Regardless of the outcome of Sunday’s game, the New England Patriots are already making dreams come true.Shelly Sepulveda, a local NICU nurse, has been battling cancer for the last two years. The mother of six, five of whom were adopted, has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer three times since 2024.”I know I have limited time here on this Earth, so I created a bucket list and one of the things on that bucket list was to go to a Pats game,” she said.Sepulveda didn’t go to just any game; she went to last week’s playoff game against the Los Angeles Chargers.”I got to go on the field, I got to go in and see the players up close and personal,” she said. “I cried when I went on the field. It was just an amazing experience.”The game was a highlight for Sepulveda in what has been an unimaginable two years.The Kraft Foundation heard she was a fan and invited her to the game. And the excitement didn’t stop there.Kraft gifted her a ticket to the Super Bowl. “I’ve been on Cloud Nine ever since, even though I had some unfortunate news,” Sepulveda said.This past Tuesday, she found out her body is no longer responding to chemotherapy.She’s now trying to get into a clinical trial.The Super Bowl ticket is giving her hope and inspiration as she fights this disease.”I know that it’s a gift from them, but I don’t know really if they really understand how much it impacts me mentally, physically,” she said. “I want them to know how much this is keeping me going. And I have the Pats to thank for that.”
Regardless of the outcome of Sunday’s game, the New England Patriots are already making dreams come true.
Shelly Sepulveda, a local NICU nurse, has been battling cancer for the last two years.
The mother of six, five of whom were adopted, has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer three times since 2024.
“I know I have limited time here on this Earth, so I created a bucket list and one of the things on that bucket list was to go to a Pats game,” she said.
Sepulveda didn’t go to just any game; she went to last week’s playoff game against the Los Angeles Chargers.
“I got to go on the field, I got to go in and see the players up close and personal,” she said. “I cried when I went on the field. It was just an amazing experience.”
The game was a highlight for Sepulveda in what has been an unimaginable two years.
The Kraft Foundation heard she was a fan and invited her to the game.
And the excitement didn’t stop there.
Kraft gifted her a ticket to the Super Bowl.
“I’ve been on Cloud Nine ever since, even though I had some unfortunate news,” Sepulveda said.
This past Tuesday, she found out her body is no longer responding to chemotherapy.
She’s now trying to get into a clinical trial.
The Super Bowl ticket is giving her hope and inspiration as she fights this disease.
“I know that it’s a gift from them, but I don’t know really if they really understand how much it impacts me mentally, physically,” she said. “I want them to know how much this is keeping me going. And I have the Pats to thank for that.”
U.S. regulators on Monday gave the green light to a pill version of the blockbuster weight-loss drug Wegovy, the first daily oral medication to treat obesity.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval handed drugmaker Novo Nordisk an edge over rival Eli Lilly in the race to market an obesity pill. Lilly’s oral drug, orforglipron, is still under review.Both pills are GLP-1 drugs that work like widely used injectables to mimic a natural hormone that controls appetite and feelings of fullness.Video above: Doctor’s perspective on making GLP-1s more affordableIn recent years, Novo Nordisk’s injectable Wegovy and Lilly’s Zepbound have revolutionized obesity treatment globally and in the U.S., where 100 million people have the chronic disease.The Wegovy pills are expected to be available within weeks, company officials said. Availability of oral pills to treat obesity could expand the booming market for obesity treatments by broadening access and reducing costs, experts said.About 1 in 8 Americans have used injectable GLP-1 drugs, according to a survey from KFF, a nonprofit health policy research group. But many more have trouble affording the costly shots.“There’s an entire demographic that can benefit from the pills,” said Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, a Massachusetts General Hospital obesity expert. “For me, it’s not just about who gets it across the finish line first. It’s about having these options available to patients.”The Novo Nordisk obesity pill contains 25 milligrams of semaglutide. That’s the same ingredient in injectables Wegovy and Ozempic and in Rybelsus, a lower-dose pill approved to treat diabetes in 2019.In a clinical trial, participants who took oral Wegovy lost 13.6% of their total body weight on average over about 15 months, compared with a 2.2% loss if they took a placebo, or dummy pill. That’s nearly the same as injectable Wegovy, with an average weight loss of about 15%.Chris Mertens, 35, a pediatric lung doctor in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, joined the Novo Nordisk trial in 2022 and lost about 40 pounds using the Wegovy pill. The daily medication worked to decrease his appetite and invasive thoughts of food, he said.“If there were days where I missed a meal, I almost didn’t realize it,” Mertens said.Participants in a clinical trial who took the highest dose of Lilly’s orforglipron lost 11.2% of their total body weight on average over nearly 17 months, compared with a 2.1% loss in those who took a placebo.Both pills resulted in less weight loss than the average achieved with Lilly’s Zepbound, or tirzepatide, which targets two gut hormones, GLP-1 and GIP, and led to a 21% average weight loss.All the GLP-1 drugs, oral or injectable, have similar side effects, including nausea and diarrhea.Both daily pills promise convenience, but the Wegovy pill must be taken with a sip of water in the morning on an empty stomach, with a 30-minute break before eating or drinking.That’s because Novo Nordisk had to design the pill in a way that prevented the drug from being broken down in the stomach before it could be absorbed by the bloodstream. The drugmaker added an ingredient that protects the medication for about 30 minutes in the gut and makes it easier to take effect.By contrast, Lilly’s orforglipron has no dosing restrictions. That drug is being considered under the FDA’s new priority voucher program aimed at cutting drug approval times. A decision is expected by spring.Producing pills is generally cheaper than making drugs delivered via injections, so the cost for the new oral medications could be lower. The Trump administration earlier this year said officials had worked with drugmakers to negotiate lower prices for the GLP-1 drugs, which can cost upwards of $1,000 a month.The company said the starting dose would be available for $149 per month from some providers. Additional information on cost will be available in January.It’s not clear whether daily pills or weekly injections will be preferred by patients. Although some patients dislike needles, others don’t seem to mind the weekly injections, obesity experts said. Mertens turned to injectable Zepbound when he regained weight after the end of the Wegovy pill clinical trial.He said he liked the discipline of the daily pill.“It was a little bit of an intentional routine and a reminder of today I’m taking this so that I know my choices are going to be affected for the day,” he said.Dr. Angela Fitch, an obesity expert and chief medical officer of knownwell, a health care company, said whatever the format, the biggest benefit will be in making weight-loss medications more widely accessible and affordable.“It’s all about the price,” she said. “Just give me a drug at $100 a month that is relatively effective.”
U.S. regulators on Monday gave the green light to a pill version of the blockbuster weight-loss drug Wegovy, the first daily oral medication to treat obesity.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval handed drugmaker Novo Nordisk an edge over rival Eli Lilly in the race to market an obesity pill. Lilly’s oral drug, orforglipron, is still under review.
Both pills are GLP-1 drugs that work like widely used injectables to mimic a natural hormone that controls appetite and feelings of fullness.
Video above: Doctor’s perspective on making GLP-1s more affordable
In recent years, Novo Nordisk’s injectable Wegovy and Lilly’s Zepbound have revolutionized obesity treatment globally and in the U.S., where 100 million people have the chronic disease.
The Wegovy pills are expected to be available within weeks, company officials said. Availability of oral pills to treat obesity could expand the booming market for obesity treatments by broadening access and reducing costs, experts said.
About 1 in 8 Americans have used injectable GLP-1 drugs, according to a survey from KFF, a nonprofit health policy research group. But many more have trouble affording the costly shots.
“There’s an entire demographic that can benefit from the pills,” said Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, a Massachusetts General Hospital obesity expert. “For me, it’s not just about who gets it across the finish line first. It’s about having these options available to patients.”
The Novo Nordisk obesity pill contains 25 milligrams of semaglutide. That’s the same ingredient in injectables Wegovy and Ozempic and in Rybelsus, a lower-dose pill approved to treat diabetes in 2019.
In a clinical trial, participants who took oral Wegovy lost 13.6% of their total body weight on average over about 15 months, compared with a 2.2% loss if they took a placebo, or dummy pill. That’s nearly the same as injectable Wegovy, with an average weight loss of about 15%.
Chris Mertens, 35, a pediatric lung doctor in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, joined the Novo Nordisk trial in 2022 and lost about 40 pounds using the Wegovy pill. The daily medication worked to decrease his appetite and invasive thoughts of food, he said.
“If there were days where I missed a meal, I almost didn’t realize it,” Mertens said.
Participants in a clinical trial who took the highest dose of Lilly’s orforglipron lost 11.2% of their total body weight on average over nearly 17 months, compared with a 2.1% loss in those who took a placebo.
Both pills resulted in less weight loss than the average achieved with Lilly’s Zepbound, or tirzepatide, which targets two gut hormones, GLP-1 and GIP, and led to a 21% average weight loss.
All the GLP-1 drugs, oral or injectable, have similar side effects, including nausea and diarrhea.
Both daily pills promise convenience, but the Wegovy pill must be taken with a sip of water in the morning on an empty stomach, with a 30-minute break before eating or drinking.
That’s because Novo Nordisk had to design the pill in a way that prevented the drug from being broken down in the stomach before it could be absorbed by the bloodstream. The drugmaker added an ingredient that protects the medication for about 30 minutes in the gut and makes it easier to take effect.
By contrast, Lilly’s orforglipron has no dosing restrictions. That drug is being considered under the FDA’s new priority voucher program aimed at cutting drug approval times. A decision is expected by spring.
Producing pills is generally cheaper than making drugs delivered via injections, so the cost for the new oral medications could be lower. The Trump administration earlier this year said officials had worked with drugmakers to negotiate lower prices for the GLP-1 drugs, which can cost upwards of $1,000 a month.
The company said the starting dose would be available for $149 per month from some providers. Additional information on cost will be available in January.
It’s not clear whether daily pills or weekly injections will be preferred by patients. Although some patients dislike needles, others don’t seem to mind the weekly injections, obesity experts said. Mertens turned to injectable Zepbound when he regained weight after the end of the Wegovy pill clinical trial.
He said he liked the discipline of the daily pill.
“It was a little bit of an intentional routine and a reminder of today I’m taking this so that I know my choices are going to be affected for the day,” he said.
Dr. Angela Fitch, an obesity expert and chief medical officer of knownwell, a health care company, said whatever the format, the biggest benefit will be in making weight-loss medications more widely accessible and affordable.
“It’s all about the price,” she said. “Just give me a drug at $100 a month that is relatively effective.”
An oral version of semaglutide, the active ingredient in blockbuster drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, failed to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in closely watched trials, Novo Nordisk said Monday.In two Phase 3 trials of more than 3,800 adults receiving standard care for Alzheimer’s, the company evaluated whether an older pill form of semaglutide worked better than a placebo. The drug was shown to be safe and led to improvements in Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers, the company said, but the treatment did not delay disease progression.Novo had long treated Alzheimer’s as a long-shot bet for the popular GLP-1 drugs. Use of these drugs for diabetes and weight loss has exploded in recent years, and they have shown benefits for a wide range of additional health conditions, such as protecting the heart and kidneys, reducing sleep apnea and potentially helping with addiction.Smaller trials and animal studies had suggested GLP-1s might help slow cognitive decline or reduce neuro-inflammation but larger trials like Novo’s were needed to confirm whether patients saw actual benefits.”Based on the significant unmet need in Alzheimer’s disease as well as a number of indicative data points, we felt we had a responsibility to explore semaglutide’s potential, despite a low likelihood of success,” said Martin Holst Lange, chief scientific officer and executive vice president of Research and Development at Novo Nordisk said in a statement on Monday that thanked trial participants.A one-year extension of the trials will be discontinued, Novo said. Results from the trials have not yet been peer-reviewed or published but will be presented at upcoming scientific conferences.Novo has been facing increased competition in the weight loss market and recently announced lowered prices for some cash-paying patients using Ozempic and Wegovy. Novo shares fell Monday after the Alzheimer’s trial announcement.
CNN —
An oral version of semaglutide, the active ingredient in blockbuster drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, failed to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in closely watched trials, Novo Nordisk said Monday.
In two Phase 3 trials of more than 3,800 adults receiving standard care for Alzheimer’s, the company evaluated whether an older pill form of semaglutide worked better than a placebo. The drug was shown to be safe and led to improvements in Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers, the company said, but the treatment did not delay disease progression.
Novo had long treated Alzheimer’s as a long-shot bet for the popular GLP-1 drugs. Use of these drugs for diabetes and weight loss has exploded in recent years, and they have shown benefits for a wide range of additional health conditions, such as protecting the heart and kidneys, reducing sleep apnea and potentially helping with addiction.
Smaller trials and animal studies had suggested GLP-1s might help slow cognitive decline or reduce neuro-inflammation but larger trials like Novo’s were needed to confirm whether patients saw actual benefits.
“Based on the significant unmet need in Alzheimer’s disease as well as a number of indicative data points, we felt we had a responsibility to explore semaglutide’s potential, despite a low likelihood of success,” said Martin Holst Lange, chief scientific officer and executive vice president of Research and Development at Novo Nordisk said in a statement on Monday that thanked trial participants.
A one-year extension of the trials will be discontinued, Novo said. Results from the trials have not yet been peer-reviewed or published but will be presented at upcoming scientific conferences.
Novo has been facing increased competition in the weight loss market and recently announced lowered prices for some cash-paying patients using Ozempic and Wegovy. Novo shares fell Monday after the Alzheimer’s trial announcement.
Doctors may soon have a new way to treat high blood pressure, even among people for whom medicines haven’t worked well in the past.Baxdrostat, an experimental medicine made by AstraZeneca, showed promise in treating people with uncontrolled or resistant high blood pressure in a recent trial. If the medicine gets approved by regulatory authorities, it will be one of the first new approaches to treating high blood pressure in decades, researchers say.Scientists presented the trial results Saturday at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2025 in Madrid and simultaneously published them in the New England Journal of Medicine.For the study, researchers enrolled 800 adults who still had high blood pressure after taking two or more medications for at least four weeks. To qualify for the study, patients’ systolic blood pressure had to be between 140 and 170.Blood pressure is measured in millimeters of mercury, which is abbreviated as mm Hg. The measurement has an upper number, or systolic reading, and a lower number, a diastolic reading. Systolic pressure measures the force of blood as it pumps out of the heart into the arteries; diastolic is the pressure created as the heart rests between beats.Normal blood pressure is less than 120/80 mm Hg, and elevated blood pressure is considered to be from 120 to 129/80 mm Hg. At 130/80 mmHg or higher, according to new U.S. guidelines, a person’s medical provider will want them to take a blood pressure medication if lifestyle changes — including eating healthier, reducing salt in the diet and exercising more — don’t work first.The researchers on the new trial placed the participants into three groups. One received 1 milligram of baxdrostat, another got 2 mg, and another got a placebo, which does nothing. Participants took their dose in addition to medicines they were already taking.At 12 weeks, about 4 in 10 patients taking baxdrostat reached healthy blood pressure levels, compared with less than 2 in 10 who got a placebo.Specifically, participants who got 1 or 2 mg of baxdrostat daily saw their systolic blood pressure – the upper number in the reading – fall around 9 to 10 mm Hg more than those taking a placebo. This reduction, studies show, is large enough to cut cardiovascular risk.When blood pressure is high, the force of the blood pushes against the walls of their blood vessels, making the heart less efficient: Both the vessels and the heart must work harder, and it’s more difficult to get blood to essential organs and cells. Without treatment, high blood pressure will eventually damage the arteries, raising the risk of conditions like a heart attack, stroke, coronary disease, vascular dementia and cognitive problems.Heart disease is the No. 1 killer in the world. Lowering blood pressure is the most modifiable way to avoid such a death.Nearly half of all adults in the U.S. have higher than normal blood pressure, and 1 in 10 people have what doctors call resistant hypertension: Despite being on three or more medications, they are not meeting the goal for blood pressure control.When a patient has high blood pressure, doctors may need to try a variety of medications to see what works best.Adding baxdrostat to the list of options could be a big help for patients, according to Dr. Stacey E. Rosen, volunteer president of the American Heart Association, who was not involved with the new research.“What’s interesting about this medication is that they can really be a wonderful partner, so to speak, with some of the more classically recommended anti-hypertensive medications,” said Rosen, who is also a senior vice president of women’s health and executive director of the Katz Institute for Women’s Health of Northwell Health in New York City.Medication options now on the market control blood pressure in a variety of ways. Some, such as vasodilators, relax and widen arteries and veins to allow blood to get through easier and increase flow. Diuretics primarily work by removing excess fluid and salt from the body by increasing urine production. Centrally acting alpha agonists help prevent the nervous system from responding to stress. ACE inhibitors keep the body from producing angiotensin II, a hormone that makes blood vessels constrict. ARBs, or angiotensin II receptor blockers, help reduce the production of aldosterone, a hormone that promotes salt and water retention. Calcium channel blockers can keep calcium away from the cells of the heart and arteries so they don’t have to work as hard.Each can have different side effects, including dizziness, rapid or slower heart rate, exhaustion, upset stomach and swelling in the legs.Baxdrostat’s side effects, the study showed, were mild overall. The most common problem was abnormalities in potassium and sodium levels, but this was rare.Baxdrostat takes a new approach to managing high blood pressure. It focuses on blocking aldosterone, a hormone created by the adrenal glands that helps kidneys regulate salt and maintain the body’s water balance. Some people produce too much aldosterone, leading their body to retain too much water and salt, pushing up blood pressure.“We’ve also known for a while now that most of us eat too much salt and in doing that, it raises blood pressure. But we’re also increasingly recognizing that aldosterone may have a direct impact on causing damage to the blood vessels, to the heart, to the kidneys,” said Dr. Jenifer Brown, one of the lead investigators and co-author of the published study.Brown said she often sees cardiology patients at Brigham and Women’s who may have had a heart event, so she needs to be aggressive in getting their blood pressure under control to prevent another. Some patients may have trouble tolerating other blood pressure medications. For others, the standard medicines just don’t work well. Baxdrostat could be a good complement, she said.“We really have had the same tools as clinicians for many years,” Brown said. “I would be excited to have an option like this.”In an editorial accompanying the publication, Dr. Tomasz Guzik, a cardiovascular scientist at the University of Edinburgh, and Dr. Maciej Tomaszewski, a cardiovascular expert at the University of Manchester, write that next steps should be to figure out which patients would best respond to this new medicine and provide longer-term data. If the medication works long-term, they wrote, it could become a “central piller of therapy for difficult-to-control hypertension.”AstraZeneca said it plans to submit its data to regulatory agencies before the end of 2025.
Doctors may soon have a new way to treat high blood pressure, even among people for whom medicines haven’t worked well in the past.
Baxdrostat, an experimental medicine made by AstraZeneca, showed promise in treating people with uncontrolled or resistant high blood pressure in a recent trial. If the medicine gets approved by regulatory authorities, it will be one of the first new approaches to treating high blood pressure in decades, researchers say.
Scientists presented the trial results Saturday at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2025 in Madrid and simultaneously published them in the New England Journal of Medicine.
For the study, researchers enrolled 800 adults who still had high blood pressure after taking two or more medications for at least four weeks. To qualify for the study, patients’ systolic blood pressure had to be between 140 and 170.
Blood pressure is measured in millimeters of mercury, which is abbreviated as mm Hg. The measurement has an upper number, or systolic reading, and a lower number, a diastolic reading. Systolic pressure measures the force of blood as it pumps out of the heart into the arteries; diastolic is the pressure created as the heart rests between beats.
Normal blood pressure is less than 120/80 mm Hg, and elevated blood pressure is considered to be from 120 to 129/80 mm Hg. At 130/80 mmHg or higher, according to new U.S. guidelines, a person’s medical provider will want them to take a blood pressure medication if lifestyle changes — including eating healthier, reducing salt in the diet and exercising more — don’t work first.
The researchers on the new trial placed the participants into three groups. One received 1 milligram of baxdrostat, another got 2 mg, and another got a placebo, which does nothing. Participants took their dose in addition to medicines they were already taking.
At 12 weeks, about 4 in 10 patients taking baxdrostat reached healthy blood pressure levels, compared with less than 2 in 10 who got a placebo.
Specifically, participants who got 1 or 2 mg of baxdrostat daily saw their systolic blood pressure – the upper number in the reading – fall around 9 to 10 mm Hg more than those taking a placebo. This reduction, studies show, is large enough to cut cardiovascular risk.
When blood pressure is high, the force of the blood pushes against the walls of their blood vessels, making the heart less efficient: Both the vessels and the heart must work harder, and it’s more difficult to get blood to essential organs and cells. Without treatment, high blood pressure will eventually damage the arteries, raising the risk of conditions like a heart attack, stroke, coronary disease, vascular dementia and cognitive problems.
Heart disease is the No. 1 killer in the world. Lowering blood pressure is the most modifiable way to avoid such a death.
Nearly half of all adults in the U.S. have higher than normal blood pressure, and 1 in 10 people have what doctors call resistant hypertension: Despite being on three or more medications, they are not meeting the goal for blood pressure control.
When a patient has high blood pressure, doctors may need to try a variety of medications to see what works best.
Adding baxdrostat to the list of options could be a big help for patients, according to Dr. Stacey E. Rosen, volunteer president of the American Heart Association, who was not involved with the new research.
“What’s interesting about this medication is that they can really be a wonderful partner, so to speak, with some of the more classically recommended anti-hypertensive medications,” said Rosen, who is also a senior vice president of women’s health and executive director of the Katz Institute for Women’s Health of Northwell Health in New York City.
Medication options now on the market control blood pressure in a variety of ways. Some, such as vasodilators, relax and widen arteries and veins to allow blood to get through easier and increase flow. Diuretics primarily work by removing excess fluid and salt from the body by increasing urine production. Centrally acting alpha agonists help prevent the nervous system from responding to stress. ACE inhibitors keep the body from producing angiotensin II, a hormone that makes blood vessels constrict. ARBs, or angiotensin II receptor blockers, help reduce the production of aldosterone, a hormone that promotes salt and water retention. Calcium channel blockers can keep calcium away from the cells of the heart and arteries so they don’t have to work as hard.
Each can have different side effects, including dizziness, rapid or slower heart rate, exhaustion, upset stomach and swelling in the legs.
Baxdrostat’s side effects, the study showed, were mild overall. The most common problem was abnormalities in potassium and sodium levels, but this was rare.
Baxdrostat takes a new approach to managing high blood pressure. It focuses on blocking aldosterone, a hormone created by the adrenal glands that helps kidneys regulate salt and maintain the body’s water balance. Some people produce too much aldosterone, leading their body to retain too much water and salt, pushing up blood pressure.
“We’ve also known for a while now that most of us eat too much salt and in doing that, it raises blood pressure. But we’re also increasingly recognizing that aldosterone may have a direct impact on causing damage to the blood vessels, to the heart, to the kidneys,” said Dr. Jenifer Brown, one of the lead investigators and co-author of the published study.
Brown said she often sees cardiology patients at Brigham and Women’s who may have had a heart event, so she needs to be aggressive in getting their blood pressure under control to prevent another. Some patients may have trouble tolerating other blood pressure medications. For others, the standard medicines just don’t work well. Baxdrostat could be a good complement, she said.
“We really have had the same tools as clinicians for many years,” Brown said. “I would be excited to have an option like this.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication, Dr. Tomasz Guzik, a cardiovascular scientist at the University of Edinburgh, and Dr. Maciej Tomaszewski, a cardiovascular expert at the University of Manchester, write that next steps should be to figure out which patients would best respond to this new medicine and provide longer-term data. If the medication works long-term, they wrote, it could become a “central piller of therapy for difficult-to-control hypertension.”
AstraZeneca said it plans to submit its data to regulatory agencies before the end of 2025.
The inhalation of cannabis flower containing THC and CBD provides superior migraine relief compared to a placebo, according to clinical trial data presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“This is the first placebo-controlled study in this space. It’s the first real — to me — compelling evidence for the anti-migraine effects of cannabis in humans,” the study’s lead researcher said.
Investigators affiliated with the University of California at San Diego presented the findings. They had previously documented their results in a 2024 preprint paper, concluding, “Vaporized 6% THC+11% CBD cannabis flower was superior to placebo for [migraine] pain relief, pain freedom, and MBS [most bothersome symptom] freedom at 2 hours as well as 24-hour sustained pain freedom and sustained MBS freedom and 48-hour sustained MBS freedom.”
THC/CBD cannabis was also superior to placebo at relieving migraine-related photophobia (light sensitivity) and phonophobia (sound sensitivity).
No serious adverse events were reported.
“Nearly one-third of migraine sufferers have tried cannabis for symptom management, and patients consistently report that it significantly reduces their pain severity and migraine frequency,” NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “These data further affirm patients’ testimonials.”
Survey data indicates that migraine sufferers frequently consume cannabis preparations to mitigate their symptoms and reduce their use of prescription drugs. A 2002 literature review of nine studies involving 5,600 subjects concluded: “Medical marijuana has a significant clinical response by reducing the length and frequency of migraines. … Due to its effectiveness and convenience, medical marijuana therapy may be helpful for patients suffering from migraines.”
UVA Health is launching clinical trials for a new way to manage Type 2 diabetes that doesn’t rely on medications or weight loss.
UVA Health is launching clinical trials for a new way to manage Type 2 diabetes that doesn’t rely on medications or weight loss.
“We teach people how to control their blood glucose,” said Dr. Daniel Cox, professor of psychiatry and internal medicine at UVA Health.
The treatment, developed by Cox, increases a patient’s physical activity to lower blood glucose levels. It also identifies the foods that patients should avoid because they’re known to raise blood glucose.
“We encourage people to become more physically active after meals, walk their dog, go out for a walk with family members, do their outdoor chores, et cetera,” said Cox.
During upcoming clinical trials, volunteers will have their blood glucose levels monitored constantly so they can see the relationship between their physical activities, food choices and their glucose levels.
“The less their blood glucose level goes up in the first place, the less effort they have to engage in to bring it down, so people learn which foods push your blood glucose levels up a lot and which foods don’t push up your blood glucose levels at all,” said Cox.
Cox notes that foods like oatmeal and cold cereal “all push your blood glucose up exceedingly,” but scrambled eggs and plain yogurt are examples of dietary options that “don’t push your blood glucose level up much.”
This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here.
They call it the Purge.
You have experienced, in a modest way, something like it in the waning days of a bad cold, when your lungs finally expel their accumulated gunk. The rattle in your chest quiets. Your sinuses clear. You smell again: the animal sweetness of your children’s hair, the metallic breeze stirring a late-summer night. Your body, which oozed and groaned under the yoke of illness, is now a perfectly humming machine. Living is easy—everything is easy. How wonderful it is to breathe, simply breathe.
Explore the April 2024 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
Imagine, though, that you had never been able to simply breathe. Imagine that mucus—thick, copious, dark—had been accumulating since the moment you were born, thwarting air and trapping microbes to fester inside your lungs. That you spent an hour each day physically pounding the mucus out of your airways, but even then, your lung function would spiral only downward, in what amounted to a long, slow asphyxiation. This was what it once meant to be born with cystic fibrosis.
Then, in the fall of 2019, a new triple combination of drugs began making its way into the hands of people with the genetic disease. Trikafta corrects the misshapen protein that causes cystic fibrosis; this molecular tweak thins mucus in the lungs so it can be coughed up easily. In a matter of hours, patients who took it began to cough—and cough and cough and cough in what they later started calling the Purge. They hacked up at work, at home, in their car, in bed at night. It’s not that they were sick; if anything, it was the opposite: They were becoming well. In the days that followed, their lungs were cleansed of a tarlike mucus, and the small tasks of daily life that had been so difficult became unthinkingly easy. They ran up the stairs. They ran after their kids. They ran 10Ks. They ran marathons.
Cystic fibrosis once all but guaranteed an early death. When the disease was first identified, in the 1930s, most babies born with CF died in infancy. The next decades were a grind of incremental medical progress: A child born with CF in the ’50s could expect to live until age 5. In the ’70s, age 10. In the early 2000s, age 35. With Trikafta came a quantum leap. Today, those who begin taking the drug in early adolescence, a recent study projected, can expect to survive to age 82.5—an essentially normal life span.
CF was one of the first diseases to be traced to a specific gene, and Trikafta is one of the first drugs designed for a specific, inherited mutation. It is not a cure, and it doesn’t work for all patients. But a substantial majority of the 40,000 Americans with CF have now lived through a miracle—a thrilling but disorienting miracle. Where they once prepared for death, they now have to prepare for life. “It’s like the opposite of a terminal diagnosis,” Jenny Livingston told me.
Jenny spent her 20s in and out of the hospital for CF-related lung infections. During her frequent weeks-long stays, she made some of her best friends in the CF ward, only to watch them succumb, one by one, to the disease that she knew would eventually kill her too. More than anything, she hoped to live long enough to see her daughter graduate from high school.
Today, Jenny is 36. Four years into taking Trikafta, she’s the healthiest she’s been in her adult life. Her daughter is 14, a lanky high-school freshman. They’re both obsessed with Harry Styles, and after Jenny started on Trikafta, they flew together to see him live—twice. They learned to hunt deer with Jenny’s partner, Randy. They often go up into the aspen- and fir-topped mountains that overlook their little town in central Utah. Jenny’s last hospitalization—four years ago, just before she started Trikafta—is now more distant in time than her daughter’s future graduation.
Having lived one life defined by cystic fibrosis, Jenny wonders: What is she going to do with her second life?
Jenny was born in 1987, the youngest of her parents’ five children together and the third to have cystic fibrosis. Given the family history, the doctors knew to test her as an infant, wrapping her forearm in plastic until a sheen of sweat appeared on her skin: the classic “sweat test” for cystic fibrosis. The faulty protein in CF cannot control the balance of salt and water in the body, which results in mucus that is unusually thick and sweat that is unusually salty. In medieval Europe, centuries before anyone understood why, a proverb foretold the fate of children with salt on their skin: “Woe to the child who tastes salty from a kiss on the brow, for he is cursed and soon will die.”
The 1980s, suffice it to say, were not the Middle Ages. By the time Jenny was born, her two older sisters with cystic fibrosis—Shannan, 8, and Teresa, 7—were on a strict schedule of mucus-clearing chest therapy and medications that had kept them alive past toddlerhood. Shannan wasn’t diagnosed until she was 13 months old. “I knew when she was born that there was something wrong,” their mother, Lisa, told me. As a newborn, Shannan projectile vomited and blew out her diapers constantly. When she got older, she was often so insatiably hungry that she would cry when a spoon scraped the bottom of a near-empty food jar. She scarfed down five pancakes at a time. In the baby photos in Lisa’s scrapbook, she is all skinny legs and big, swollen belly—a classic sign of malnutrition.
Shannan was starving, it turned out. Food was passing through her body undigested because her pancreas had been damaged as a result of thick mucus blocking the ducts that release digestive enzymes. Cystic fibrosis was originally named, in fact, for the fibrous cysts that a 1930s pathologist saw in the pancreases of babies who had died. An early epiphany helped doctors overcome the malfunctioning pancreas, though: The missing enzymes could be replaced with pills. By the time of Shannan’s diagnosis, CF was known as a disease of the lungs, in which sticky mucus made fertile ground for bacteria, and the cycle of infection and scarring, infection and scarring would eventually cause the lungs to fail.
Lisa relayed the news of Shannan’s diagnosis over the phone to her husband, Tom, who was at work. As she repeated the doctor’s words, their awful meaning sank in. Their daughter would not live long. They would watch her die. In that moment, the two of them broke down on the phone, the physical distance between them collapsed by grief.
Shannan died when she was 14. “I remember the sound of her oxygen machine more than her voice,” Jenny told me. The rumble and puff of the machine had run in the background of their home, punctuated by chronic coughs from all three girls with CF. But neither Teresa nor Jenny was ever as sick as Shannan was in childhood—due perhaps to chance or to being diagnosed and starting treatments earlier in life. Even when they were newborns, their mother coaxed applesauce sprinkled with enzymes into their mouth, so they could absorb nutrients from their milk.
Not long after Shannan died, Lisa and Tom divorced—their marriage had been strained even before the loss of their daughter—and they both eventually remarried. Despite the upheavals in her family, Jenny remembers her childhood as quite normal. Yes, she had to take the enzymes with every meal, and she had to clear her lungs of mucus every day—first by having her parents pound on her chest and back and later by using an oscillating vest that shook her body. As inhaled CF drugs were developed, they were added to her daily regimen. She went to the hospital for annual preventive “tune-ups,” but she was never sick enough to need emergency hospitalizations, and CF did not seem to hold her back.
Lisa thinks of Jenny as her sassy daughter. Her youngest was always stubborn, always a go-getter. Through the Make-A-Wish Foundation, she was able to get a horse, which she entered in local shows and rode through the foothills just outside town. In the summer, the salt from the dried sweat on her arms became crystals that glimmered in the sun, a subtle reminder of the disease still inside her. The invincibility of youth, however, made her think she had perhaps escaped her oldest sister’s fate.
At 19, Jenny married a local boy she had fallen in love with, and at 21, she was shocked to find herself pregnant: “A very, very happy surprise.” She had always longed to be a mother. As a young girl, she once drew a picture proclaiming that she would grow up to have six children. The drawing “broke my heart,” says her stepmother, Candy. Even if Jenny lived long enough, cystic fibrosis often causes fertility issues—in many women, thickened cervical mucus is thought to prevent pregnancy, and in almost all men, sperm ducts never develop because of blockages that occur in utero. And at the time, doctors often recommended against pregnancy for health reasons.
But Jenny pushed the worries out of her mind. She was simply happy. She set up a crib and painted the nursery. In retrospect, the fevers and shortness of breath she began to feel were not just the normal discomforts of pregnancy, but she didn’t clock it then. She had an uneventful labor, and gave birth to a healthy baby girl. They named her Morgan.
The trouble started in the following months. Six weeks after giving birth, Jenny went back to work. Between nursing and soothing and diapering a newborn, she could no longer keep up her treatment routine. She sometimes also skipped medications when she couldn’t afford them with the pay from her job as a bank teller and her husband’s as a welder.
Then she caught a bug. It was 2009, the year of swine flu, so it could have been that or a more mundane cold, but either way, it triggered something deep in her lungs. She started feeling short of breath. By the time she got to a CF specialist at a hospital two hours away, in Salt Lake City, she could not walk from the car to the front door. She was too weak to stand for her lung-function test. She collapsed into her hospital bed, and for the next several days, she was unable to use the toilet or shower on her own. Convinced that she would die 100 miles from her three-month-old daughter, she had a terrible revelation: “This is why they said ‘Don’t have kids.’ ”
This was Jenny’s first CF pulmonary exacerbation, when lung function plummets from an acute infection. Doctors inserted her first PICC line, a catheter that runs from the upper arm to the heart, delivers antibiotics, and stays in place longer than an IV. She recovered, but just months later, she was back in the hospital with another exacerbation. Then another and another, and on this went for the next several years. Jenny counted for me the PICC-line scars still visible as white dots on each arm—at least 10 on the left, 16 on the right. When the veins in her arms started to reject PICC lines, doctors placed a port under her right collarbone for easy access to her central vein.
Left: As a child, during one of her preventive “tune-ups,” Jenny (center) passed the time in the hospital doing avocado face masks with her sister Teresa and Kara Hansen, another CF patient. Right: Jenny’s daughter, Morgan, visiting her at the hospital in 2011. (Courtesy of Jenny Livingston)
Each infection scarred her lungs; each exacerbation eroded her lung function. The disease that had been a minor plot point in her life became one of its major storylines, and the people in the hospital became recurring characters. At the University of Utah’s CF center, she met Warren, one of her best friends, whom she came to know so well, she could identify his cough through the hospital walls. He was “so dang funny,” Jenny said, unafraid of joking about the death that would befall them both. Where she was a rule follower, he was a troublemaker. Once, he commandeered a hospital floor scrubber, waving at patients in their rooms as he drove past. Another time, he managed to procure a bootleg copy of The Avengers. Stuck in the hospital over the film’s opening weekend, he and the other CF patients organized a movie night. James brought his Xbox to play the bootleg DVD. Heather (“the biggest Swiftie”) and Angie (“gorgeous, tall blonde”) joined too. They found a waiting room with a TV, and the nurses passed around microwave popcorn.
Jenny and her friends made sure to sit several feet apart. People with cystic fibrosis have had to practice social distancing since long before COVID, because they are considered a danger to one another. Their lungs harbor destructive and often antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can become impossible to uproot once established. Certain names are spoken with an air of doom: Burkholderia cepacia, Pseudomonas aeruginosa. When doctors in the 1990s realized that people with CF were infecting and killing one another by simply gathering, they stopped allowing patients to go within several feet of one another unmasked. Camps for children with cystic fibrosis, which Jenny still remembers fondly, were all shut down. In the hospital, she once again found a community in the disease that was taking over her life. But many of those friendships ended too soon: Of the five people at the Avengers movie night, Jenny is the only one alive today. Warren, James, Heather, and Angie have all died.
As Jenny struggled with her health, the new reality of chronic illness took a toll on her marriage. She and her husband eventually divorced. After a particularly harrowing hospitalization in 2012, her doctors encouraged her to stop working and go on disability. Something in her life had to give, they told her, or it would be her body. Her disease and her daughter became her whole world.
Even as a young child, Morgan could sense when her mom was heading toward another exacerbation. If she noticed that Jenny was more tired than usual or coughing more than usual, she began to dread their coming separation. When she was 3 years old, she asked, “Do all mommies live in the hospital sometimes?” When she was 6, after Warren’s death, she asked, “Can you die from CF?” She understood that their existence together was fragile.
Jenny answered truthfully: Yes. But she assured her daughter that she was taking care of herself as best she could. Still, she made plans for what was probably inevitable. If she died, her daughter would live with her aunt and uncle. If she died, she wanted a funeral just like Warren’s, with music, candy, and an open mic for everyone to share their favorite memories.
A cure for cystic fibrosis had supposedly been imminent since 1989, when Jenny turned 2. That year, scientists identified the recessive gene behind cystic fibrosis, which encodes a protein called CFTR that controls the flow of salt and water. The discovery seemed so explosive that a Reuters reporter rushed to publish the scoop more than two weeks before the scientific papers were due to come out; two press conferences followed.
In the decades after, however, researchers came to understand the wide gulf between identifying a genetic problem and knowing how to solve it. Early attempts in the ’90s at using gene therapy to fix mutations failed again and again, both for CF and for other genetic conditions that once seemed tantalizingly close to a cure.
Then, CF researchers changed tack: Instead of correcting the gene, why not correct the mutated protein itself with small fixer molecules? This had never been done before—with any disease—but the nonprofit Cystic Fibrosis Foundation deemed the strategy promising enough to strike an unusual venture-philanthropy agreement with a company that would attempt it, which was eventually bought by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The foundation funded the research in return for a share of the revenue.
The move paid off. In 2012, Vertex released a drug called Kalydeco that worked stunningly well—improving lung function and erasing many symptoms in the small group of CF patients who could take it. That was the catch: The FDA approved Kalydeco only for the roughly 4 percent of people with CF who carried a rare and specific mutation. Still, it provided a jolt of optimism. Kalydeco was the first drug ever tailored to a person’s inherited genetic mutation, and the breakthrough portended a new age of “personalized medicine.” It also inspired other patient-advocacy groups to copy the venture-philanthropy model. In 2014, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation sold the rights to royalties from Kalydeco and future Vertex CF drugs for $3.3 billion, which it could invest in new research.
After Kalydeco, the next CF mutation to target was obvious. About 1,700 unique mutations have been found in people with CF, but some 90 percent of patients—including Jenny—carry at least one copy of a mutation, known as F508del, that leaves their protein channels too seriously distorted for Kalydeco alone to correct. Fixing this shape would be a much bigger task. In 2013, Jenny joined the clinical trial for a two-drug combination from Vertex, made up of Kalydeco plus a second fixer molecule. It failed to especially improve her symptoms, though it did work enough to stabilize her falling lung function. “It seemed to push pause,” she said. She stopped getting sicker, but she was still sick. The research went on.
A few years later, word began spreading of a forthcoming three-drug combination from Vertex. In clinical trials, neither patients nor doctors are told who is on the placebo and who is on the experimental drug. But in this trial, everyone could tell. The triple combo made patients’ lung function jump by a shocking 10 percentage points. Overnight, they woke up smelling for the first time the distinctive scent of their home. They could even taste their sweat becoming less salty. This was Trikafta.
In the fall of 2019, Trikafta was approved by the FDA just 10 days before a large annual gathering of CF experts in Nashville. Doctors who attended told me the atmosphere was electric. Jenny happened to be there to speak on an unrelated panel, and she remembers seeing the geneticist Francis Collins walk onstage with a guitar. Collins is best known as the longtime director of the National Institutes of Health, where he oversaw the sequencing of the human genome in the ’90s (he has since retired from the NIH). But he had made his name in 1989 as one of the scientists who discovered the gene for cystic fibrosis.
In those long years when progress was halting, Collins, who is also an amateur musician, wrote a song to inspire a gathering of CF researchers. He sang “Dare to Dream” again that day in Nashville, his baritone raspier with age. When he got to the verse that he had rewritten for this occasion—“That triple treatment has taken 30 years”—cheers broke out in the convention center. In the crowd were people who had waited their whole career, even their whole life, for this moment. We dare to dream, dare to dream. As they swayed to the music, perhaps no one quite understood the magnitude and velocity of the change to come.
Jenny received her first box of Trikafta on November 17, 2019, at the end of yet another two-week hospital stay. She had gotten sick again in Nashville. Actually, she had been fighting off a cold before she left, and despite assiduously staying in her hotel room to keep up her treatment routine, she felt an infection settling into her lungs. At the conference, she heard a lot about Trikafta, but she didn’t expect to get it so quickly. CF centers were being inundated with calls from patients asking for the new drug.
In the hospital in Utah, she recorded a video that she sent to her sister with CF, Teresa, who now lived in Ohio. She is sitting on her hospital bed. “My Trikafta is here,” she says, her voice shaking and her eyes tearing up. The miracle drug she had been promised her whole life was now in her hands.
Teresa was also able to start the drug not long after. For her, Trikafta’s impact was immediate and unmistakable. The Purge started on the drive back from the doctor’s visit where she took the first dose. The mucus coming up was so thin that she was confused; it was nothing like the sticky gunk she’d had to work so hard to cough up. A month later, she went back for a sweat test, and her salt level was normal. Based on the results, you would not know she had cystic fibrosis.
Though Trikafta has dramatically improved Jenny’s CF symptoms, she still uses a vest and inhaled treatments to prevent lung infections and other complications from the disease. (Fumi Nagasaka for The Atlantic)
“I think of it like, ‘Oh, back when I used to have CF,’ ” Teresa said on a recent call with Jenny and me. “I don’t feel like I have CF. I feel completely normal.” She has been able to stop using her vest and inhaled medications, freeing up that time for her adopted children and the farm where she lives with her family. Before Trikafta, every small exertion was a negotiation with her lungs. Should she go upstairs? How many breaths would that take? Now she’s running around milking the goats, trimming their hooves, throwing 30 bales of hay into the barn.
On that same call, the sisters got to talking about an upcoming trip to see their grandmother, and Teresa asked Jenny a question that would have been inconceivable before Trikafta: Could they stay in the same hotel room? To avoid infecting each other with the bacteria in their lungs, the two had not shared a room since Teresa left Utah 15 years earlier. At family gatherings, they kept their distance. They didn’t even touch the same serving utensils, sending their partners to get their food. Now, Jenny told her sister, “I would totally stay in the same hotel room.”
When Jenny started Trikafta, it took her longer than it took Teresa to notice much change. She didn’t have the dramatic capital-P Purge because, she thinks, the hospitalization had already temporarily cleared her lungs. But two months after she started the drug, when a snowstorm blanketed their town, her family drove out to their favorite sledding hill. Jenny had never liked sledding; she would stand in the cold while everyone else ran around having fun, their easy breaths turning into white puffs in the air. This time, her nephew called out and she jogged over.
It wasn’t until she got to him that she realized she had jogged up—all the way to the top of the hill. “I don’t run, and I don’t climb hills. And I just ran up a hill and felt super fine,” she says in a video she took right after. “I’m going to see if I can do it again. Ready?”
“Yes,” her daughter, Morgan, answers next to her. They take off. “Mom!” Morgan shouts a few seconds later, as the distance between them grows larger. “You’re beating me, Mom!” At the top of the hill, Jenny looks back to see Morgan still catching up.
Jenny went down the hill and ran back up again, simply to prove that she could. “At one point, I just plopped up here on my bum and cried,” she told me during my visit in October, pointing to the spot on the hill where it had all hit her. In front of us, big gray mountains jutted into the blue sky. The sledding hill, she admitted, did not look that impressive. But for all of Morgan’s life, Jenny had been on the sidelines. She’d watch as Morgan swam in the lake or rode her bike, her low-grade fever making her too tired to join. That day on the hill, they finally ran together.
From there, Jenny began noticing changes in her body, big and small. The tips of her fingers, which had always been slightly swollen and round—a sign of low oxygen—thinned out as her lungs improved. She didn’t need as many enzyme pills to digest her meals. Her chronic cough disappeared. She hadn’t realized how much she had always suppressed her laughter to avoid triggering her cough. Now she can laugh—big belly laughs that match the warmth of her personality. “Oh my gosh, my laugh drives her crazy,” she told me in the car, laughing, after picking up Morgan from school. “That’s because you laugh at stuff that’s not funny,” her daughter shot back. Jenny laughed again.
Trikafta had effects that even doctors did not anticipate. In the months after the drugs became widely available, some patients unexpectedly got pregnant; the drug that thins lung mucus, it turns out, also thins cervical mucus. Then, patients started trying to get pregnant. The drug made many people with CF feel so healthy that they no longer worried about the physical toll of pregnancy and parenthood or the agony of leaving behind young children. Doctors began speaking of a Trikafta baby boom.
Doors opened to other once-impossible futures. A 22-year-old told me he decided to train as an aircraft mechanic, a job that would have been far too physically demanding when he was being hospitalized multiple times a year. One woman started dating. “I don’t want to fall in love with somebody, knowing that I’m not going to be around very long,” she had thought. Now she and her boyfriend have been together for four years. A father who was being evaluated for a lung transplant before Trikafta felt healthy enough to spend the summer of 2020 tearing down and rebuilding his family’s deck, and now expects his CF lungs to see him through graduations and grandkids.
Trikafta is a lifelong medication, and it is not meant to undo organ damage that has already occurred. But the earlier treatment begins, the healthier one stays. A handful of pregnant women have now used Trikafta to treat their unborn children with cystic fibrosis. Last fall, I corresponded with one such expecting mother, who does not have CF but whose son was diagnosed by genetic testing. She started Trikafta at 26 weeks. When her son was born in October, his lungs and pancreas were perfectly healthy.
Officially, Trikafta is approved in the U.S. for patients as young as 2. Unofficially, some parents give their newborns Trikafta, either indirectly through breast milk or directly by grinding up the pills into tiny doses. So long as they stay on the medication, these children may never experience any of the physical ravages of the disease. Recently, Make-A-Wish announced that children with CF would no longer automatically be eligible for the program, because “life-changing advances” had radically improved the outlook for them.
CF centers these days are unusually quiet. Fewer patients need once-routine weeks-long hospitalizations. Instead of thinking about lung function, more and more are worrying about the maladies that come with middle and old age—colon cancer, high cholesterol, heart disease. Obesity has been a confounding new issue. Before Trikafta, patients were usually underweight, and they were told to cram as many calories in as possible, by whatever means possible. Every additional pound was a small victory. One patient described microwaving pints of Ben & Jerry’s to drink mixed with heavy cream; when even that failed to make her gain weight, she got a feeding tube. Now people on Trikafta worry about getting too many calories.
In February, Vertex announced the results of a clinical trial for a next-generation triple-combination therapy, which may be even more effective than Trikafta. All of these changes have made for an existential moment for doctors, too: The disease they were trained to treat is no longer the disease most of their patients have.
Doctors told me they could think of only one other comparable breakthrough in recent memory: the arrival of powerful HIV drugs in the 1990s. Like Trikafta, those drugs were not a cure, but they transformed AIDS from a terminal illness into a manageable chronic one. Young men got up from their deathbed, newly strong and hale. AIDS hospices emptied—and then went bankrupt.
This was a remarkable turn of events. But it elicited a complicated mix of emotions, not all of them joyful. Some patients who were no longer dying grew depressed, anxious, and even suicidal at the thought of living. This phenomenon became known as “Lazarus syndrome.”
Death is an end, after all. Life comes with problems: Patients who spent lavishly during what were supposed to be their last days now had no money to live on. Those who stayed with a lover in sickness found that they could not actually stand them in health. They fretted about insurance and paperwork and chores, everyday annoyances that would no longer be obliterated by imminent death. In 1996, the writer Andrew Sullivan, who is HIV-positive, described life after the advent of the HIV drugs in his essay “When Plagues End”:
When you have spent several years girding yourself for the possibility of death, it is not so easy to gird yourself instead for the possibility of life. What you expect to greet with the euphoria of victory comes instead like the slow withdrawal of an excuse. And you resist it.
The intensity with which you had learned to approach each day turns into a banality, a banality that refuses to understand or even appreciate the experience you have just gone through.
For some HIV patients, their reversal of fortune seemed unreal. “He doesn’t trust what’s happening to him,” one doctor said about a patient who had made a dramatic recovery, yet found himself in psychological distress.
Doubts like these crept into the minds of many people on Trikafta, too. What if the new drug stopped working? Or had horrible side effects? Or stopped being covered by insurance? Trikafta’s sticker price is more than $300,000 a year. Insurance typically covers most of that cost—minus what can be significant co-pays and deductibles—and Vertex offers co-pay assistance. But patients’ lives ultimately depend on decisions made by nameless bureaucrats in rooms far away: Insurance plans can suddenly change what they cover, and in 2022, Vertex announced that it would substantially reduce its financial assistance.
A 43-year-old woman I interviewed asked not to be named, because she feared that speaking about her improved health would cause her to lose disability benefits, which would also get her kicked off the government insurance that pays for Trikafta. Her health has not improved as dramatically as others’ has, and she still has frequent infections and occasional bleeding in her lungs. If she returns to work but her health declines, it could take a long time to get back on disability—time she would have to go without Trikafta. She would also need a job with health insurance good enough to cover the expensive drug—but could she even get one as a 40-something with no recent employment history?
For other patients, new health granted new independence, which could be scary too. As a child, Patrick Allen Brown was sick enough to miss long stretches of school. His parents didn’t expect him to do chores, let alone support himself with a job one day. So much of his life was spent in the hospital that movies became his way of understanding the outside world. In his teens and 20s, he drank heavily.
After Trikafta restored Brown’s physical health, he was no longer a chronically ill adult who lived with his parents. He was a pretty healthy adult who still lived with his parents. He was 32, and hadn’t finished college. Now he had to budget, commit to a career. He decided to get sober. When one of his parents needed back surgery recently, their roles flipped: He became the caretaker. Brown has now graduated from culinary school and found work as a chef, but he feels as if he is still catching up to his peers.
Two months after Jenny began taking Trikafta, she found that she was able to run up a local sledding hill for the first time. Jenny and Morgan often go up into the aspen- and fir-topped mountains that overlook their town in central Utah. (Fumi Nagasaka for The Atlantic)
The great blossoming of possibilities on Trikafta also dredged up regret about decisions too late to undo. Kara Hansen, 41, has a daughter who was adopted, and she had always wanted another child. But in 2016, she had to be repeatedly hospitalized: in April, then again in May, July, and August. She gave up on having a second child—how could she, if she couldn’t even guarantee living for the daughter she already had? Then, in 2018, she joined the original trial for Trikafta, becoming one of the first people in the world to experience its miraculous effects. If she had known her health would improve so dramatically and hold steady six years on, she would have tried to get pregnant, but she feels like it’s too late now. To plan for such a miracle would have been foolish, but to live in its unexpected aftermath can still be painful.
After a year on Trikafta, Jenny told Teresa something that she acknowledged sounded “insane” but that her sister understood immediately: “To no longer be actively dying kind of sucks,” she said. The certainty of dying young, she realized, had been a security blanket. She’d never worried about retirement, menopause, or the loneliness of outliving a parent or a partner.
Cystic fibrosis had defined her adult life. Now what? For so long, she’d just been trying to see her daughter graduate from high school. Now she faced seeing Morgan go off and live her own life. What then? Jenny had become active in patient advocacy, and soon after the start of the pandemic, she volunteered to moderate an online patient forum on mental health for her CF center in Utah. It went so well that her longtime social worker at the center felt compelled to give some career advice: Try social work.
Jenny enrolled in an online master’s program in 2022, and this past fall she chose a practicum with a hospice agency. Having watched the death of so many friends and contemplated her own, she felt prepared to shepherd people through the sadness and awkwardness and even humor that accompany the end of life. She understood, too, the small dignities that mean the world when your body is no longer up to the task of living. One hospice patient, she noticed, often had trouble understanding conversations because his hearing aids were never charged correctly. She got the situation fixed, and on a recent visit, he wanted to listen to music, playing for her the favorite songs of his youth. On another man’s shelf, she recognized a birding book, and she made plans for a window feeder to bring birds to him.
Jenny doesn’t share the details of her life with patients, but in their experiences with death, she has seen her own refracted. One hospice patient, a devout elderly woman, was estranged from her adult son, who no longer believed. Jenny herself grew up religious—Mormon, in her case—but she is not anymore. Her family is still Mormon, as is virtually everyone in the town she has lived in since childhood, which has 3,500 people, several Mormon churches, and a Mormon temple. She is liberal, whereas most of her relatives voted for Donald Trump.
Still, Jenny has made a point of staying close to her large, tight-knit family. Knowing she would die young had long ago clarified that she wanted to leave with no regrets, no grudges, and no words left unsaid to the people she loved. In the foothills outside town one day, she pointed in the direction of her house, her brother’s house, her mom’s house, her dad and stepmom’s house, all minutes away from one another.
Although Trikafta looks to be a very safe drug for most people, it does have side effects. It can cause cataracts as well as liver injury. More perplexing, Trikafta may affect the brain.
For Jenny, starting Trikafta coincided with a wave of intense insomnia, brain fog, and anxiety. For months, she could sleep only two or three hours a night. She’d lose her phone and find it in the freezer. Her lungs were so much healthier, but her brain was going haywire. Soon, she realized that other CF patients had begun sharing stories online of depression, anger, or suicidal thoughts that emerged at the same time they started taking Trikafta.
Doctors sometimes chalked up these symptoms to the existential unease of no longer dying, or the fear and isolation everyone felt in the early days of the pandemic. But Jenny’s doctor took the side effects she reported seriously enough to suggest that she halve her Trikafta dose, and soon after, they subsided. (Some of her CF symptoms did return, but they were muted enough that she could pare down her regimen of treatments.)
The link between Trikafta and these symptoms in the brain is still not fully proven or understood. “We’ve done an in-depth analysis of the preclinical data, clinical data, and real-world-evidence data, and we don’t find any causal relationship,” Fred Van Goor, a vice president and the head of CF research at Vertex, told me in January. And an analysis co-authored by the company’s scientists last year found similar rates of depression and suicidality in CF patients with or without Trikafta. But in November, a group of scientists published a review arguing that the possible neuropsychiatric effects of Trikafta deserved a “serious research effort.” The protein behind CF is found in cells throughout the body, including the brain. Trikafta could be acting on the brain directly, the authors hypothesized, or it could be acting indirectly via changes to inflammation throughout the body or specifically in the gut. The drug may affect different subsets of patients differently, says Anna Georgiopoulos, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital who co-authored the review. She believes that neuropsychiatric side effects afflict only a “small minority” of people on Trikafta, but says that studies are needed to know exactly how many.
In the meantime, some patients have quit Trikafta altogether, their neuropsychiatric symptoms too debilitating even on a lower dose. “Physically I was feeling the best I’ve ever felt,” says Aimee Lecointre of her time on the drug, but mentally, “I felt on the verge of a panic attack almost every day.” The contradiction confused her: How could she be so anxious and depressed when her health was getting so much better? When she finally decided to try stopping Trikafta, the nervous energy that had filled her body all day long dissipated. But her CF symptoms came back. During our phone conversation, she paused every few minutes to cough.
She and Jenny have known each other for years, going back to their mutual hospitalizations. The three of us were supposed to meet over apple-cider floats when I was in Utah, but Lecointre had health issues come up at the last minute, the kind of disruption that happens all the time for people with a chronic illness. For a while, her Instagram feed filled with people on Trikafta whose lives were transforming while hers stayed the same; she had to delete social media from her phone. She still feels sad, sometimes, that Trikafta didn’t work out for her. But she was able to go back to one of Vertex’s two-drug combos, and although it is less effective than Trikafta, she feels so much better. There is more to cope with, but the coping is easier.
For another group of CF patients, Trikafta simply does not work. About 10 percent lack the F508del mutation that the triple combination was specifically designed to fix. Over time, though, scientists have found that some less common mutations are similar enough to F508del that those who carry them still benefit from Trikafta. And in late 2020, word got out that the FDA would soon approve the drug for additional mutations.
Gina Ruiz remembers waiting and waiting for the list of new mutations that fall. She had spent the past year watching her peers on Trikafta be handed what she thought of as a “reverse Uno card”—reverse weight loss, reverse lung decline, reverse CF—while her own health continued to worsen. She was sitting in a car when she saw the list, and she scrolled through the 177 new mutations hoping to find hers. She was crushed when she did not. Ruiz and most people in the 10 percent have mutations that leave their CFTR protein too garbled or incomplete to correct with any combination of fixer molecules. Treating these mutations will require a different strategy altogether.
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation continues to fund research into a cure for all, and scientists, including those at Vertex, are once again exploring genetic therapies, applying the lessons of past failures. But a genetic-therapy breakthrough specific to CF is still years, if not decades, away. After Vertex created that first drug for the 4 percent, the path toward Trikafta was clear. After Trikafta, terra incognita.
Ruiz is wary of getting her hopes up again. At age 29, she can no longer work. She lives with her parents. Her lung function has fallen to 30 percent. And in December, her weight reached a new low of 89 pounds. “I went to Target last night and I was beyond exhausted,” she told me the following month. Her knees hurt too, another complication of CF. As she’s watched her peers on Trikafta get married and chase after toddlers, her own world has shrunk. Halfway through the store, she got so tired that she had to rest in a chair in the home-goods section before she could go on.
Other patients with rare mutations told me the CF communities they once relied on for support have become quiet, as the 90 percent have gotten on with their lives. “It’s extremely isolating,” says Steph Hansen, who was steeling herself for another hospitalization when we spoke in January. She describes it as a one-two punch: Her health is no better, yet she has lost the community that once buoyed her. She’s connected with a handful of other patients who can’t take Trikafta, but CF is already a rare disease, and they are the rarest of the rare.
Jenny has made a point of staying close to her large, tight-knit family; knowing she would die young clarified that she wanted to leave without any grudges. (Fumi Nagasaka for The Atlantic)
The F508del mutation is most common in people of European ancestry, so people with mutations ineligible for Trikafta in the U.S. are disproportionately Black or Latino. Globally, the proportion of people ineligible is higher in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, where diagnosis and treatment for CF also lag. In most developing countries, even eligible patients cannot get Trikafta—because Vertex currently does not sell its expensive drug outside a few dozen countries, concentrated in Europe and the English-speaking world. (Vertex says it has a pilot program that “provides Trikafta at no cost to people with CF in certain lower income countries.”) Its patents also block other companies from making a cheaper generic version. In early 2023, activists asked four countries to revoke or suspend patents for Trikafta in a coordinated campaign. One of the countries was India, where The New York Timeswrote about a father named Seshagiri Buddana. His son would have been able to take Trikafta if he lived in the U.S., but he died in December 2022 one day before he would have turned 9.
All of this weighs on Jenny. What makes her different from those who have died, other than the luck of being born at the right time, in the right place, with the right mutations?
Two days after my visit to Utah, Jenny’s father, Tom, had a heart attack while chopping firewood. He felt short of breath, and a trip to the hospital revealed that his major arteries were 90 percent blocked.
When Jenny texted me the news, she said she had been replaying our recent conversations about life and death. She was glad to feel, upon learning her father might die, that nothing between the two of them was left unsaid or unresolved. I thought of what Tom had told me in his living room. Before we had gone over to his house that day, Jenny had warned me that her dad was a jokester, not a man prone to earnest reflection. But when the conversation shifted to the impact of Trikafta, he turned to me, completely serious. “I was going to bury my kids. And I’m not. They get to bury me, which is the way it’s supposed to be.”
We all fell silent for a moment, as we felt the weight he had been carrying all those years. After burying his eldest daughter at 14, Tom could no longer watch movies in which children die. In Jenny’s years of sickness, he had often driven her two hours to the hospital in Salt Lake City, but he rarely set foot inside. Hospitals are places where people go to be born or to die, he’d say, and all my children have already been born.
After his heart attack, Tom needed an emergency quintuple-bypass surgery. He did well, and came home to recover. He spent the time rethinking his priorities. Just before falling ill, he had skipped a family outing to an amusement park to work. Now he regretted it. He’s become more open about his emotions; still a jokester, he’s taken to saying that his heart has been opened in more ways than one since the surgery.
It’s interesting, Jenny says. Her father has lived a longer and very different life from her own, but she recognizes what he is going through. People die from this, he started saying. I could have died from this. He got close enough to see death’s shadow, only to be pulled back to a life whose familiarity suddenly felt unfamiliar. What would he do with his unexpected life? “Hey,” Jenny told her dad. “I get it.”
This article appears in the April 2024 print edition with the headline “After the Miracle.”
In the weeks after she caught COVID, in May 2022, Lauren Shoemaker couldn’t wait to return to her usual routine of skiing, backpacking, and pregaming her family’s eight-mile hikes with three-mile jogs. All went fine in the first few weeks after her infection. Then, in July, hours after finishing a hike, Shoemaker started to feel off; two days later, she couldn’t make it to the refrigerator without feeling utterly exhausted. Sure it was a fluke, she tried to hike again—and this time, was out of commission for months. Shoemaker, an ecologist at the University of Wyoming, couldn’t do her alpine fieldwork; she struggled to follow a movie with a complex plot. She was baffled. Exercise, the very thing that had reliably energized her before, had suddenly become a trigger for decline.
For the majority of people, exercise is scientifically, physiologically, psychologically good. It boosts immunity, heart function, cognition, mood, energy, even life span. Doctors routinely prescribe it to patients recovering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart attacks, managing metabolic disease, or hoping to stave off cognitive decline. Conditions that worsen when people strive for fitness are very rare. Post-exertional malaise (PEM), which affects Shoemaker and most other people with long COVID, just happens to be one of them.
PEM, first described decades ago as a hallmark of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), is now understood to fundamentally alter the body’s ability to generate and use energy. For people with PEM, just about any form of physical, mental, or emotional exertion—in some cases, activities no more intense than answering emails, folding laundry, or digesting a particularly rare steak—can spark a debilitating wave of symptoms called a crash that may take weeks or months to abate. Simply sitting upright for too long can leave Letícia Soares, a long-hauler living in Brazil, temporarily bedbound. When she recently moved into a new home, she told me, she didn’t bother buying a dining table or chairs—“it just felt useless.”
When it comes to PEM, intense exercise—designed to boost fitness—is “absolutely contraindicated,” David Putrino, a physical therapist who runs a long-COVID clinic at Mount Sinai, in New York, told me. And yet, the idea that exertion could undo a person rather than returning them to health is so counterintuitive that some clinicians and researchers still endorse its potential benefits for those with PEM; it’s dogma that Shoemaker heard repeatedly after she first fell ill. “If exercise could cure this,” she told me, “I would have been cured so quickly.”
The problem is, there’s no consensus about what people who have PEM should do instead. Backing off physical activity too much might start its own downward spiral, as people lose muscle mass and strength in a phenomenon called deconditioning. Navigating the middle ground between deconditioning and crashing is “where the struggle begins,” Denyse Lutchmansingh, a pulmonary specialist at Yale, told me. And as health experts debate which side to err on, millions of long-haulers are trying to strike their own balance.
Though it’s now widely accepted that PEM rejiggers the body’s capacity for strain, scientists still aren’t sure of the precise biological causes. Some studies have found evidence of impaired blood flow, stymieing the delivery of oxygen to cells; others have discovered broken mitochondria struggling to process raw fuel into power. A few have seen hints of excessive inflammation, and immune cells aberrantly attacking muscles; others point to issues with recovery, perhaps via a slowdown in the clearance of lactate and other metabolic debris.
The nature of the crashes that follow exertion can be varied, sprawling, and strange. They might appear hours or days after a catalyst. They can involve flu-like coughs or sore throats. They may crater a patient’s cognitive capacity or plague them with insomnia for weeks; they can leave people feeling so fatigued and pained, they’re almost unable to move. Some of Shoemaker’s toughest crashes have saddled her with tinnitus, numbness, and extreme sensitivity to sound and light. Triggers can also change over time; so can people’s symptoms—even the length of the delay before a crash.
But perhaps the worst part is what an accumulation of crashes can do. Rob Wüst, who studies skeletal-muscle physiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, told me that his team has found an unusual amount of muscle damage after exertion in people with PEM that may take months to heal. People who keep pushing themselves past their limit could watch their baseline for exertion drop, and then drop again. “Every time you PEM yourself, you travel a little further down the rabbit hole,” Betsy Keller, an exercise physiologist at Ithaca College, told me.
Still, the goal of managing PEM has never been to “just lay in a bed all day and don’t do anything,” Lily Chu, the vice president of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (IACFS/ME), told me. In the 1960s, a group of scientists found that three weeks of bed rest slashed healthy young men’s capacity for exertion by nearly 30 percent. (The participants eventually trained themselves back to baseline.) Long periods of bed rest were once commonly prescribed for recovery from heart attacks, says Prashant Rao, a sports cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, in Massachusetts. But now too much rest is actively avoided, because “there’s a real risk of spiraling down, and symptoms worsening,” Rao told me. “I really fear for that, even for people with PEM.”
There is no rulebook for threading this needle, which has led researchers to approach treatments and rehabilitation for long COVID in different ways. Some clinical trials that involve exercise as an intervention explicitly exclude people with PEM. “We did not feel like the exercise program we designed would be safe for those individuals,” Johanna Sick, a physiologist at the University of Vienna who is helping run one such trial, told me.
Other researchers hold out hope that activity-based interventions may still help long-haulers, and are keepingpatients with PEM in experiments. But some of those decisions have been controversial. The government-sponsored RECOVER trial was heavily criticized last year for its plan to enroll long-haulers in an exercise study. Scientists have since revised the trial’s design to reroute participants with moderate to severe PEM to another intervention, according to Adrian Hernandez, the Duke cardiologist leading the trial. The details are still being finalized, but the plan is to instead look at pacing, a strategy for monitoring activity levels to ensure that people stay below their crash threshold, Janna Friedly, a physiatrist at the University of Washington who’s involved in the trial, told me.
Certain experimental regimens can be light enough—stretching, recumbent exercises—to be tolerable by many (though not all) people with PEM. Some researchers are trying to monitor participants’ heart rate, and having them perform only activities that keep them in a low-intensity zone. But even when patients’ limitations are taken into account, crashes can be hard to avoid, Tania Janaudis-Ferreira, a physiotherapist at McGill University, in Quebec, told me. She recently wrapped a clinical trial in which, despite tailoring the regimen to each individual, her team still documented several mild to moderate crashes among participants with PEM.
Just how worrisome crashes are is another matter of contention. Pavlos Bobos, a musculoskeletal-health researcher at the University of Western Ontario, told me that he’d like to see more evidence of harm before ruling out exercise for long COVID and PEM. Bruno Gualano, a physiologist at the University of São Paulo, told me that even though crashes seem temporarily damaging, he’s not convinced that exercise worsens PEM in the long term. But Putrino, of Mount Sinai, is adamant that crashes set people back; most other experts I spoke with agreed. And several researchers told me that, because PEM seems to upend basic physiology, reduced activity may not be as worrisome for people with the condition as it is for those without.
For Shoemaker, the calculus is clear. “Coming back from being deconditioned is honestly trivial compared to recovering from PEM,” she told me. She’s willing to wait for evidence-based therapies that can safely improve her PEM. “Whatever we figure out, if I could get healthy,” she told me, “then I can get back in shape.”
At this point, several patients and researchers told me, most exercise-based trials for long COVID seem to be at best a waste of resources, and at worst a recipe for further harm. PEM is not new, nor are the interventions being tested. Decades of research on ME/CFS have already shown that traditional exercise therapy harms more often than it helps. (Some researchers insisted that more PEM studies are needed in long-haulers—just in case the condition diverges substantially from its manifestation in ME/CFS.) And although a subset of long-haulers could be helped by exercise, experts don’t yet have a great way to safely distinguish them from the rest.
Even pacing, although often recommended for symptommanagement, is not generally considered to be a reliable treatment, which is where most long-COVID patient advocates say funds should be focused. Ideally, Putrino and others told me, resources should be diverted to trials investigating drugs that might address PEM’s roots, such as the antiviral Paxlovid, which could clear lingering virus from long-haulers’ tissues. Some researchers are also hopeful about pyridostigmine, a medication that might enhance the delivery of oxygen to tissues, as well as certainsupplements that might support mitochondria on the fritz.
Those interventions are still experimental—and Putrino said that no single one is likely to work for everyone. That only adds to the challenge of studying PEM, which has been shrouded in disbelief for decades. Despite years of research on ME/CFS, Chu, of the IACFS/ME, told me that many people with the condition have encountered medical professionals who suggest that they’re just anxious, even lazy. It doesn’t help that there’s not yet a blood test for PEM; to diagnose it, doctors must ask their patients questions and trust the answers. Just two decades ago, researchers and physicians speculated that PEM stemmed from an irrational fear of activity; some routinely prescribed therapy, antidepressants, and just pushing through, Chu said. One highly publicized 2011 study, since widely criticized as shoddy science, appeared to support those claims—influencing treatment recommendations from top health authorities such as the CDC.
The CDC and other organizations have sincereversed their position on exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy as PEM treatments. Even so, many people with long COVID and ME/CFS are still routinely told to blow past their limits. All of the long-haulers I spoke with have encountered this advice, and learned to ignore it. Fighting those calls to exercise can be exhausting in its own right. As Ed Yong wrote in The Atlantic last year, American society has long stigmatized people who don’t push their way through adversity—even if that adversity is a medically documented condition that cannot be pushed through. Reconceptualizing the role of exercise in daily living is already a challenge; it is made all the more difficult when being productive—even overworked—is prized above all else.
Long-haulers know that tension intimately; some have had to battle it within themselves. When Julia Moore Vogel, a researcher at Scripps, developed long COVID in the summer of 2020, she was at first determined to grit her way through. She took up pilates and strength training, workouts she at the time considered gentle. But the results were always the same: horrific migraines that relegated her to bed. She now does physical therapy to keep herself moving in safe and supervised amounts. When Vogel, a former competitive runner, started her program, she was taken aback by how little she was asked to do—sometimes just two reps of chin tucks. “I would always laugh because I would be like, ‘These are not exercises,’” she told me. “I’ve had to change my whole mental model about what exercise is, what exertion is.”
When it comes to treating disease with food, the quackery stretches back far. Through the centuries, raw garlic has been touted as a home treatment for everything from chlamydia to the common cold; Renaissance remedies for the plague included figs soaked in hyssop oil. During the 1918 flu pandemic, Americans wolfed down onions or chugged“fluid beef” gravy to keep the deadly virus at bay.
Even in modern times, theinternetabounds with dubious culinary cure-alls: apple-cider vinegar for gonorrhea; orange juice for malaria; mint, milk, and pineapple for tuberculosis. It all has a way of making real science sound like garbage. Research on nutrition and immunity “has been ruined a bit by all the writing out there on Eat this to cure cancer,” Lydia Lynch, an immunologist and a cancer biologist at Harvard, told me.
In recent years, though, plenty of legit studies have confirmed that our diets really can affect our ability to fight off invaders—down to the fine-scale functioning of individual immune cells. Those studies belong to a new subfield of immunology sometimes referred to as immunometabolism. Researchers are still a long way off from being able to confidently recommend specific foods or dietary supplements for colds, flus, STIs, and other infectious illnesses. But someday, knowledge of how nutrients fuel the fight against disease could influence the way that infections are treated in hospitals, in clinics, and maybe at home—not just with antimicrobials and steroids but with dietary supplements, metabolic drugs, or whole foods.
Although major breakthroughs in immunometabolism are just now arriving, the concepts that underlie them have been around for at least as long as the quackery. People have known for millennia that in the hours after we fall ill, our appetite dwindles; our body feels heavy and sluggish; we lose our thirst drive. In the 1980s, the veterinarian Benjamin Hart argued that those changes were a package deal—just some of many sickness behaviors, as he called them, that are evolutionarily hardwired into all sorts of creatures. The goal, Hart told me recently, is to “help the animal stay in one place and conserve energy”—especially as the body devotes a large proportion of its limited resources to igniting microbe-fighting fevers.
The notion of illness-induced anorexia (not to be confused with the eating disorder anorexia nervosa) might seem, at first, like “a bit of a paradox,” says Zuri Sullivan, an immunologist at Harvard. Fighting pathogenic microbes is energetically costly—which makes eating less a very counterintuitive choice. But researchers have long posited that cutting down on calories could serve a strategic purpose: to deprive certain pathogens of essential nutrients. (Because viruses do not eat to acquire energy, this notion is limited to cell-based organisms such as bacteria, fungi, and parasites.) A team led by Miguel Soares, an immunologist at the Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, in Portugal, recently showed that this exact scenario might be playing out with malaria. As the parasites burst out of the red blood cells where they replicate, the resulting spray of heme (an oxygen-transporting molecule) prompts the liver to stop making glucose. The halt seems to deprive the parasites of nutrition, weakening them and tempering the infection’s worst effects.
Cutting down on sugar can be a dangerous race to the bottom: Animals that forgo food while they’re sick are trying to starve out an invader before they themselves run out of energy. Let the glucose boycott stretch on too long, and the dieter might develop dangerously low blood sugar —a common complication of severe malaria—which can turn deadly if untreated. At the same time, though, a paucity of glucose might have beneficial effects on individual tissues and cells during certain immune fights. For example, low-carbohydrate, high-fat ketogenic diets seem to enhance the protective powers of certain types of immune cells in mice, making it tougher for particular pathogens to infiltrate airway tissue.
Those findings are still far from potential human applications. But Andrew Wang, an immunologist and a rheumatologist at Yale, hopes that this sort of research could someday yield better clinical treatments for sepsis, an often fatal condition in which an infection spreads throughout the body, infiltrating the blood. “It’s still not understood exactly what you’re supposed to feed folks with sepsis,” Wang told me. He and his former mentor at Yale, Ruslan Medzhitov, are now running a clinical trial to see whether shifting the balance of carbohydrates and lipids in their diet speeds recovery for people ill with sepsis. If the team is able to suss out clear patterns, doctors might eventually be able to flip the body’s metabolic switches with carefully timed doses of drugs, giving immune cells a bigger edge against their enemies.
But the rules of these food-illness interactions, to the extent that anyone understands them, are devilishly complex. Sepsis can be caused by a whole slew of different pathogens. And context really, really matters. In 2016, Wang, Medzhitov, and their colleagues discovered that feeding mice glucose during infections created starkly different effects depending on the nature of the pathogen driving disease. When the mice were pumped full of glucose while infected with the bacterium Listeria, all of them died—whereas about half of the rodents that were allowed to give in to their infection-induced anorexia lived. Meanwhile, the same sugary menu increased survival rates for mice with the flu.
In this case, the difference doesn’t seem to boil down to what the microbe was eating. Instead, the mice’s diet changed the nature of the immune response they were able to marshal—and how much collateral damage that response was able to inflict on the body, as James Hamblin wrote for The Atlantic at the time. The type of inflammation that mice ignited against Listeria, the team found, could imperil fragile brain cells when the rodents were well fed. But when the mice went off sugar, their starved livers started producing an alternate fuel source called ketone bodies—the same compounds people make when on a ketogenic diet—that helped steel their neurons. Even as the mice fought off their bacterial infections, their brain stayed resilient to the inflammatory burn. The opposite played out when the researchers subbed in influenza, a virus that sparks a different type of inflammation: Glucose pushed brain cells into better shielding themselves against the immune system’s fiery response.
There’s not yet one unifying principle to explain these differences. But they are a reminder of an underappreciated aspect of immunity. Surviving disease, after all, isn’t just about purging a pathogen from the body; our tissues also have to guard themselves from shrapnel as immune cells and microbes wage all-out war. It’s now becoming clear, Soares told me, that “metabolic reprogramming is a big component of that protection.” The tactics that thwart a bacterium like Listeria might not also shield us from a virus, a parasite, or a fungus; they may not be ideal during peacetime. Which means our bodies must constantly toggle between metabolic states.
In the same way that the types of infections likely matter, so do the specific types of nutrients: animal fats, plant fats, starches, simple sugars, proteins. Like glucose, fats can be boons in some contexts but detrimental in others, as Lynch has found. In people with obesity or other metabolic conditions, immune cells appear to reconfigure themselves to rely more heavily on fats as they perform their day-to-day functions. They can also be more sluggish when they attack. That’s the case for a class of cells called natural killers: “They still recognize cancer or a virally infected cell and go to it as something that needs to be killed,” Lynch told me. “But they lack the energy to actually kill it.” Timing, too, almost certainly has an effect. The immune defenses that help someone expunge a virus in the first few days of an infection might not be the ones that are ideal later on in the course of disease.
Even starving out bacterial enemies isn’t a surefire strategy. A few years ago, Janelle Ayres, an immunologist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and her colleagues found that when they infected mice with Salmonella and didn’t allow the rodents to eat, the hungry microbes in their guts began to spread outside of the intestines, likely in search of food. The migration ended up killing tons of their tiny mammal hosts. Mice that ate normally, meanwhile, fared far better—though the Salmonella inside of them also had an easier time transmitting to new hosts. The microbes, too, were responding to the metabolic milieu, and trying to adapt. “It would be great if it was as simple as ‘If you have a bacterial infection, reduce glucose,’” Ayres said. “But I think we just don’t know.”
All of this leaves immunometabolism in a somewhat chaotic state. “We don’t have simple recommendations” on how to eat your way to better immunity, Medzhitov told me. And any that eventually emerge will likely have to be tempered by caveats: Factors such as age, sex, infection and vaccination history, underlying medical conditions, and more can all alter people’s immunometabolic needs. After Medzhitov’s 2016 study on glucose and viral infections was published, he recalls being dismayed by a piece from a foreign outlet circulating online claiming that “a scientist from the USA says that during flu, you should eat candy,” he told me with a sigh. “That was bad.”
But considering how chaotic, individualistic, and messy nutrition is for humans, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the dietary principles governing our individual cells can get pretty complicated too. For now, Medzhitov said, we may be able to follow our instincts. Our bodies, after all, have been navigating this mess for millennia, and have probably picked up some sense of what they need along the way. It may not be a coincidence that during viral infections, “something sweet like honey and tea can really feel good,” Medzhitov said. There may even be some immunological value in downing the sick-day classic, chicken soup: It’s chock-full of fluid and salts, helpful things to ingest when the body’s electrolyte balance has been thrown out of whack by disease.
The science around sickness cravings is far from settled. Still, Sullivan, who trained with Medzhitov, jokes that she now feels better about indulging in Talenti mango sorbet when she’s feeling under the weather with something viral, thanks to her colleagues’ 2016 finds. Maybe the sugar helps her body battle the virus without harming itself; then again, maybe not. For now, she figures it can’t hurt to dig in.
Three years into the global fight against SARS-CoV-2, the arsenal to combat long COVID remains depressingly bare. Being vaccinated seems to reduce people’s chances of developing the condition, but the only surefire option for avoiding long COVID is to avoid catching the coronavirus at all—a proposition that feels ever more improbable. For anyone who is newly infected, “we don’t have any interventions that are known to work,” says Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist and long-COVID researcher at Yale.
Some researchers are hopeful that the forecast might shift soon. A pair of recent preprint studies, both now under review for publication in scientific journals, hint that two long-COVID-preventing pills might already be on our pharmacy shelves: the antiviral Paxlovid and metformin, an affordable drug commonly used for treating type 2 diabetes. When taken early in infection, each seems to at least modestly trim the chance of developing long COVID—by 42 percent, in the case of metformin. Neither set of results is a slam dunk. The Paxlovid findings did not come out of a clinical trial, and were focused on patients at high risk of developing severe, acute COVID; the metformin data did come out of a clinical trial, but the study was small. When I called more than half a dozen infectious-disease experts to discuss them, all used hopeful, but guarded, language: The results are “promising,” “intriguing”; they “warrant further investigation.”
At this point, though, any advance at all feels momentous. Long COVID remains the pandemic’s biggest unknown: Researchers still can’t even agree on its prevalence or the features that define it. What is clear is that millions of people in the United States alone, and countless more worldwide, have experienced some form of it, and more are expected to join them. “We’ve already seen early data, and we’ll continue to see data, that that will emphasize the impact that long COVID has on our society, on quality of life, on productivity, on our health system and medical expenditures,” says Susanna Naggie, an infectious-disease physician and COVID-drug researcher at Duke University. “This needs to be a high priority,” she told me. Researchers have to trim long COVID incidence as much as possible, as soon as possible, with whatever safe, effective options they can.
By now, news of the inertia around preventive long-COVID therapies may not come as much of a shock. Interventions that stop disease from developing are, on the whole, a neglected group; big, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials—the industry gold standard—usually look to investigate potential treatments, rather than drugs that might keep future illness at bay. It’s a bias that makes research easier and faster; it’s a core part of the American medical culture’s reactive approach to health.
For long COVID, the terrain is even rougher. Researchers are best able to address prevention when they understand a disease’s triggers, the source of its symptoms, and who’s most at risk. That intel provides a road map, pointing them toward specific bodily systems and interventions. The potential causes of COVID, though, remain murky, says Adrian Hernandez, a cardiologist and clinical researcher at Duke. Years of research have shown that the condition is quite likely to comprise a cluster of diverse syndromes with different triggers and prognoses, more like a category (e.g., “cancer”) than a singular disease. If that’s the case, then a single preventive treatment shouldn’t be expected to cut its rates for everyone. Without a universal way to define and diagnose the condition, researchers can’t easily design trials, either. Endpoints such as hospitalization and death tend to be binary and countable. Long COVID operates in shades of gray.
Still, some scientists might be making headway with vetted antiviral drugs, already known to slash the risk of developing severe COVID-19. A subset of long-COVID cases could be caused by bits of virus that linger in the body, prompting the immune system to wage an extended war; a drug that clears the microbe more quickly might lower the chances that any part of the invader sticks around. Paxlovid, which interferes with SARS-CoV-2’s ability to copy itself inside of our cells, fits that bill. “The idea here is really nipping it in the bud,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist and long-COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, who led the recent Paxlovid work.
Paxlovid has yet to hit the scientific jackpot: proof from a big clinical trial that shows it can prevent long COVID in newly infected people. But Al-Aly’s study, which pored over the electronic medical records of more than 56,000 high-risk patients, offers some early optimism. People who took the pills, he and his colleagues found, were 26 percent less likely to report lingering symptoms three months after their symptoms began than those who didn’t.
The pills’ main benefit remains the prevention of severe, acute disease. (In the recent study, Paxlovid-takers were also 30 percent less likely to be hospitalized and 48 percent less likely to die.) Al-Aly expects that the drug’s effectiveness at preventing long COVID—if it’s confirmed in other populations—will be “modest, not huge.” Though the two functions could yet be linked: Some long-COVID cases may result from severe infections that damage tissues so badly that the body struggles to recover. And should Paxlovid’s potential pan out, it could help build the case for testing other SARS-CoV-2 antivirals. Al-Aly and his colleagues are currently working on a similar study into molnupiravir. “The early results are encouraging,” he told me, though “not as robust as Paxlovid.” (Another study, run by other researchers, that followed hospitalized COVID patients found those who took remdesivir were less likely to get long COVID, but a later randomized clinical trial didn’t bear that out.)
A clinical trial testing Paxlovid’s preventive potency against long COVID is still needed. Kit Longley, a spokesperson for Pfizer, told me in an email that the company doesn’t currently have one planned, though it is “continuing to monitor data from our clinical studies and real-world evidence.” (The company is collaborating with a research group at Stanford to study Paxlovid in new clinical contexts, but they’re looking at whether the pills might treat long COVID that’s already developed. The RECOVER trial, a large NIH-funded study on long COVID, is also focusing its current studies on treatment.) But given the meager uptake rates for Paxlovid even among those in high-risk groups, Al-Aly thinks his new data could already serve a useful purpose: providing people with extra motivation to take the drug.
The case for adding metformin to the anti-COVID tool kit might be a bit muddier. The drug isn’t the most intuitive medication to deploy against a respiratory virus, and despite its widespread use among diabetics, its exact effects on the body remain nebulous, says Stacey Schultz-Cherry, a virologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. But there are many reasons to believe it might be useful. Some research has shown that metformin can mess with the manufacture of viral proteins inside of human cells, Bramante told me, which may impede the ability of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens to reproduce. The drug also appears to rev up the disease-dueling powers of certain immune cells, and to stave off inflammation. Studies have shown that metformin can improve responses to certain vaccinations in humans and rodents, and researchers have found that people taking the drug seem less likely to get seriously sick from influenza. Even the diabetes-coronavirus connection may not be so tenuous: Metabolic disease is a risk factor for severe COVID; infection itself can put blood-sugar levels on the fritz. It’s certainly plausible that having a metabolically altered body, Schultz-Cherry told me, could make infections worse.
But the evidence that metformin helps prevent long COVID remains sparse. Carolyn Bramante, the scientist who led the metformin study, told me that when her team first set out in 2020 to investigate the drug’s effects on SARS-CoV-2 infections in a randomized, clinical trial, long COVID wasn’t really on their radar. Like many others in their field, they were hoping to repurpose established medicines to keep infected people out of the hospital; early studies of metformin—as well as the two other drugs in their trial, the antidepressant fluvoxamine and the antiparasitic ivermectin—hinted that they’d work. Ironically, two years later, their story flipped around. A large analysis, published last summer, showed that none of the three drugs were stellar at preventing severe COVID in the short term—a disappointing result (though Bramante contends that their data still indicate that metformin does some good). Then, when Bramante and her colleagues examined their data again, they found that study participants that had taken metformin for two weeks around the start of their illness were 42 percent less likely to have a long-COVID diagnosis from their doctor nearly a year down the road. David Boulware, an infectious-disease physician who helped lead the work, considers that degree of reduction pretty decent: “Is it 100 percent? No,” he told me. “But it’s better than zero.”
Metformin may well prove to prevent long COVID but not acute, severe COVID (or vice versa). Plenty of people who never spend time in the hospital can still end up developing chronic symptoms. And Iwasaki points out that the demographics of long-haulers and people who get severe COVID don’t really overlap; the latter skew older and male. In the future, early-infection regimens may be multipronged: antivirals, partnered with metabolic drugs, in the hopes of keeping symptoms both mild and short-lived.
But researchers are still a long way off from delivering that reality. It’s not yet clear, for instance, whether the drugs work additively when combined, Boulware told me. Nor is it a given that they’ll work across different demographics—age, vaccination status, risk factors, and more. Bramante and Boulware’s study cast a decently wide net: Although everyone enrolled in the trial was overweight or obese, many were young and healthy; a few were even pregnant. The study was not enormous, though—about 1,000 people. It also relied on patients’ individual doctors to deliver long-COVID diagnoses, likely leading to some inconsistencies, so other studies that follow up in the future could find different results. For now, this isn’t enough to “mean we should run out and use metformin,” Schultz-Cherry, who has been battling long COVID herself, told me.
Other medications could still fill the long-COVID gaps. Hernandez, the Duke cardiologist, is hopeful that one of his ongoing clinical trials, ACTIV-6, might provide answers soon. He and his team are testing whether any of several drugs—including ivermectin, fluvoxamine, the steroid fluticasone, and, as a new addition, the anti-inflammatory montelukast—might cut down on severe, short-term COVID. But Hernandez and his colleagues, Naggie among them, appended a check-in at the 90-day mark, when they’ll be asking their patients whether they’re experiencing a dozen or so symptoms that could hint at a chronic syndrome.
That check-in questionnaire won’t capture the full list of long-COVID symptoms, now more than 200 strong. Still, the three-month benchmark could give them a sense of where to keep looking, and for how long. Hernandez, Naggie, and their colleagues are considering whether to extend their follow-up period to six months, maybe farther. The need for long-COVID prevention, after all, will only grow as the total infection count does. “We’re not going to get rid of long COVID anytime soon,” Iwasaki told me. “The more we can prevent onset, the better off we are.”
During this week’s Monday Night Football game, the 24-year-old Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin collapsed moments after making a routine defensive play. Hamlin seemed to have suffered a blow to his chest shortly before losing consciousness from cardiac arrest, and his condition is grave. The source of his illness remains unclear. A study of sudden cardiac events in U.S. athletes from 2014 to 2016 found that structural abnormalities of the heart muscle or arteries and faulty electric rhythms were the most common causes; traumatic chest injuries have also been linked to such incidents, in a rare condition called commotio cordis. Still, the availability of these hypotheses did not stop online activists from blaming Hamlin’s health crisis on vaccines.
Anti-vaccine influencers have been fomenting fear about a supposed rise in COVID-shot-induced athletic deaths for a while. Fact-checkers have repeatedlyassessed these claims and found them to be without merit. Jonathan Drezner, a sports-medicine physician who studies sudden deaths in athletes, told media outlets last year that he was “not aware of any COVID-19 vaccine-related athletic death.” The National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research, which systematically tracks sports-related fatalities, identified 13 medical deaths during football-related activities in 2021 among players participating at all levels of competition, eight of which were caused by cardiac arrest. The same researchers had found 14 medical deaths two years earlier, 10 of which were heart-related. These incidents remain tragic and scarce.
The mRNA shots by Pfizer and Moderna are associated with a very small risk of heart inflammation, called myocarditis, which can lead to cardiac arrest. This risk is most pronounced in teenage boys receiving a second dose of the vaccine, but even in that scenario only about one in 10,000 recipients is affected. (Most professional athletes are in their 20s, not teens, so the risk to them is lower.) Myocarditis is a potentially fatal condition, but the version that occurs after vaccination is much less deadly than the heart inflammation induced by many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. A recent analysis identified only a single death in 104 cases of vaccine-induced myocarditis. In comparison, for every 100 people who get myocarditis from a virus, about 11 will die.
The mere fact that mRNA shots can lead to heart problems has been exploited by conservative commentators and politicians to exaggerate the risks to young people. Last month, per a news release, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis promised to look into “sudden deaths of individuals that received the COVID-19 vaccine,” and called for a grand jury to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the vaccine manufacturers. His petition to the Florida Supreme Court justified the investigation by pointing out that “excess mortality from heart attacks rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among individuals ages 25 to 44.” Yet the rise in youth heart attacks actually began in 2020, before vaccines were available. That’s because increased cardiac fatalities during the pandemic have mostly been due to the coronavirus itself. Heart-disease deaths in the United States have been observed to rise and fall in near lockstep with waves of COVID deaths, suggesting that most of these cases—97 percent, according to one estimate—are the result of undocumented SARS-CoV-2 infection.
DeSantis’s crusade against vaccines is backed by his surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, who is a staunch opponent of inoculating young people against COVID. (He has encouraged the use of ineffective therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, though.) In October, Ladapo’s department produced an anonymous, non-peer-reviewed analysis suggesting that COVID shots were causing an increase in cardiac fatalities in young men. This report was modeled on a study by the U.K. government, which came to the opposite conclusion about vaccines but did find that COVID infection was associated with a sixfold increase in youth cardiac death. Given the lack of detail provided in the Florida study, it’s hard to know how to reconcile its contradictory result. This week, a group of University of Florida physicians and scientists released a report that strongly criticized the work’s methodology.
The COVID vaccines are among the most widely used medical interventions. More than 13 billion doses have been administered, at least 1 billion of which relied on mRNA technology. In analyzing this trove of real-world data, researchers have occasionally identified potential safety issues. A lack of perfect consistency across their studies is expected, and only confirms that the scientific dialogue about this new technology has been transparent. Scientists know that findings made outside a clinical trial are prone to spurious associations, so they examine how well each analysis has been performed and interpret it in the context of prior research.
Vaccine skeptics prefer to cherry-pick supportive studies while ignoring others that contradict them. Ladapo, for example, has cited a Scandinavian report showing a potential increase in post-vaccine blood clots and heart attacks. Yet the study authors themselves cautioned readers against relying too heavily on their results, because the finding was observed in only some age groups and time periods but not others. Ladapo also failed to mention that similar studies out of the U.K., France, Scotland, and elsewhere had not found a meaningful increase in blood clots or heart attacks with mRNA shots.
A careful recitation of facts can take one only so far in combatting anti-vaccine claims. Activists use ambiguous anecdotes such as Hamlin’s cardiac arrest and the sudden death of the soccer journalist Grant Wahl during last month’s World Cup to make the alleged risks of the shots more visceral. Sports are much less dangerous than SARS-CoV-2, but when unexpected tragedies do occur, they lead to an outpouring of mourning and reflection. Collective trauma can easily give way to collective speculation, and partisans on all sides will be happy to tell us what really happened. Yet convenient scapegoats will not be enough to mend our grief.
THURSDAY, Dec. 8, 2022 (HealthDay News) — A relatively new drug is boosting survival rates for women with a specific type of advanced breast cancer who haven’t responded to other treatments, according to a pair of clinical trials.
The targeted antibody drug — trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd, sold under the brand name Enhertu) — dramatically outperformed an older antibody drug in one trial, quadrupling the number of months women survived without their cancer progressing.
T-DXd also outperformed standard chemotherapy in another clinical trial, more than doubling the number of months of progression-free survival and reducing the risk of death by 34%.
T-DXd is aimed at helping patients who have HER2-positive breast cancers.
HER2 is a protein that promotes growth of breast cancer cells. About 20% of patients have tumors with higher levels of HER2.
Results from both clinical trials were reported Wednesday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
“We have a drug that is very effective and seems to be working, at least in good part, by a targeting mechanism against HER2,” said Dr. Carlos Arteaga, chair of comprehensive oncology for the Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Medical Center, in Dallas.
Arteaga, co-director of the symposium, led a news briefing announcing the results of the two trials.
T-DXd delivers a one-two punch to breast cancer cells by combining an antibody called trastuzumab with a chemotherapy drug called deruxtecan.
The antibody part of T-DXd binds with HER2 receptors on the breast cancer tumor, blocking the ability of the protein to promote cancer growth. This binding also serves to steer cancer-killing deruxtecan directly into tumor cells.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved T-DXd in 2019 as a follow-up therapy for patients whose breast cancer had continued to spread despite prior treatments with other cancer drugs.
Ongoing clinical trials have been aimed at figuring out how effective T-DXd is compared to other drugs, and when it should be implemented in treating advanced HER2-positive breast cancers.
One clinical trial compared T-DXd as a follow-up treatment against trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), an earlier antibody drug that combined trastuzumab with a different chemo agent.
The 524 patients in that trial randomly were treated with one of the two drugs, after they had stopped responding to initial therapies.
About one in five patients (21%) wound up cancer-free following treatment with T-DXd, compared with nearly 10% of those receiving T-DM1, the researchers reported.
Further, more than 78% had some clinical response to T-DXd, compared with 35% responding to T-DM1.
Patients treated with T-DXd had nearly 29 months of progression-free survival on average, about four times the 7 months seen in patients receiving T-DM1, which is sold under the brand name Kadcyla.
Patients who received T-DXd also had a 36% lower overall risk of death than patients treated with T-DM1, said clinical trial researcher Dr. Sara Hurvitz, a professor with the University of California, Los Angeles, Geffen School of Medicine and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.
“These updated results do demonstrate remarkable (overall survival) and (progression-free survival) benefits, solidly placing T-DXd as the standard of care,” Hurvitz said in a news briefing.
The other clinical trial compared T-DXd to standard chemotherapy as a follow-up treatment.
The trial involved more than 600 patients whose breast cancers had continued to grow following T-DM1 treatment. About two-thirds received T-DXd, and the rest received chemo.
Breast cancer patients were 64% less likely to die or have their cancer continue to spread following treatment with T-DXd compared to chemotherapy, the researchers found
Average progression-free survival was nearly 18 months with T-DXd, more than twice the 7 months achieved with chemotherapy.
Overall survival also was significantly longer, 39 months on average for T-DXd patients compared to 26 months with chemo.
About 14% of patients wound up cancer-free following T-DXd treatment in this trial, compared to 5% for chemo.
The trial “confirms the favorable benefit/risk ratio of T-DXd in patients with advanced HER2 positive breast cancer,” said clinical trial researcher Dr. Ian Krop, chief clinical research officer at the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn.
In both trials, the most concerning side effect of T-DXd was damage to the lung, either through inflammation or scarring of lung tissue.
About 6% suffered lung inflammation and 3% lung scarring in Krop’s trial, while about 15% suffered lung inflammation or scarring in Hurvitz’s trial.
It’s not yet clear why the drug would cause these side effects in the lungs, Hurvitz said, noting that it doesn’t seem to be driven by the cancer spreading into the lungs.
“We should, as clinicians, continue to follow CT scans of the lungs closely in our patients being treated with T-DXd, because this is an event that can occur even up to a year or longer of a patient being on therapy,” Hurvitz said.
Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
More information
The American Cancer Society has more about HER2-positive breast cancer.
SOURCES: Carlos Arteaga, MD, chair, comprehensive oncology, Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Sara Hurvitz, MD, professor, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center; Ian Krop, MD, PhD, chief clinical research officer, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn.; presentation, San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dec. 6 to 10, 2022
A version of this article was originally published in Undark Magazine.
On a late April afternoon, the Ngor Health Center in Dakar, Senegal, is serene. Sunlight spills through architectural gaps in the ceiling and lush plants line cream-colored corridors. In a patient waiting area on the second floor, a staff member gently rolls a ball back and forth with a toddler.
The calm belies the chaos at the health center eight months prior, in the summer of 2021, when COVID-19 struck the West African nation in its third and deadliest wave. The only reminder exists high up on the walls: slim copper pipes trained through roughly drilled holes. The pipes were built as Ngor frantically retrofitted its waiting area with extra beds in a bid to extend the center’s limited oxygen network to treat the influx of COVID patients.
But to the pediatrician Idrissa Demba Ba, the scramble for oxygen—which, in many countries, came to symbolize the pandemic—was nothing new. In fact, it’s a hallmark of another scourge he’s been battling for 18 years, childhood pneumonia. The disease, caused by an infection of the lungs that disrupts breathing, killed 2,400 Senegalese children under the age of 5 in 2019.
Pneumonia can be triggered when a pathogen—for instance, a virus, bacteria, or fungus—enters the lungs, where it inflames the air sacs, causing them to fill with fluid or pus and making it hard to breathe. Children are more vulnerable to the disease because their lungs and immune systems are still developing. To treat the condition, there are three main options: antibiotics, antivirals, and oxygen. Every day, there are children who need to be connected to an oxygen supply, says Ba, who is head of pediatric pulmonology at Dakar’s Albert Royer National Children’s Hospital.
The World Health Organization lists oxygen as an essential medicine, which seems intuitive for a vital, life-sustaining gas. Yet in Senegal and many other developing countries, providing oxygen in its medical form can be fraught: The medical-grade oxygen is expensive, getting it from one place to another requires the construction of pipelines and other infrastructure, and medical personnel must be trained to administer it.
These supply-chain obstacles threaten, per one estimate, more than 7 million children in low- and middle-income countries who are infected with pneumonia each year and need oxygen to survive. Limited supplies are part of the reason the disease remains the most common infectious cause of death in children worldwide, claiming the lives of more than 740,000 under the age of 5 in 2019. Younger children are more vulnerable—29 percent of pneumonia deaths occur within the first month of life, and three-quarters within the first year.
Most of those affected live in lower- and middle-income countries like Senegal, where the risk of pneumonia is exacerbated by malnutrition and other issues, says Papa Birane Mbodji, the head of newborn health at the Department of Mother and Child Health in Senegal’s Ministry of Health and Social Action. Another threat is the nearby Sahara Desert, which sweeps in huge amounts of dust that contribute to the region’s outsize global burden of young patients.
When there isn’t enough oxygen to treat these children, their lungs fail, eliciting grunts as they try desperately to rake in more oxygen from the air, Ba says—a symptom that echoes the devastating effects of COVID-19. While the world’s attention has been trained on COVID, “you could basically say there is an ongoing pandemic of pneumonia mortality,” says Keith Klugman, an infectious-disease expert who heads the pneumonia program at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
But there may be an upside: The crisis of the coronavirus pandemic drew the world’s attention to the crucial importance of oxygen. Seeing how quickly countries galvanized to tackle COVID, Klugman and other experts wrote a Lancet article in November 2020, calling for them to build on the pandemic’s rare gains—such as increasing oxygen infrastructure—to help curb childhood pneumonia. The authors wrote: “The COVID-19 response provides opportunities to increase diagnostic and treatment services for respiratory infections.”
Ba and other experts on the ground share the sentiment. More and more, they see COVID as an opportunity to get the essential resource to more children, to tackle this forgotten epidemic.
Against this backdrop, Senegal offered fertile ground for improvement. Even before the pandemic, and in the midst of it, the country was interrogating its medical-oxygen infrastructure.
“The government of Senegal established an ambitious scale-up strategy for oxygen as early as 2013,” wrote Lisa Smith, the access-to-medical-devices portfolio director for the market-dynamics program at the public-health nonprofit PATH, in an email to Undark. Then in 2017, she wrote, members of the Senegalese government attended a PATH-led meeting focused on widening oxygen access. There, the government highlighted its work with a private contractor to install and maintain pressure-swing adsorption, or PSA, plants—which produce purified oxygen from ambient air on-site—at a number of hospitals. After this event, Smith said, PATH started working with the government to offer additional support to close other gaps in Senegal’s oxygen-supply chain.
A year into the pandemic, PATH published a report based on a nationwide survey of medical equipment, focused on oxygen infrastructure, noting where it was available and where it was most lacking.
Key among the findings of the resulting report was that oxygen was heavily concentrated at emergency centers in large urban areas, but much scarcer at smaller health centers and posts that serve the majority of the population. For instance, of 29 COVID-treatment centers surveyed across 13 regions, Dakar, Senegal’s capital, had the highest concentration of key medical tools—62 percent of pulse oximeters, which estimate blood oxygen levels, and 84 percent of functional ventilators—despite the city making up less than a quarter of the country’s population.
The equipment survey also revealed stark disparities in the distribution of PSA plants, which provide a reliable supply of oxygen. Nearly half of the treatment centers with access to a PSA plant, which cost upwards of $100,000 apiece, were concentrated in Dakar to meet the needs of the city’s dense population—such as the Ngor Health Center’s PSA plant, which was built there before COVID hit and became a boon during the pandemic.
Within a large, sun-drenched courtyard on the hospital grounds, the PSA plant hums inside a locked concrete enclosure. As part of the setup, there is a black box called a compressor, which sucks in external air and pressurizes it. From there, the pressurized air is scrubbed as it runs through a filtration device to remove nitrogen and allow oxygen to pass through. The oxygen is then transferred to holding tanks, ready to be piped into the wards.
In contrast, at most other health-care facilities where PSA plants are in short supply, health-care workers rely on smaller pieces of equipment such as oxygen concentrators and cylinders to supply the crucial gas. These come with their own challenges: Most concentrators, which are portable, suitcase-size machines, deliver oxygen at a rate that’s too slow for severe COVID patients, and cylinders can be refilled with new oxygen only at centralized plants, which means that supply can be disrupted because of unreliable transport.
Maintaining this piecemeal infrastructure can also be impractical. At another health facility across town, this was evidenced by a pile of discarded concentrators strewn amongst other items—unused respirators in water-logged boxes, mosquito nets, and an old mat and metal bed frame stripped bare—stacked under a zinc roof just outside the entry ramp for emergency patients.
Such infrastructural challenges aren’t unique to Senegal. A 2021 WHO technical consultation revealed that before the pandemic, the majority of low- and middle-income countries struggled to obtain medical oxygen. In sub-Saharan countries, 31 percent of facilities had interrupted access, while 25 percent had none at all.
These wider findings on oxygen and COVID also helped inform child-pneumonia initiatives, including a clinical trial designed to test the value of pulse oximeters in these patients. The trial, part of a project called Tools for Integrated Management of Childhood Illness, or TIMCI—jointly run by PATH, Unitaid, and the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute—launched in August 2021 in multiple facilities in three countries, including the arid baobab-studded region of Thiès, an hour’s drive into the countryside beyond Dakar. Here, TIMCI supplied pulse oximeters to doctors at 59 health posts to diagnose incoming patients. As of September 2022, TIMCI has screened almost 17,000 sick children in Thiès.
The devices work by attaching to a patient’s finger and painlessly measuring the level of oxygen in their blood. It’s a quick and inexpensive way of detecting a condition in which oxygen saturation levels dip dangerously below 90 percent, called hypoxemia. Hypoxemia increases the risk of death by pneumonia up to five times.
The Senegalese trial—part of a larger multicountry initiative also involving Kenya, Tanzania, India, and Myanmar—intends to evaluate the effectiveness of pulse oximeters in more accurately and swiftly diagnosing hypoxemia, in order to then help children get the urgent oxygen treatment that they need and save lives. But such initiatives will only ultimately be effective if the essential oxygen supplies are on hand nearby.
On a tree-lined street in downtown Dakar, Ndèye Astou Badiane sits inside the PATH regional headquarters contemplating the pandemic’s legacy. In Senegal, although the health system struggled with a real “increase in demand [for] oxygen,” says Badiane, who is a respiratory-care coordinator at the nonprofit, some good came out of it. The clear and urgent need, she adds, injected new momentum into national efforts to tackle oxygen shortages.
For instance, the government, together with PATH, is now finalizing another assessment of its oxygen infrastructure, maintenance, and long-term sustainability. The overarching aim is “to improve oxygen availability and utilization in each health facility,” Badiane wrote in a follow-up email.
This evolving assessment laid the foundation for the government’s most significant move: the plan to roll out dozens of new PSA plants, the units that produce oxygen on-site at hospitals, says Amad Diouf, the director of the Department of Infrastructure, Equipment, and Maintenance at Senegal’s Ministry of Health and Social Action. These crucial new oxygen plants, five of which are funded by UNICEF, are due to be installed by the end of 2022, with a focus on health centers across the country. At the start of the pandemic, with support from PATH and Unitaid, Senegal was able to acquire 175 oxygen concentrators, 1,000 oxygen masks, and 250 pulse oximeters.
There are early indications that the effort to strengthen Senegal’s oxygen gaps is translating into gains in the fight against childhood pneumonia. A 2021 review study found that bolstering oxygen infrastructure in lower- and middle-income countries could cut child-pneumonia deaths in hospitals by almost half. And in Senegal, the pediatrician Mbodji says there has been a notable increase in the availability of oxygen at health facilities. Though it’s difficult to attribute solely to this change, Mbodji says, pneumonia deaths in children have declined over the past two years.
The pandemic has also given pneumonia initiatives like TIMCI special resonance. COVID-19 was “an opportunity” for the Ministry of Health to recognize the importance of oxygen infrastructure and accelerate the spread of lifesaving tools like pulse oximeters through more health facilities, says Maymouna Ba, who leads the TIMCI project in Senegal.
“Before TIMCI, before COVID-19, such equipment, such tools, were just available at higher levels like in hospitals, in health centers. But not in health posts where providers also need these kind of equipment, these kind of tools to better detect severe illness in the early stage,” Ba says. With the TIMCI trial ongoing, she adds, there are plans to eventually provide even more pulse oximeters to health posts across the whole country.
Other pneumonia interventions have received a similar boost in recognition—such as the SPRINT project, or Scaling Pneumonia Response InnovaTions, a program run by UNICEF to expand access to antibiotics and oxygen treatment for pneumonia. The program was originally confined to certain regions, but since the pandemic began, Mbodji says, the government has been working on plans to extend it to the entire country.
Senegal’s oxygen response is emblematic of changes unfolding elsewhere. COVID made plain that “you can’t wait for disaster to happen for the equipment to be here,” says Fatima Diaban, a critical-care physician and member of the Every Breath Counts Coalition, an initiative by the nonprofit JustActions focused on supporting national governments in reducing pneumonia deaths by the end of the decade. In May 2021, Senegal was among nine African nations to begin receiving help from PATH and the Clinton Health Access Initiative to procure new oxygen equipment, funded by $20 million from Unitaid. The Global Fund, an international health-care-focused funding organization, with support from government and private-sector donors, also provided $475 million to 66 lower- and middle-income countries for a similar purpose.
Now that the pandemic has eased, some of these resources can be redeployed to treat childhood pneumonia—something that’s already under way in other countries such as Ethiopia, where the government announced plans in 2021 to redistribute the pulse oximeters and oxygen therapies it used for COVID elsewhere in its health-care system.
Large aid donations often come with questions about whether such funding reaches the intended recipients in its entirety. PATH’s Smith said there are safeguards in place to ensure it does. “Each donor has unique requirements for accountability and responsible use of funds,” she wrote in an email. For instance, her organization worked closely with Senegal’s Ministry of Health and the Department of Infrastructure, Equipment, and Maintenance to distribute donated oxygen equipment to facilities in need.
Overall, such initiatives could fast-track progress on pneumonia, a disease that’s still “very much neglected” in the global health discourse, despite its global burden, says Klugman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Pneumonia is still chronically underfunded, taking just 5 percent of the money devoted to fighting infectious disease globally, and just 3 percent of the research funding allocated to infectious diseases from 2000 to 2017 by public and philanthropic funders in G20 countries.
Prevention will be crucial—and progress is under way to develop new, targeted vaccines, which protect better against pneumonia compared with existing vaccines, Klugman says. But for now, oxygen remains a uniquely efficient way to save lives. As such, the pandemic responses that many countries have drawn up provide an ideal framework for action—a “foundation for continued declines in deaths from all-cause respiratory infections over the next decade,” according to a 2021 report on pneumonia and the coronavirus pandemic produced by JustActions.
Indeed, it’s not just children with pneumonia who stand to benefit from this spread: Wider oxygen provisions will aid people with infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and asthma.
This larger importance, laid bare and elevated by the pandemic, is behind the recent September 2022 launch of the Lancet Global Health Commission on medical oxygen security, a new partnership of academics and NGOs, which will reportedly include strong representation from lower- and middle-income countries. The Commission seeks to build on the pandemic’s gains and provide policy makers with information and tools to close the crucial gaps in global oxygen-supply chains.
Already, the benefits of expanded oxygen access are evident at the Ngor health center, where the copper pipes are reminders of a traumatic time but now stretch beyond the emergency room, ferrying oxygen to those who need it most. Just off the main corridor of the second floor, those pipes have been trained into a room with walls decorated with cheerful stickers of Dora the Explorer, flowers, and birds—a children’s ward.
As Badiane puts it: “In 2022, really oxygen should be available and affordable in every health facility.”