sunlight on a hot summer day.”

What’s more, institutions may not realize how leaving samples outdoors for extended periods can affect results. “Care teams are commonly unaware that samples placed in these poorly designed lockboxes can experience extreme summer or winter temperatures that may lead to incorrect results,” Dr. Wiencek said. “Healthcare providers need to understand the hidden dangers courier lockboxes have on the quality of their patient’s test results.”

Amy L. Pyle-Eilola, PhD, clinical chemistry director at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said a major strength of the study by Dr. Wiencek and colleagues “is just that it was done at all.”

“I appreciate the real-world nature of this study and that it provides a snapshot of what conditions are really like in a lockbox in the summer,” she said in an interview.

In the clinical lab, receiving samples that had been sitting in a courier lockbox “is not uncommon,” Dr. Pyle-Eilola said.

“When I have encountered these situations, I have struggled to decide if it is still appropriate to run the tests. I always look to the medical literature for assistance with these situations, but there has been a paucity of information available on the impact of lockbox storage,” she explained.

The study by Dr. Wiencek and colleagues “provides some much-needed evidence for what is acceptable for lockbox storage conditions,” she said.
 

Areas of future research

Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, university distinguished chair and professor of the Clinical Laboratory Science (CLS) Program at Texas State University in San Marcos, said in an interview that the study “does a nice job of looking at multiple analytes and controlling for several variables,” but the sample size is small and the results may be difficult to generalize.

Dr. Pyle-Eilola highlighted another limitation — “a common shortcoming of these kinds of studies” — in the use of healthy donors for patient samples, which narrows the range of assay results.

“It is possible that more significant variation in results may be observed in additional analytes if the samples had higher concentrations of those analytes,” she said. “Moreover, this is clinically relevant as the samples stored in such lockboxes are not always from healthy individuals and have abnormal concentrations of analytes.”

Mario Plebani, MD, professor of clinical biochemistry and clinical molecular biology and chief of the department of laboratory medicine at University Hospital of Padova in Padova, Italy, agreed with that assessment.

“[T]he risks for errors and patient safety are higher for values near to the upper or lower reference value, and in general for samples collected in patients with particular diseases and clinical conditions,” he said in an interview.

“This paper deserves a commenting editorial to better highlight the urgent need for further studies on the same issue and in general on the risk in the pre-pre-analytical phase, including sample storage and transportation,” he noted.

Another area of future research is studying patient samples exposed to hotter or colder temperatures in outdoor courier lockboxes outside the mid-Atlantic area. “Here in Texas, temperatures can reach extreme heat levels,” Dr. Rohde said, who added that use of outdoor lockboxes is “very common in my region.”

Dr. Wiencek disclosed he has been a consultant on this research topic for Roche Diagnostics and received an honorarium for speaking on the subject from the American Association for Clinical Chemistry and American Society of Clinical Pathology. The other authors have no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Pyle-Eilola, Dr. Rohde, and Dr. Plebani have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pain is as individual as patients are, a multiple sclerosis (MS) specialist told colleagues, and one size does not fit all when it comes to treatment. Flexibility and multiple strategies are key, especially considering that pain can evolve over time because of changes in MS and related conditions.

“Pain syndromes are incredibly common. They can happen in monophasic, neurological attacks, or relapsing conditions,” neurologist Scott Newsome, DO, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a presentation about pain at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). “The good news is there are a lot of things that we can do to help our patients, and the buck does not just stop with oral medications.”

Dr. Newsome, president of the CMSC’s foundation, noted that pain syndromes affect most people who have spinal cord attacks. Research has suggested that the severity of initial attacks is a predictor of the severity of pain syndromes to come.

“There’s a number of triggers that can worsen these pain syndromes – not sleeping well the night before, anxiety, or when someone overheats,” he said. “A lot of our patients during the summertime, when they go out, they want to enjoy themselves and hang out with their family. If the ambient temperature is to a degree where they have increased symptoms, it really impacts their quality of life.”

Dr. Newsome urged colleagues to consider the three types of pain – primary, such as those related to spasticity or tonic spasms; secondary, which can be caused by weakness, reaction to weakness, and spasticity; and tertiary, which is the emotional response to pain.

Tertiary and secondary pain are often overlooked. On the latter front, “early on in my career, I was a big offender,” he said. “I would just focus how a person had a direct injury to the nervous system and not realize that their hip isn’t hurting because of it. It’s a compensatory mechanism after the direct injury, affecting the muscle skeletal system adversely, and having this wear-and-tear phenomenon – setting them up for advanced arthritis, or even a vascular necrosis.”

In regard to MS, he said, it’s helpful to understand pain syndromes. One type is neuropathic: pain that’s worse at night, doesn’t respond well to standard painkillers, and needs multiple therapies. Another type is paroxysmal cord phenomena, which include tonic spasms, Lhermitte’s sign (“an uncomfortable, shocking, vibrating, electrical pain that goes right down their spine” when the neck is flexed), and a condition known as MS hug. “Our patients will come in and say: ‘Oh, it feels like someone’s given me a bear hug or is strangling me.’”

What works as therapy for primary pain syndromes? “I personally don’t like opioids for any pain syndrome, for a lot of reasons,” he said, but a combination of other drugs can be helpful at low doses to start. “I’m a big believer in combining treatments that have different mechanism of actions” instead of, say, combining gabapentin with pregabalin, nerve drugs which work in similar ways.

Dr. Newsome recalled seeing a patient recently who said: “Oh, I tried that drug, I tried this drug, they didn’t help, and I couldn’t tolerate them.” Turns out the patient was taking maximum doses. “No wonder you didn’t tolerate it,” Dr. Newsome said.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions can play an important role, he said. “Believe it or not, we’ve had a lot of people get benefit from acupuncture and massage therapy. And we’ve had some people actually undergo spinal cord stimulation and get stimulators placed. It’s rare, but that’s a consideration for individuals who are refractory to everything you do.”

Medical marijuana, Botox, ketamine, and intrathecal baclofen are other options, he said.

Finally, he said, slowly taper a patient off pain medications if they’re pain free for 3 months. “If someone is doing nonpharmacological interventions, and they’re having a good deal of pain relief, then that’s definitely an opportunity to cut back on the pain medications.”

Pain is as individual as patients are, a multiple sclerosis (MS) specialist told colleagues, and one size does not fit all when it comes to treatment. Flexibility and multiple strategies are key, especially considering that pain can evolve over time because of changes in MS and related conditions.

“Pain syndromes are incredibly common. They can happen in monophasic, neurological attacks, or relapsing conditions,” neurologist Scott Newsome, DO, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a presentation about pain at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). “The good news is there are a lot of things that we can do to help our patients, and the buck does not just stop with oral medications.”

Dr. Newsome, president of the CMSC’s foundation, noted that pain syndromes affect most people who have spinal cord attacks. Research has suggested that the severity of initial attacks is a predictor of the severity of pain syndromes to come.

“There’s a number of triggers that can worsen these pain syndromes – not sleeping well the night before, anxiety, or when someone overheats,” he said. “A lot of our patients during the summertime, when they go out, they want to enjoy themselves and hang out with their family. If the ambient temperature is to a degree where they have increased symptoms, it really impacts their quality of life.”

Dr. Newsome urged colleagues to consider the three types of pain – primary, such as those related to spasticity or tonic spasms; secondary, which can be caused by weakness, reaction to weakness, and spasticity; and tertiary, which is the emotional response to pain.

Tertiary and secondary pain are often overlooked. On the latter front, “early on in my career, I was a big offender,” he said. “I would just focus how a person had a direct injury to the nervous system and not realize that their hip isn’t hurting because of it. It’s a compensatory mechanism after the direct injury, affecting the muscle skeletal system adversely, and having this wear-and-tear phenomenon – setting them up for advanced arthritis, or even a vascular necrosis.”

In regard to MS, he said, it’s helpful to understand pain syndromes. One type is neuropathic: pain that’s worse at night, doesn’t respond well to standard painkillers, and needs multiple therapies. Another type is paroxysmal cord phenomena, which include tonic spasms, Lhermitte’s sign (“an uncomfortable, shocking, vibrating, electrical pain that goes right down their spine” when the neck is flexed), and a condition known as MS hug. “Our patients will come in and say: ‘Oh, it feels like someone’s given me a bear hug or is strangling me.’”

What works as therapy for primary pain syndromes? “I personally don’t like opioids for any pain syndrome, for a lot of reasons,” he said, but a combination of other drugs can be helpful at low doses to start. “I’m a big believer in combining treatments that have different mechanism of actions” instead of, say, combining gabapentin with pregabalin, nerve drugs which work in similar ways.

Dr. Newsome recalled seeing a patient recently who said: “Oh, I tried that drug, I tried this drug, they didn’t help, and I couldn’t tolerate them.” Turns out the patient was taking maximum doses. “No wonder you didn’t tolerate it,” Dr. Newsome said.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions can play an important role, he said. “Believe it or not, we’ve had a lot of people get benefit from acupuncture and massage therapy. And we’ve had some people actually undergo spinal cord stimulation and get stimulators placed. It’s rare, but that’s a consideration for individuals who are refractory to everything you do.”

Medical marijuana, Botox, ketamine, and intrathecal baclofen are other options, he said.

Finally, he said, slowly taper a patient off pain medications if they’re pain free for 3 months. “If someone is doing nonpharmacological interventions, and they’re having a good deal of pain relief, then that’s definitely an opportunity to cut back on the pain medications.”

Pain is as individual as patients are, a multiple sclerosis (MS) specialist told colleagues, and one size does not fit all when it comes to treatment. Flexibility and multiple strategies are key, especially considering that pain can evolve over time because of changes in MS and related conditions.

“Pain syndromes are incredibly common. They can happen in monophasic, neurological attacks, or relapsing conditions,” neurologist Scott Newsome, DO, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a presentation about pain at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). “The good news is there are a lot of things that we can do to help our patients, and the buck does not just stop with oral medications.”

Dr. Newsome, president of the CMSC’s foundation, noted that pain syndromes affect most people who have spinal cord attacks. Research has suggested that the severity of initial attacks is a predictor of the severity of pain syndromes to come.

“There’s a number of triggers that can worsen these pain syndromes – not sleeping well the night before, anxiety, or when someone overheats,” he said. “A lot of our patients during the summertime, when they go out, they want to enjoy themselves and hang out with their family. If the ambient temperature is to a degree where they have increased symptoms, it really impacts their quality of life.”

Dr. Newsome urged colleagues to consider the three types of pain – primary, such as those related to spasticity or tonic spasms; secondary, which can be caused by weakness, reaction to weakness, and spasticity; and tertiary, which is the emotional response to pain.

Tertiary and secondary pain are often overlooked. On the latter front, “early on in my career, I was a big offender,” he said. “I would just focus how a person had a direct injury to the nervous system and not realize that their hip isn’t hurting because of it. It’s a compensatory mechanism after the direct injury, affecting the muscle skeletal system adversely, and having this wear-and-tear phenomenon – setting them up for advanced arthritis, or even a vascular necrosis.”

In regard to MS, he said, it’s helpful to understand pain syndromes. One type is neuropathic: pain that’s worse at night, doesn’t respond well to standard painkillers, and needs multiple therapies. Another type is paroxysmal cord phenomena, which include tonic spasms, Lhermitte’s sign (“an uncomfortable, shocking, vibrating, electrical pain that goes right down their spine” when the neck is flexed), and a condition known as MS hug. “Our patients will come in and say: ‘Oh, it feels like someone’s given me a bear hug or is strangling me.’”

What works as therapy for primary pain syndromes? “I personally don’t like opioids for any pain syndrome, for a lot of reasons,” he said, but a combination of other drugs can be helpful at low doses to start. “I’m a big believer in combining treatments that have different mechanism of actions” instead of, say, combining gabapentin with pregabalin, nerve drugs which work in similar ways.

Dr. Newsome recalled seeing a patient recently who said: “Oh, I tried that drug, I tried this drug, they didn’t help, and I couldn’t tolerate them.” Turns out the patient was taking maximum doses. “No wonder you didn’t tolerate it,” Dr. Newsome said.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions can play an important role, he said. “Believe it or not, we’ve had a lot of people get benefit from acupuncture and massage therapy. And we’ve had some people actually undergo spinal cord stimulation and get stimulators placed. It’s rare, but that’s a consideration for individuals who are refractory to everything you do.”

Medical marijuana, Botox, ketamine, and intrathecal baclofen are other options, he said.

Finally, he said, slowly taper a patient off pain medications if they’re pain free for 3 months. “If someone is doing nonpharmacological interventions, and they’re having a good deal of pain relief, then that’s definitely an opportunity to cut back on the pain medications.”