‘They Stopped Treating and the Effect Persisted’: What We Heard This Week

‘They Stopped Treating and the Effect Persisted’: What We Heard This Week

“Then they stopped treating, and the effect persisted.” — Ronald Petersen, MD, PhD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, about outcomes in a phase II study of donanemab, an investigational agent for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Can we really justify chronic immunosuppression in older patients when we have safer alternatives?” — Gavin Giovannoni, MBBCh, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London in England, discussing a fatal case of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) that occurred in a 78-year-old MS patient treated with ocrelizumab (Ocrevus).

“I am where I am today because of second chances. In 20 years, I’ve never needed a third.” — Adam Litwin, MD, who finished medical school and awaits a residency assignment after being arrested and jailed decades ago for impersonating a doctor.

“This study really reminds us that sometimes doing what seems best is not actually the best thing to do.” — Jeffrey Berger, MD, of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City, on a study of intermediate-dose anticoagulation in covid-19 patients.

“You wouldn’t have to go to a clinic to get an infusion or have a van drive around and bring the infusion to you.” — Joan Butterton, MD, of Merck in Boston, on benefits of an oral antiviral approach to treating covid-19.

“Just going the extra mile from now, from that 15% down to zero is doable if we just invest in it instead of caving in to temptation to reopen and start everything all over again.” — Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist and an adjunct senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C., discussing the prospects for eliminating COVID-19 altogether.

Read More



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here