Connect with us

Science

New drug's potentially fatal side effects obscured by 'soothing acronym,' doctors say

Published

on

New drug's potentially fatal side effects obscured by 'soothing acronym,' doctors say

Seventy-nine-year-old Genevieve Lane volunteered to take the Alzheimer’s drug Leqembi in a clinical trial because she was forgetting words and misplacing her keys.

Infusions of the drug gave her headaches so severe they sent her to bed. A week after the third dose, she was at a restaurant with her best friend when her speech slurred and she had a seizure. Five days later she was dead.

An autopsy found that Lane died of a mysterious side effect that has a name that sounds like it might be part of an Italian opera, but has doctors on edge.

The complication called ARIA has nothing to do with music. It is a term adopted by an influential group of pharmaceutical executives and academic scientists to describe potentially fatal bleeding and swelling in the brain caused by drugs like Leqembi.

“Mom believed the drug would help slow progression of her memory problems or do nothing,” said Lane’s daughter, Yvonne Battaglia. “She didn’t know it might kill her.”

Advertisement

Genevieve Lane, 79, of The Villages, Fla., not long before she died in September, 2022. An autopsy blamed Leqembi, a drug for Alzheimer’s disease.

(Lane family)

Lane’s death, and that of two other trial participants, has raised concerns among some doctors, who question whether Leqembi’s risks are worth its benefits, particularly for the population of older adults it was approved for.

Some of these doctors are urging that a new name be given to the drug’s potential side effects to better alert healthcare professionals to its risks.

Advertisement

ARIA is short for “amyloid-related imaging abnormalities,” with imaging referring to the MRI scans needed to find the brain bleeding and swelling.

“Clearly, it is more than just an imaging abnormality,” said Dr. Matthew Schrag, a Vanderbilt University neurologist, who helped with an autopsy that concluded Lane died of brain swelling and bleeding that was likely caused by Leqembi.

“My feeling is that ARIA is too euphemistic of a term. It conveys that this isn’t serious, and it certainly can be,” he said.

Leqembi, known generically as lecanemab, is a monoclonal antibody that works to remove a protein called amyloid from the brain. It received full Food and Drug Administration approval in July.

Eisai, a Japanese drugmaker that has partnered with Biogen, is promoting Leqembi to doctors and people concerned about their memories.

Advertisement

“Get ahead & stay ahead for longer,” an Eisai website says about the drug. It also says that “ARIA usually occurs early in treatment and is usually asymptomatic, although serious and life-threatening events rarely can occur.”

In a recent article, a Stanford neurologist and his colleagues detailed their concerns about ARIA, which they called a “soothing acronym” for brain bleeding and swelling.

“It does certainly have the ring of something that a pharmaceutical company or public relations person would come up with,” Dr. Michael Greicius said in an interview.

Leqembi is approved for mild dementia and also a diagnosis known as mild cognitive impairment, where patients have more memory problems than others their age but can compensate and continue their daily activities. People with MCI have been found to be at greater risk for developing dementia; but in many cases, their memory problems stay the same or even improve.

The FDA has required that the company warn doctors about ARIA. The agency says the condition, which affected more than 20% of those taking the drug in a large trial, can be managed by requiring patients to get repeated MRI scans to look for bleeding and swelling.

Advertisement

“The FDA maintains that the benefits of Leqembi outweigh its risks when used according to the approved labeling,” said Dr. Teresa Buracchio, director of the FDA’s neuroscience office.

Libby Holman, an Eisai spokesperson, called ARIA “globally established nomenclature.”

Because of the risk of ARIA, some Los Angeles medical centers are taking extra precautions.

At Keck Medicine of USC, a neurologist is available 24/7 to take calls from families of those taking Leqembi, since a headache or sudden confusion can be a sign of ARIA, said Dr. Helena Chui, chair of the neurology department.

At UCLA and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, warnings pop up in a patient’s electronic health record to ensure that all medical staff know the patient is taking Leqembi, because it can interact with certain other medications to make brain bleeding far worse.

Advertisement

And at all three medical centers it takes more than a single doctor to prescribe the drug. Each patient’s case must be reviewed by a panel of doctors and other staff — similar to how complex cancer cases are evaluated.

“We want to keep safety first,” said Dr. Keith Vossel, UCLA professor of neurology. “This is the most complicated, complex drug that we’ve prescribed in the dementia field.”

Other physicians say they won’t prescribe the drug.

“If there was a medication that worked, I would be the first person to use it,” said Dr. Clifford Sigel, a neurologist in Santa Monica. “But I won’t be using this in my practice.”

He pointed to a large clinical trial of Leqembi that led to its approval. It found that patients who took the drug saw their memory decline 27% more slowly — or less than half a point on an 18-point cognitive scale — than their counterparts who took a placebo. Sigel and other doctors doubt patients or their families would notice the difference.

Advertisement

Eisai’s Holman disputed claims that the drug does not work. She noted that a panel of outside experts convened by the FDA had voted unanimously that trial data confirmed its clinical benefit.

The name ARIA traces to July 2010 when “turmoil ensued” at an international scientific conference that the Alzheimer’s Assn. holds each year, according to an article by two scientists working in the field.

The FDA had proposed that companies testing new anti-amyloid drugs exclude any volunteer from clinical trials who had more than two brain microbleeds, according to an Alzheimer’s Assn. report. The tiny hemorrhages are sometimes found in healthy people and those with Alzheimer’s or other illnesses.

The agency also said it would require any volunteer who experienced a brain microbleed during the clinical trial to cease taking the drug.

The companies and academics working on the trials viewed the new FDA requirements as “excessively restrictive,” said the report by the association, a nonprofit that has become a powerful force in dementia science.

Advertisement

The industry and academic scientists feared the FDA proposal would stall research on the experimental drugs, the report said, and limit their use.

The drug companies asked the association to debate the FDA’s guidance at its Research Roundtable. Pharmaceutical and medical testing companies can become members of the roundtable by paying the association a $50,000 annual fee.

The association said that “one key question” taken up by the roundtable was whether ARIA was a temporary symptom of the new drug — much the way nausea and hair loss are side effects of chemotherapy — or evidence that anti-amyloid medicines may have more serious adverse effects. That question was never settled.

“Current knowledge doesn’t provide definitive answers to this critical question,” the association said in the 2011 report explaining the roundtable’s work.

Despite the unknowns, the roundtable proposed that volunteers be allowed into the trials even if they had as many as four brain microbleeds. The group said volunteers could keep getting the drug infusions if they developed brain bleeding as long as they did not have significant worsening of symptoms such as headaches and confusion.

Advertisement

The roundtable also proposed calling the brain bleeding and swelling ARIA.

The FDA “subsequently revised and updated the original advice…in a manner consistent” with the roundtable’s suggestions, wrote three of its members.

“Scientific evidence at the time led the workgroup to propose excluding people who have four or more microbleeds from clinical trials,” the association told The Times in a statement. “The FDA agreed.”

The association declined to answer questions on whether the name ARIA should be changed.

An FDA official told The Times that the industry group’s advice was just one of the factors the agency considered before it revised its 2010 guidelines.

Advertisement

More than a decade later, little more is known about why ARIA occurs or how to recognize it.

One problem is that a patient with ARIA can look like they’re having a stroke. And when stroke patients are taken to an emergency room, the first treatment doctors often consider is a clot-dissolving medicine called tPA, which can make brain bleeding worse.

That’s what happened to a 65-year-old woman taking Leqembi in a trial who arrived at a Chicago ER with stroke-like symptoms, according to a report published in February 2023. Doctors gave her tPA.

“As soon as they put it in her, it was like her body was on fire,” the woman’s husband said in a news story in the journal Science. “She was screaming, and it took like eight people to hold her down.”

The woman died, and an autopsy showed extensive bleeding in her brain, leading doctors to conclude the combination of the two drugs may have caused her death.

Advertisement

Knowing about that risk, Southern California doctors have been teaching emergency room staff to find out if patients thought to be suffering a stroke may be taking Leqembi.

“We’ve had to train and discuss this with the ER, the neuroradiology team and urgent care,” said Dr. Sarah Kremen, who leads Cedars Sinai’s Alzheimer’s clinical trial program. “You must ask this person, ‘Are you taking this medication?’”

An FDA database that collects reports of adverse drug reactions from doctors and others shows 23 deaths of patients taking Leqembi.

Holman at Eisai said it would be incorrect to assume the deaths were caused by Leqembi. She noted that Alzheimer’s patients have a higher risk of death because of the natural course of the disease.

In the large trial, less than 1% of patients died — the same rate whether they were taking the drug or the placebo.

Advertisement

Buracchio at the FDA said the agency takes “all adverse event reports seriously.” But she said the agency’s evaluation of the reports “must take the treated population into account,” which in this case is typically older or elderly adults.

To teach doctors about ARIA, Eisai created a website called understandingaria.com. It tells doctors that ARIA “usually resolves without intervention or treatment modification.”

In a brochure for healthcare providers, Eisai assures physicians that infusions may continue if an MRI turns up evidence of microbleeds as long as there are four or fewer and that the discomfort doesn’t disrupt the patient’s activities.

For Genevieve Lane, an MRI discovered four brain microbleeds before she started taking Leqembi in the trial.

After Lane died, an autopsy found more than 30 microbleeds in her brain, including some that could not be seen on the MRI, according to a report in Nature Communications.

Advertisement

The report’s authors, who included Schrag at Vanderbilt, questioned whether the pre-treatment limit of four brain microbleeds was stringent enough and called for higher standards.

The FDA told The Times that the agency had reviewed the available data and had not identified a specific number of preexisting microhemorrhages that would make it unsafe for patients to take anti-amyloid drugs like Leqembi.

“However, we will continue to monitor the accruing safety data,” the agency said.

Other doctors have questioned what happens to the memories of those who suffer ARIA, even if the bleeding and swelling appears to resolve.

Dr. Madhav Thambisetty, a senior researcher at the National Institute of Aging, said he was concerned by a report in a French medical journal about two women with mild dementia who experienced serious ARIA during a trial. One suffered severe seizures; 11 months later, her memory score dropped by nine points on a 30-point scale. The other patient developed a brain bleed described as “massive”; she lost a significant part of her vision, and her memory score declined by 12 points on the same scale.

Advertisement

An FDA scientist reviewing reports of patients who suffered high numbers of microbleeds in the clinical trial also noted the possible harm to their cognition in her January 2023 report on Leqembi.

One of the patients that Dr. Deniz Erten-Lyons pointed to was a 68-year-old man who had four microbleeds before starting the infusions. After treatment, he began to lose his vision and was hospitalized because of a seizure. An MRI found 96 microbleeds.

Thambisetty said he and Dr. Rob Howard of University College London wrote to Eisai last year to request information about what happened to the cognition of those who suffered ARIA in trials.

Eisai has not responded to their request, he said.

“I’m concerned about the lack of full and transparent reporting,” Thambisetty said. “It’s really important to know what happens to these patients.”

Advertisement

Holman said the company’s analysis of trial data showed that ARIA did not impact cognition.

“Eisai is transparent,” she said. The company follows guidelines for sharing clinical data established by PhRMA, the industry trade association, Holman said.

Greicius, the Stanford professor, also asked Eisai for trial data that would break down results for each volunteer to better understand ARIA and whether patients benefited as more amyloid was removed from their brains.

The response from Eisai, he said, was, “Thanks for your interest, but we can’t release the data.”

Advertisement

Science

More middle-class Californians cancel health coverage after losing federal aid

Published

on

More middle-class Californians cancel health coverage after losing federal aid

Facing higher premiums and the loss of federal subsidies, 374,000 people with health insurance from the state marketplace known as Covered California canceled their coverage in the first three months of the year, according to government statistics.

The cancellations amount to 19% of those who had renewed their policies on the state marketplace during open enrollment, state officials said. Those cancellations are higher than in the past three years when they ranged from 13% to 15% of those who renewed.

Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, attributed the jump in cancellations to the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies that caused the cost of a plan to leap for most middle-class Californians.

“We expect coverage losses to increase through the year,” she said.

Overall, Covered California had 1.8 million enrollees in February, down from 1.94 million the year before — a decline of 7%.

Advertisement

Altman said monthly enrollment numbers are delayed because consumers have a three-month grace period to resume their premium payments before the insurance carriers end their coverage for nonpayment.

This year, many middle-class Californians who depend on the state-run insurance marketplace created under the Affordable Care Act faced annual costs that were hundreds of dollars higher than last year because of the end of enhanced federal subsidies that began during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2021, Congress voted to temporarily boost the amount of subsidies Americans could receive for an ACA plan.

The law also expanded the program to families who had more money. Before that 2021 vote, only Americans with incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level — currently $62,600 a year for a single person or $128,600 for a family of four — were eligible for ACA subsidies. The 2021 vote eliminated the income cap and limited the cost of premiums for those higher-earning families to no more than 8.5% of their income.

On top of the loss of the enhanced federal subsidies, the average premium charged by insurers this year for a Covered California plan rose by more than 10% because of fast-rising medical costs.

Advertisement

The decline in ACA plan enrollees, however, has been greater in some other states. California has tried to keep people insured by using state tax money to fill in the gap for lower-income families.

This year, the state budgeted $190 million for premium subsidies for people with incomes of up to 165% of the federal poverty level.

In his budget plan, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed spending $300 million on those state subsidies in 2027. That would expand the subsidies to enrollees with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level, or $31,920 for an individual or $66,000 for a family of four.

“We may actually see a number of Covered California enrollees paying less in 2027” because of the additional state subsidies, Altman said.

In May, Newsom also proposed in his budget that an additional $27 million in state money be used to help enrollees pay for the cost of gender-affirming care. That amount is an increase to the $30 million that he earlier proposed be spent this year and next to defray those costs for Covered California enrollees, according to state officials.

Advertisement

Last year, federal health officials enacted a rule that said the federally subsidized ACA plans could no longer cover gender-affirming care because it was no longer considered an “essential health benefit.”

Newsom’s proposed budget still faces debate in Sacramento and approval by the state Legislature.

The state marketplaces, created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, were meant to help those who don’t have access to an employer’s health insurance plan and have incomes too high to qualify for Medi-Cal, the government-paid insurance for the poor and disabled.

Because of the higher cost this year, more people are choosing the lower-priced Bronze plans. Those plans have higher co-pays and deductibles than the more expensive plans.

“We’re very concerned with the large shift to Bronze,” Altman said. “When you have higher cost-sharing, you’re more likely to defer care.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Political play or budget fix? Competition for JPL’s management comes at a fraught moment

Published

on

Political play or budget fix? Competition for JPL’s management comes at a fraught moment

Weeks after Trump administration officials announced that management of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory would open to competitive bidding for the first time, questions remain as to why Caltech could lose control of the lab its researchers founded in 1936.

On one hand, observers note, high-profile delays and cost overruns on significant recent JPL projects earned sharp criticism from NASA even before the 2024 presidential election.

On the other, the second Trump administration’s record of squeezing scientific funding and attacking institutions in Democrat-led states make it difficult to consider any action separate from the charged political atmosphere, analysts say.

“My first instinct is that this [competition] isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s not written in stone that Caltech must run JPL, and it wouldn’t be the worst thing to have some competition for running the place,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the non-profit Planetary Society.

“That said, that requires this contract evaluation to be fair and unbiased, and this administration has no credibility in such things,” he added. “The responsibility is on NASA to earn the trust and ensure such an evaluation is open and free from political meddling. That’s almost impossible.”

Advertisement

JPL became part of NASA when the space agency was formed in 1958, and Caltech has been awarded the contract to run the institution outright ever since.

Its current 10-year contract with NASA, which is valued at up to $30 billion, runs through Sept. 30, 2028.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced the competition on May 22 as part of a slate of sweeping organizational changes at the space agency.

“When you step back, it is worth considering how many additional missions we could have undertaken with the resources lost to program cancellations and cost overruns over the years,” Isaacman wrote in a memo to staff. “That is the problem we must fix, so the American taxpayer and space-loving community can receive the highest scientific return on every dollar we spend at NASA.”

Competing the contract for JPL, the lone Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) in NASA’s portfolio, was an effort to address cost-efficiency concerns, Isaacman wrote.

Advertisement

“This process will take several years, and I do not anticipate it having any impact on the projects underway or the location of the facilities,” he wrote. “It does, however, provide an opportunity to evaluate management costs, overhead burdens, and ideally find ways to get after the science faster and more affordably.”

In a joint statement, Caltech President Thomas F. Rosenbaum and JPL Director Dave Gallagher said the competition was “no surprise” and that a team was already in place “to ensure we are positioned for success.”

In July, NASA’s Office of Procurement held an informational event for companies and institutions interested in the upcoming FFRDC contract.

The dozens of registered attendees included universities like USC, Texas A&M University and Georgia Tech, aerospace companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin and nonprofit corporations like MITRE, which manages several FFRDCs, and Universities Space Research Association, a university consortium founded by the National Academy of Sciences in 1969. (SpaceX, which has been awarded more than $13 billion in NASA contracts in the last decade, was not on the list.)

“Lockheed Martin has more than 50 years of deep space exploration success with JPL, supporting landmark missions to Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Pluto, including nearly a dozen missions to Mars,” said Bob Behnken, VP of Exploration and Technology Strategy. “We look forward to building on that unmatched partnership in the years ahead. We are closely following NASA’s review and will continue to assess how we can best contribute to the agency’s mission.”

Advertisement

Other attendees contacted by The Times declined to discuss their involvement.

Isaacman indicated that JPL could come under scrutiny even before he took over NASA. The billionaire entrepreneur referenced high costs at the La Cañada Flintridge institution in a memo prepared in advance of his confirmation hearings on his priorities for the space agency.

“Contract structure: Very expensive,” Isaacman wrote of JPL in a table outlining organizational issues at each of NASA’s centers. “Must increase the output and ‘time-to-science’ KPI.”

The institution has recently suffered a number of high-profile management stumbles.

After the JPL-managed Psyche mission to a metal-rich asteroid failed to meet its 2022 launch date, NASA commissioned an independent review that said internal reorganizations and personnel changes created distracted and uninformed managers and burned-out, stretched-thin staffers.

Advertisement

After a 2023 independent review found there was “near zero probability” of the JPL-managed Mars Sample Return mission making its proposed 2028 launch date, and “no credible” way to bring rocks back from the Red Planet within the stated budget, Isaacman’s predecessor Bill Nelson put out a call for proposals to industry and all other NASA centers, forcing JPL to compete for its own project.

After Trump’s election, Nelson announced that the final decision would be in the next administration’s hands.

The White House pushed for massive cuts to NASA’s 2026 budget that Congress overturned, and has lobbied for similarly steep cuts again this year. JPL has instituted painful cost-cutting measures of its own, reducing staffing from roughly 6,500 employees in 2023 to 4,500 last year through layoffs and attrition.

Its struggles come at a point when NASA is enthusiastically embracing private industry. Last month the agency awarded several key contracts for its upcoming lunar missions to Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and other private companies.

Trump has also made no secret of his willingness to punish states that haven’t voted for him through job losses. In announcing his decision to move U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama, Trump acknowledged that his loss in Colorado in three presidential elections played a part in the move.

Advertisement

It’s impossible to consider any decision on JPL’s future separate from the administration’s track record of politically-motivated decisions, Dreier said.

“At the heart of this is why? Why now? If this is not just some rank political attack on California, what do they hope to gain from this?” Dreier said. “That deserves explanation, because the administration otherwise has no credibility here.”

Continue Reading

Science

Dive Into a Very Noisy Sea With Some Very Rare Whales

Published

on

Dive Into a Very Noisy Sea With Some Very Rare Whales

The Gulf of Mexico, which the Trump administration calls the Gulf of America, is one of the noisiest bodies of water in the United States. Air gun blasts are the loudest element there, according to research by scientists who monitor underwater acoustics. Shipping traffic is another major contributor.

The noise could affect the ability of Rice’s whales to find food and mates, scientists say. The chronic stress of living in a loud environment could be detrimental to their health.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending