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.
(ITU/Rowan Farrell creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode)
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 »
Emmie Mendes was lucky enough to be diagnosed before age 3, but many families face a much longer journey.
At first, Corrie and Adam Mendes thought their daughter Emmie had an inner ear problem. She was late with several early milestones, including walking, and when she did walk, she often lost her balance. The family pediatrician sent them to a neurologist, who ordered a brain MRI and diagnosed her with pachygyria, a rare condition in which the brain is smoother than normal, lacking its usual number of folds.
Additionally, Emmie’s ventricles, the fluid-filled cushions around the brain, looked enlarged, so the neurologist recommended brain surgery to install a shunt to drain off fluid. He advised Corrie and Adam that Emmie’s life expectancy would be greatly reduced.
As Corrie recounts on her blog, Emmie’s Story, she went online and came across the research laboratory of Christopher Walsh, MD, PhD, at Boston Children’s Hospital. The lab does research on brain malformations and has an affiliated Brain Development and Genetics Clinic that can provide medical care.
After Walsh’s team reviewed Emmie’s MRI scan, genetic counselor Brenda Barry invited the family up from Florida. Full story »
You’d think drugs meant to be taken by children for years would be studied in children for a long time to measure their long-term safety.
You’d think drugs for a condition affecting millions of children would be tested in many, many children to catch any rare side effects.
You’d think all this would happen before the Food and Drug Administration, an agency known for its strict criteria, approved them for marketing.
But if a new PLoS ONE paper by Boston Children’s Hospital’s Florence Bourgeois, MD, MPH, and Kenneth Mandl, MD, MPH, is any indication, you’d be wrong.
In it, the pair reports that the FDA approved 20 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drugs over the last 60 years without what would be considered sufficient long-term safety and rare adverse event data.
Their findings, they say, point to larger issues in how the FDA’s approval process addresses the long-term safety of drugs intended for chronic use in children. Full story »
The start of what promises to be a lengthy, multi-part endeavor has begun unfolding on Capitol Hill. It’s an attempt to reform the Medicaid program so that children with medical complexity (those with a single, serious medical condition, or multiple chronic conditions) can receive higher quality care with fewer emergency department visits and fewer hospital admissions.
When you think of medically complex children, think of children living with conditions such as spina bifida or cerebral palsy, children dependent on ventilators or feeding tubes, or children with genetic disorders. They represent just 6 percent of the 43 million children on Medicaid—yet they account for about 40 percent of Medicaid’s spending on children. Their care is often fragmented and poorly coordinated.
The reform effort, led by more than 60 participating pediatric hospitals and supported by the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA), focuses on Medicaid because it’s the single largest insurance provider for children. The backdrop is a cost-conscious Congress that’s the most politically polarized ever, passing the fewest bills ever. 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 »
Perhaps counter-intuitively, rare diseases can present attractive business opportunities for pharmaceutical companies. As discussed previously on Vector, they generally offer:
1) a population of patients with a high, unmet need, greatly lowering the bar to FDA approval
2) a closely networked disease community, greatly lowering the bar to creating disease registries and mounting clinical trials
3) well-studied disease pathways.
Recoiling from expensive failures of would-be blockbuster drugs, companies like Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Shire and Roche are embracing rare diseases, despite their small market sizes, because of their much clearer path to clinic. But in the current risk-averse industry environment, some projects are stalling. Industry may need more incentive to jump in—and Cydan Development is basing its business model on providing it. Full story »
This post is adapted from a commentary in this week’s edition of Science by Jeffrey R. Holt, PhD, and Gwenaelle S. G. Géléoc, PhD, of the Department of Otolaryngology and F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Hearing loss affects more than 300 million people worldwide, making it the most common sensory disorder. While there are no cures, recent efforts to develop biological treatments for hearing loss provide reason for cautious optimism. Three strategies—gene therapy, stem cells and drugs—have shown encouraging results in animal models, poising them for translation into potential therapies for humans.
Hearing loss can arise from many different causes, so it is unlikely that a single “magic bullet” will be developed to treat all forms of deafness. Rather, each individual cause may require a tailored and specific treatment strategy. 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 »
Can putting a price tag on childhood obesity propel treatment and prevention efforts into comprehensive action? Perhaps, says David Ludwig, MD, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital.
Although the U.S. Task Force on Childhood Obesity set a goal of dropping obesity prevalence among youth to 5 percent by 2030, efforts have failed to make a significant dent. Recent data indicate only slight dips in obesity prevalence among 6- to 19-year-olds in some states. And other data show that the prevalence of extreme obesity in children continues to rise.
With nearly 20 percent of U.S. children tipping the scales as obese, policymakers need not only to act but also to justify the investment in childhood obesity treatment and prevention programs.
Duke University researchers offered a helping hand in a review article in the April 7 online Pediatrics, estimating the incremental lifetime direct medical cost of childhood obesity. Their economic model showed a $19,000 incremental lifetime medical cost of an obese child relative to a normal-weight youth.
Ludwig, who directs the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center Boston Children’s Hospital, provides insights into the next steps. Full story »
In this screen grab from a Nature video, a siRNA, cradled by an argonaute protein, binds to a messenger RNA. (More at www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK-OGB1_ELE)
RNA interference (RNAi) is a therapeutic technology that blocks gene expression with either small interfering RNAs (siRNA) or microRNAs (miRNA). RNAi’s discovery was considered transformative enough to earn the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine
, but from the start the challenge of delivering RNA-silencing therapeutics to the right tissues has hobbled efforts to use RNAi to treat patients.
Citing this challenge, the pharmaceutical giant Novartis is the latest major company to withdraw from RNAi research, following Merck and Roche. Forbes was prompted to write:
…for certain diseases where an RNAi therapeutant can be more readily introduced, such as the eye, or ‘privileged compartments’ such as the liver, RNAi still has potential. But given that these therapies would be expensive due to the high cost-of-goods involved in synthesizing these agents, they would have to be targeted to diseases where the cost of therapy would be justified by the beneficial medical effects. … to say that RNAi therapy will rival monoclonal antibodies in terms of revenue potential—well, that’s a bit of a stretch.
Barry Greene, COO of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, a biotech that’s championed RNAi, countered in Fierce Drug Delivery: “Novartis pulling out is an exemplar of Big Pharma not being able to innovate, and historically they have never been able to innovate.” Full story »