Projections that the global mobile health market will boom to nearly $50 billion have ignited interest among innovators. A pair of physician innovators from Boston Children’s Hospital peg wearables as the technology to watch and offer a sneak peek at what adoption might mean, while others ask about the pediatric market for wearables and point to a few potential stumbling blocks. Read on for their views. Full story »
From the category archives:
Judy Wang, MS, is a program manager in the Telehealth Program at Boston Children’s Hospital. She is currently serving on the Mayor’s ONEin3 Council, which works on projects dedicated to maximizing the positive impact that young people have on the City of Boston.
If you Google the term “millennials,” you’ll see that Google automatically fills in such search terms as “millennials lazy,” “millennials spoiled,” “millennials trophy kids” and “millennials entitled.” Ouch.
As part of the Mayor’s ONEin3 Council and a Founding Hacker for MIT’s H@cking Medicine, I could not disagree more with this assessment of my generation. I’ve observed young people increasingly drawn to civically minded work with public impact—including work in health tech. Full story »
Growing up, my grandmother’s eyes were always a problem. For years, she was losing her central vision to glaucoma, and numerous surgeries and treatments did not seem to help. Later in life, she could not see my face but could always tell who I was when I was close.
Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. While FDA-approved medications such as latanoprost can prevent vision loss by reducing pressure in the eye, their beneficial effects are limited by poor patient compliance: At six months of treatment, compliance is estimated to be little more than 50 percent.
Why? First, the medications are typically delivered as eye drops, and the drops themselves can cause stinging and burning. The drops also contain preservatives that can cause ocular surface disease.
Perhaps most importantly, latanoprost and other glaucoma drugs halt the disease’s progression but do not reverse it. Taking the drugs does not provide positive feedback that will motivate patients, such as relieving pain. Full story »
Alexander Rotenberg, MD, PhD, is a pediatric neurologist and epileptologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and director of the hospital’s Neuromodulation Program.
In recent years, electrical devices stimulating the brain or peripheral nerves have emerged as clinical and scientific tools in neurology and psychiatry. In 2014, the Food and Drug Administration has approved three tools at this writing: a device for treatment of epileptic seizures via electrodes implanted beneath the skull; a device for shortening migraine headache via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the brain; and a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) device for migraine prevention. (Click image below for details.)
Stimulating the nervous system to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms is not new. In the first century AD, the Roman physician Scribonius Largus documented treating headaches by applying electric torpedo fish to the head. Full story »
It was the variability that intrigued pediatric cardiologist William Pu, MD, about his patient with heart failure. The boy suffered from a rare genetic mitochondrial disorder called Barth syndrome. While he ultimately needed a heart transplant, his heart function seemed to vary day-to-day, consistent with reports in the medical literature.
“Often patients present in infancy with severe heart failure, then in childhood it gets much better, and in the teen years, much worse,” says Pu, of the Cardiology Research Center at Boston Children’s Hospital. “This reversibility suggests that this is a disease we should really be able to fix.”
Though it needs much more testing, a potential fix may now be in sight for Barth syndrome, which has no specific treatment and also causes skeletal muscle weakness and low white-blood-cell counts. It’s taken the work of multiple labs collaborating across institutional lines. Full story »
Last November, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a “cease and desist” order to 23andMe, a major purveyor of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. In its letter to the company—issued after three prior warnings—the FDA reiterated its view that 23andMe’s Personal Genome Service (PGS) constitutes a medical device requiring further premarket evaluation:
FDA is concerned about the public health consequences of inaccurate results from the PGS device…we still do not have any assurance that the firm has analytically or clinically validated the PGS for its intended uses.
The FDA’s order, based on potential rather than actual medical harm, has generated a great deal of controversy. In a recent critique published in Nature, Robert Green, MD, MPH, of the Partners HealthCare Center for Personalized Genetic Medicine, and Nita Farahany, PhD, JD, of the Duke Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, argued against regulating DTC genomic interpretation services as medical devices:
… doing so could put FDA regulations in greater tension with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the rights of individuals to receive information, and of ‘commercial speech’ ….the agency should avoid restricting consumer genomic testing unless faced with empirical evidence of harm. Full story »
However, two under-recognized, highly preventable chronic conditions—spina bifida and hydrocephalus—have not declined in low- and middle-income countries. Each year, there are an estimated 200,000 new cases of infant hydrocephalus in sub-Saharan Africa alone, and 100,000 neural tube defects in India alone. As other causes of death and disability recede, data suggest that spina bifida and hydrocephalus are gaining a larger share of mortality in young children.
A multi-institution conference at Boston Children’s Hospital on April 11 sounded a global call to action, convening a mix of surgeons, pediatric neurologists, international patient advocacy groups, food fortification proponents, health economists, obstetricians, neuroscientists and others. Many innovative approaches are being explored, including two that caught Vector’s eye. Full story »
Last week, Boston Children’s Hospital’s Innovation Acceleration Program hosted a jam-packed Innovators’ Showcase where teams from around the hospital networked, traded ideas and showed off their projects. Here are a few Vector thinks are worth watching.
Thirty percent of people who suffer a mild traumatic brain injury—a.k.a. concussion—have ongoing symptoms that can last months or years. If patients at risk could be identified, they could receive early interventions such as brain cooling and anti-seizure medications. New MRI protocols that can measure free, non-directional diffusion of water, coupled with sophisticated analytics, are achieving unprecedented pictures of what happens inside the brain after injury. Full story »
Alexandra Pelletier is a manager in the Innovation Acceleration Programat Boston Children’s Hospital. She directs the FastTrack Innovation in Technology Program, a hospital initiative to accelerate, rapidly develop and deliver innovative clinical software solutions.
Do you know the feeling of opening a new box with technology in it? I’m not a tech geek, but when my Google Glass arrived, with its crisp and simple packaging, my visceral reaction was “this is really cool.” Nonetheless, I’m approaching Glass carefully, because even the best technologies still require humans to use them. That means that they must be easy to use, must connect with other systems seamlessly and must offer value that makes its adoption worthwhile.
Google Glass is gaining some real excitement in health care. Each day my Twitter feed lights up with a new report of a hospital or practice trying it out. Here at Boston Children’s, we too are investigating the use of this technology through the Google Glass Explorer Program (watch Vector for more to come). We see promising potential for Google’s head-mounted display technology to transform communication and access to real-time information. Full story »
Robert MacDougall is clinical medical physicist for Boston Children’s Hospital Department of Radiology. Michael Callahan, MD, is a radiologist in Boston Children’s Department of Radiology and a member of the steering committee for the Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging.
A recent opinion piece published in the New York Times, titled “We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer” (Op-Ed, Jan. 31), has provoked fear and anxiety in patients and parents over the use of computed tomography (CT) scans. This op-ed is the latest in a series of lay press articles to focus on the potential harm of radiation in medical imaging.
While the authors raise several important points, they fail to provide context and acknowledge the benefits of CT imaging, including the elimination of many unnecessary surgeries and improved diagnosis of cancer and other serious health conditions. This unbalanced view potentially presents a real and immediate risk to patients, who may forego CT exams that could improve their care because of concerns related to radiation exposure.
The relationship between cancer risk and radiation exposure is not well understood. Estimation of future cancers in a large population is not based on sound science: The principal data source—studies of survivors of the atomic bomb explosions in Japan—does not translate well to medical radiation and can be misused to create sensationalistic estimates of future cancer incidence and deaths.
In a policy statement, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine explains: “Discussion of risks related to radiation dose from medical imaging procedures should always be accompanied by acknowledgement of the potential benefits the procedure provides. Risks of medical imaging at effective doses below 50 mSv for single procedures … are too low to be detectable and may be nonexistent.” The vast majority of routine CT scans fall well below this level.
Nonetheless, once an exam is ordered, it must be performed in the safest way possible. Full story »