30th Anniversary

In 2014 neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, startled the Alzheimer’s disease research world with a paper that laid bare the alarmingly high failure rate of Alzheimer’s disease therapies in development.

Publishing in the journal Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, Dr. Cummings and his colleagues determined that 99.6% of all therapies tested between 2002 and 2012 had failed. Since downloaded some 75,000 times, Dr. Cumming’s “99% paper,” as it came to be nicknamed, led him to look more deeply and thoroughly at Alzheimer’s disease drugs in the pipeline, and describe them in a readable, user-friendly way.

Every year since 2016, Dr. Cummings, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and his colleagues, have published an update of Alzheimer’s drugs in development that offers a concise, graphic, all-in-one overview. His “Alzheimer’s Drug Development Pipeline” report, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, classifies therapies by their targets, their mechanisms of action, and where they stand in the development process.

Heavy on color-coded visuals, this snapshot of Alzheimer’s disease therapies is widely consulted by industry, researchers, and clinicians. Over time this report – which first documented a crisis – has come to show something more optimistic: an increasingly crowded pipeline reflecting a broad array of treatment approaches. Dr. Cummings wants more people to know that Alzheimer’s disease drug research, which now includes the first two Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-beta, is not the bleak landscape that it was in recent memory.

Lately, with the help of a grant from the National Institute on Aging, Dr. Cummings and his group have been working to expand on their reports to build an even more user-friendly database that can be searched by people in all corners of the neurodegenerative disease world. Dr. Cummings says he plans for this public-facing database to be up and running by year end.

Neurology Reviews spoke with Dr. Cummings, who is a member of the publication’s Editorial Advisory Board, about the genesis of his influential drug-tracking effort, how it has evolved, and what has been learned from it over the years.
 

How did all this begin?

Already in 2014 there was a dialogue going on was about the high failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs. And I thought: “there’s probably a number that can be assigned to that.” And when it turned out to be 99.6%, that generated a huge amount of interest. That’s when I realized what interests me also interests the world. And that I was uniquely positioned after that point to do something annually.

How do you create your annual report, and how do you classify the drugs in it when some might act on little-understood pathways or mechanisms?

We capture information available on clinicaltrials.gov. We are notified immediately of any new Alzheimer-related trials, and we automate everything that is possible to automate. But there is still some human curation required. Most of that is around mechanisms. If it’s a monoclonal antibody directed at amyloid-beta, that’s not difficult to categorize. But with the small molecules especially, it can be more complicated.

We often look to see how the sponsor describes the drug and what their perception of the primary target is. A resource of great importance to us is CADRO, Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Disease Research Ontology, which describes about 20 mechanisms that a group of scientists sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association have agreed on. Inflammation, epigenetics, and oxidation are just a few that most people know. CADRO is organized in a very specific way that allows us to go to the mechanism and relate it to the target. But we do try to be humble and acknowledge we probably make some errors in this.
 

Are you able to capture every Alzheimer’s drug in development globally?

If they’re on clinicaltrials.gov, they’re in our database. But we think there’s about 15% of drugs in the world that aren’t for some reason on clinicaltrials.gov – so we know we are comprehensive, but not quite exhaustive. I’m in kind of quandary about whether to search for that other 15%. But we do always acknowledge that we’re not 100% exhaustive.

Who are the report’s main readers?

Drug developers use it for investor discussions, and also to understand the competition and the landscape. The competition might be a drug with the same mechanism, and the landscape might be drugs coming into the Alzheimer’s disease world. So if someone is developing a PDE-5 inhibitor for mild dementia, for example, they can see that other people are working on a PDE-5 inhibitor for moderate dementia, and there’s no overlap. Investors use the report to make decisions about which horse in the race to bet on. And of course it’s used by academics and clinicians to learn which are the new drugs in the pipeline, which drugs have fallen out of the pipeline, how are biomarkers changing trials, what are the new outcomes.

It’s really become a community project. Investigators will email me and say “Jeff, we’re in phase 1, make sure it’s on your map.” Or, “you forgot our agent! We’re disappointed.” When that occurs it’s because they were not in a trial on the index date – the 1 day in our publication when everything we say in the paper is true. A trial initiated 1 day later won’t make the report for that year.
 

What about patients and families? Are they able to use the report as well?

One of the things we want to expand with the new database is its usefulness for patients. Among the new data display approaches that we have is a world map where you can go click on a dot near your home and find active trials. That’s something patients and families want to know, right? There’s 140 drugs in clinical trials, there must be one for me, how would I get to it? Soon we will have quite a good public portal so if you want to go in and see what new monoclonal antibodies are in phase 2, you can do that with drop-down menus. It’s a very easy to use site that anyone can explore.

Looking back at your last decade tracking drugs, what are some lessons learned and what are some of the more exciting drug categories to emerge?

My answer to this question is: Biologics rule. The main successes have been in biologics, in the monoclonal antibodies against amyloid, like the two FDA-approved agents lecanemab and aducanumab. But I think that the monoclonals, while I’m really happy to have them, are a first step. If you look back at tacrine, the first drug approved in 1993 for Alzheimer’s disease, it was a very difficult drug with lots of side effects. But then within 3 years we had donepezil, which was a very benign drug. I feel that a similar evolution is likely with regard to these antibodies. The first ones, we know, have big challenges, and you learn from those challenges and you just keep improving them. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to validate that target. Now I think that amyloid is validated.

What other approaches are interesting to you?

We have seen dramatic imaging results with marked reductions in neurofibrillary tangles from an antisense oligonucleotide aimed at tau protein. And there are two very active areas in the pipeline: inflammation and synaptic plasticity. Each has roughly 20 drugs apiece in development across all phases. And as you know, both synaptic plasticity and inflammation are represented across neurodegenerative conditions.

Your annual report has always focused on drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Will the new database cover other types of dementia and neurodegenerative diseases?

That’s an obvious next step. I’m hoping that late this year we will have funding to expand the database into frontotemporal lobar degenerations, which will include all the tauopathies. And there’s also an overlap with TDP-43 diseases, so we’ll bring all of that in too. We have a new initiative on Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies that I hope will materialize by next year. My goal is that this will eventually become a neurodegenerative disease therapies database. The really interesting drugs right now are being tested in more than one neurodegenerative disease, and we should look at those more carefully. It will be more feasible to do that if they’re on the same data set.

What about other therapy classes?

We aim to be more serious about devices.

What will you call the database?

The Clinical Trial Observatory. We may start by calling it the Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Observatory. But the intention, obviously, is to go way beyond Alzheimer’s disease. The database is managed by a terrific team of data scientists at Cleveland Clinic, led by Feixiong Cheng, PhD.

The annual pipeline report is very much associated with you. Is the database going to be different?

Right now, I’m like the grandfather of this project. I won’t be around forever. This will have to pass on, and we’re already talking about succession. We’re thinking about how to make sure this community resource continues to be a community resource. Also, over all these years the annual report reflected my perspective. But with a database, many more people will be able to share their perspectives. I happen to think that “biologics rule,” but others might look at the data, see different scientific currents, and draw different conclusions. That will create a rich dialogue.

Do you think your reports have changed people’s perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease therapies? There’s a widely held idea that the field is exclusively focused on amyloid, or even dead-ended, but the papers seem to show something different.

We think this effort has helped, and will continue to help and foster investment and growth in treatments for our patients. It really does show how diverse the clinical trials landscape is now. People are surprised to learn of the number and diversity of approaches. Just last week I was presenting at the Center for Brain Health in Dallas and there was a doctor in the audience who was a caregiver to his wife with Alzheimer’s disease. He came up afterwards and said, “I had no idea there were so many drugs in clinical trials,” because there’s no way to find out if you don’t know about this resource.

Dr. Cummings discloses consulting for a range of companies working in Alzheimer’s therapies and diagnostics, including Acadia, Alkahest, AlphaCognition, AriBio, Avanir, Axsome, Behren, Biogen, Biohaven, Cassava, Cerecin, Cortexyme, Diadem, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols, Janssen, LSP, Merck, NervGen, Novo Nordisk, Oligomerix, Ono, Otsuka, PRODEO, ReMYND, Renew, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Suven, United Neuroscience, and Unlearn AI. He has received several grants from the National Institute on Aging.

In 2014 neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, startled the Alzheimer’s disease research world with a paper that laid bare the alarmingly high failure rate of Alzheimer’s disease therapies in development.

Publishing in the journal Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, Dr. Cummings and his colleagues determined that 99.6% of all therapies tested between 2002 and 2012 had failed. Since downloaded some 75,000 times, Dr. Cumming’s “99% paper,” as it came to be nicknamed, led him to look more deeply and thoroughly at Alzheimer’s disease drugs in the pipeline, and describe them in a readable, user-friendly way.

Every year since 2016, Dr. Cummings, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and his colleagues, have published an update of Alzheimer’s drugs in development that offers a concise, graphic, all-in-one overview. His “Alzheimer’s Drug Development Pipeline” report, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, classifies therapies by their targets, their mechanisms of action, and where they stand in the development process.

Heavy on color-coded visuals, this snapshot of Alzheimer’s disease therapies is widely consulted by industry, researchers, and clinicians. Over time this report – which first documented a crisis – has come to show something more optimistic: an increasingly crowded pipeline reflecting a broad array of treatment approaches. Dr. Cummings wants more people to know that Alzheimer’s disease drug research, which now includes the first two Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-beta, is not the bleak landscape that it was in recent memory.

Lately, with the help of a grant from the National Institute on Aging, Dr. Cummings and his group have been working to expand on their reports to build an even more user-friendly database that can be searched by people in all corners of the neurodegenerative disease world. Dr. Cummings says he plans for this public-facing database to be up and running by year end.

Neurology Reviews spoke with Dr. Cummings, who is a member of the publication’s Editorial Advisory Board, about the genesis of his influential drug-tracking effort, how it has evolved, and what has been learned from it over the years.
 

How did all this begin?

Already in 2014 there was a dialogue going on was about the high failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs. And I thought: “there’s probably a number that can be assigned to that.” And when it turned out to be 99.6%, that generated a huge amount of interest. That’s when I realized what interests me also interests the world. And that I was uniquely positioned after that point to do something annually.

How do you create your annual report, and how do you classify the drugs in it when some might act on little-understood pathways or mechanisms?

We capture information available on clinicaltrials.gov. We are notified immediately of any new Alzheimer-related trials, and we automate everything that is possible to automate. But there is still some human curation required. Most of that is around mechanisms. If it’s a monoclonal antibody directed at amyloid-beta, that’s not difficult to categorize. But with the small molecules especially, it can be more complicated.

We often look to see how the sponsor describes the drug and what their perception of the primary target is. A resource of great importance to us is CADRO, Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Disease Research Ontology, which describes about 20 mechanisms that a group of scientists sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association have agreed on. Inflammation, epigenetics, and oxidation are just a few that most people know. CADRO is organized in a very specific way that allows us to go to the mechanism and relate it to the target. But we do try to be humble and acknowledge we probably make some errors in this.
 

Are you able to capture every Alzheimer’s drug in development globally?

If they’re on clinicaltrials.gov, they’re in our database. But we think there’s about 15% of drugs in the world that aren’t for some reason on clinicaltrials.gov – so we know we are comprehensive, but not quite exhaustive. I’m in kind of quandary about whether to search for that other 15%. But we do always acknowledge that we’re not 100% exhaustive.

Who are the report’s main readers?

Drug developers use it for investor discussions, and also to understand the competition and the landscape. The competition might be a drug with the same mechanism, and the landscape might be drugs coming into the Alzheimer’s disease world. So if someone is developing a PDE-5 inhibitor for mild dementia, for example, they can see that other people are working on a PDE-5 inhibitor for moderate dementia, and there’s no overlap. Investors use the report to make decisions about which horse in the race to bet on. And of course it’s used by academics and clinicians to learn which are the new drugs in the pipeline, which drugs have fallen out of the pipeline, how are biomarkers changing trials, what are the new outcomes.

It’s really become a community project. Investigators will email me and say “Jeff, we’re in phase 1, make sure it’s on your map.” Or, “you forgot our agent! We’re disappointed.” When that occurs it’s because they were not in a trial on the index date – the 1 day in our publication when everything we say in the paper is true. A trial initiated 1 day later won’t make the report for that year.
 

What about patients and families? Are they able to use the report as well?

One of the things we want to expand with the new database is its usefulness for patients. Among the new data display approaches that we have is a world map where you can go click on a dot near your home and find active trials. That’s something patients and families want to know, right? There’s 140 drugs in clinical trials, there must be one for me, how would I get to it? Soon we will have quite a good public portal so if you want to go in and see what new monoclonal antibodies are in phase 2, you can do that with drop-down menus. It’s a very easy to use site that anyone can explore.

Looking back at your last decade tracking drugs, what are some lessons learned and what are some of the more exciting drug categories to emerge?

My answer to this question is: Biologics rule. The main successes have been in biologics, in the monoclonal antibodies against amyloid, like the two FDA-approved agents lecanemab and aducanumab. But I think that the monoclonals, while I’m really happy to have them, are a first step. If you look back at tacrine, the first drug approved in 1993 for Alzheimer’s disease, it was a very difficult drug with lots of side effects. But then within 3 years we had donepezil, which was a very benign drug. I feel that a similar evolution is likely with regard to these antibodies. The first ones, we know, have big challenges, and you learn from those challenges and you just keep improving them. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to validate that target. Now I think that amyloid is validated.

What other approaches are interesting to you?

We have seen dramatic imaging results with marked reductions in neurofibrillary tangles from an antisense oligonucleotide aimed at tau protein. And there are two very active areas in the pipeline: inflammation and synaptic plasticity. Each has roughly 20 drugs apiece in development across all phases. And as you know, both synaptic plasticity and inflammation are represented across neurodegenerative conditions.

Your annual report has always focused on drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Will the new database cover other types of dementia and neurodegenerative diseases?

That’s an obvious next step. I’m hoping that late this year we will have funding to expand the database into frontotemporal lobar degenerations, which will include all the tauopathies. And there’s also an overlap with TDP-43 diseases, so we’ll bring all of that in too. We have a new initiative on Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies that I hope will materialize by next year. My goal is that this will eventually become a neurodegenerative disease therapies database. The really interesting drugs right now are being tested in more than one neurodegenerative disease, and we should look at those more carefully. It will be more feasible to do that if they’re on the same data set.

What about other therapy classes?

We aim to be more serious about devices.

What will you call the database?

The Clinical Trial Observatory. We may start by calling it the Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Observatory. But the intention, obviously, is to go way beyond Alzheimer’s disease. The database is managed by a terrific team of data scientists at Cleveland Clinic, led by Feixiong Cheng, PhD.

The annual pipeline report is very much associated with you. Is the database going to be different?

Right now, I’m like the grandfather of this project. I won’t be around forever. This will have to pass on, and we’re already talking about succession. We’re thinking about how to make sure this community resource continues to be a community resource. Also, over all these years the annual report reflected my perspective. But with a database, many more people will be able to share their perspectives. I happen to think that “biologics rule,” but others might look at the data, see different scientific currents, and draw different conclusions. That will create a rich dialogue.

Do you think your reports have changed people’s perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease therapies? There’s a widely held idea that the field is exclusively focused on amyloid, or even dead-ended, but the papers seem to show something different.

We think this effort has helped, and will continue to help and foster investment and growth in treatments for our patients. It really does show how diverse the clinical trials landscape is now. People are surprised to learn of the number and diversity of approaches. Just last week I was presenting at the Center for Brain Health in Dallas and there was a doctor in the audience who was a caregiver to his wife with Alzheimer’s disease. He came up afterwards and said, “I had no idea there were so many drugs in clinical trials,” because there’s no way to find out if you don’t know about this resource.

Dr. Cummings discloses consulting for a range of companies working in Alzheimer’s therapies and diagnostics, including Acadia, Alkahest, AlphaCognition, AriBio, Avanir, Axsome, Behren, Biogen, Biohaven, Cassava, Cerecin, Cortexyme, Diadem, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols, Janssen, LSP, Merck, NervGen, Novo Nordisk, Oligomerix, Ono, Otsuka, PRODEO, ReMYND, Renew, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Suven, United Neuroscience, and Unlearn AI. He has received several grants from the National Institute on Aging.

In 2014 neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, startled the Alzheimer’s disease research world with a paper that laid bare the alarmingly high failure rate of Alzheimer’s disease therapies in development.

Publishing in the journal Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, Dr. Cummings and his colleagues determined that 99.6% of all therapies tested between 2002 and 2012 had failed. Since downloaded some 75,000 times, Dr. Cumming’s “99% paper,” as it came to be nicknamed, led him to look more deeply and thoroughly at Alzheimer’s disease drugs in the pipeline, and describe them in a readable, user-friendly way.

Every year since 2016, Dr. Cummings, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and his colleagues, have published an update of Alzheimer’s drugs in development that offers a concise, graphic, all-in-one overview. His “Alzheimer’s Drug Development Pipeline” report, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, classifies therapies by their targets, their mechanisms of action, and where they stand in the development process.

Heavy on color-coded visuals, this snapshot of Alzheimer’s disease therapies is widely consulted by industry, researchers, and clinicians. Over time this report – which first documented a crisis – has come to show something more optimistic: an increasingly crowded pipeline reflecting a broad array of treatment approaches. Dr. Cummings wants more people to know that Alzheimer’s disease drug research, which now includes the first two Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-beta, is not the bleak landscape that it was in recent memory.

Lately, with the help of a grant from the National Institute on Aging, Dr. Cummings and his group have been working to expand on their reports to build an even more user-friendly database that can be searched by people in all corners of the neurodegenerative disease world. Dr. Cummings says he plans for this public-facing database to be up and running by year end.

Neurology Reviews spoke with Dr. Cummings, who is a member of the publication’s Editorial Advisory Board, about the genesis of his influential drug-tracking effort, how it has evolved, and what has been learned from it over the years.
 

How did all this begin?

Already in 2014 there was a dialogue going on was about the high failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs. And I thought: “there’s probably a number that can be assigned to that.” And when it turned out to be 99.6%, that generated a huge amount of interest. That’s when I realized what interests me also interests the world. And that I was uniquely positioned after that point to do something annually.

How do you create your annual report, and how do you classify the drugs in it when some might act on little-understood pathways or mechanisms?

We capture information available on clinicaltrials.gov. We are notified immediately of any new Alzheimer-related trials, and we automate everything that is possible to automate. But there is still some human curation required. Most of that is around mechanisms. If it’s a monoclonal antibody directed at amyloid-beta, that’s not difficult to categorize. But with the small molecules especially, it can be more complicated.

We often look to see how the sponsor describes the drug and what their perception of the primary target is. A resource of great importance to us is CADRO, Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Disease Research Ontology, which describes about 20 mechanisms that a group of scientists sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association have agreed on. Inflammation, epigenetics, and oxidation are just a few that most people know. CADRO is organized in a very specific way that allows us to go to the mechanism and relate it to the target. But we do try to be humble and acknowledge we probably make some errors in this.
 

Are you able to capture every Alzheimer’s drug in development globally?

If they’re on clinicaltrials.gov, they’re in our database. But we think there’s about 15% of drugs in the world that aren’t for some reason on clinicaltrials.gov – so we know we are comprehensive, but not quite exhaustive. I’m in kind of quandary about whether to search for that other 15%. But we do always acknowledge that we’re not 100% exhaustive.

Who are the report’s main readers?

Drug developers use it for investor discussions, and also to understand the competition and the landscape. The competition might be a drug with the same mechanism, and the landscape might be drugs coming into the Alzheimer’s disease world. So if someone is developing a PDE-5 inhibitor for mild dementia, for example, they can see that other people are working on a PDE-5 inhibitor for moderate dementia, and there’s no overlap. Investors use the report to make decisions about which horse in the race to bet on. And of course it’s used by academics and clinicians to learn which are the new drugs in the pipeline, which drugs have fallen out of the pipeline, how are biomarkers changing trials, what are the new outcomes.

It’s really become a community project. Investigators will email me and say “Jeff, we’re in phase 1, make sure it’s on your map.” Or, “you forgot our agent! We’re disappointed.” When that occurs it’s because they were not in a trial on the index date – the 1 day in our publication when everything we say in the paper is true. A trial initiated 1 day later won’t make the report for that year.
 

What about patients and families? Are they able to use the report as well?

One of the things we want to expand with the new database is its usefulness for patients. Among the new data display approaches that we have is a world map where you can go click on a dot near your home and find active trials. That’s something patients and families want to know, right? There’s 140 drugs in clinical trials, there must be one for me, how would I get to it? Soon we will have quite a good public portal so if you want to go in and see what new monoclonal antibodies are in phase 2, you can do that with drop-down menus. It’s a very easy to use site that anyone can explore.

Looking back at your last decade tracking drugs, what are some lessons learned and what are some of the more exciting drug categories to emerge?

My answer to this question is: Biologics rule. The main successes have been in biologics, in the monoclonal antibodies against amyloid, like the two FDA-approved agents lecanemab and aducanumab. But I think that the monoclonals, while I’m really happy to have them, are a first step. If you look back at tacrine, the first drug approved in 1993 for Alzheimer’s disease, it was a very difficult drug with lots of side effects. But then within 3 years we had donepezil, which was a very benign drug. I feel that a similar evolution is likely with regard to these antibodies. The first ones, we know, have big challenges, and you learn from those challenges and you just keep improving them. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to validate that target. Now I think that amyloid is validated.

What other approaches are interesting to you?

We have seen dramatic imaging results with marked reductions in neurofibrillary tangles from an antisense oligonucleotide aimed at tau protein. And there are two very active areas in the pipeline: inflammation and synaptic plasticity. Each has roughly 20 drugs apiece in development across all phases. And as you know, both synaptic plasticity and inflammation are represented across neurodegenerative conditions.

Your annual report has always focused on drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Will the new database cover other types of dementia and neurodegenerative diseases?

That’s an obvious next step. I’m hoping that late this year we will have funding to expand the database into frontotemporal lobar degenerations, which will include all the tauopathies. And there’s also an overlap with TDP-43 diseases, so we’ll bring all of that in too. We have a new initiative on Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies that I hope will materialize by next year. My goal is that this will eventually become a neurodegenerative disease therapies database. The really interesting drugs right now are being tested in more than one neurodegenerative disease, and we should look at those more carefully. It will be more feasible to do that if they’re on the same data set.

What about other therapy classes?

We aim to be more serious about devices.

What will you call the database?

The Clinical Trial Observatory. We may start by calling it the Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Observatory. But the intention, obviously, is to go way beyond Alzheimer’s disease. The database is managed by a terrific team of data scientists at Cleveland Clinic, led by Feixiong Cheng, PhD.

The annual pipeline report is very much associated with you. Is the database going to be different?

Right now, I’m like the grandfather of this project. I won’t be around forever. This will have to pass on, and we’re already talking about succession. We’re thinking about how to make sure this community resource continues to be a community resource. Also, over all these years the annual report reflected my perspective. But with a database, many more people will be able to share their perspectives. I happen to think that “biologics rule,” but others might look at the data, see different scientific currents, and draw different conclusions. That will create a rich dialogue.

Do you think your reports have changed people’s perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease therapies? There’s a widely held idea that the field is exclusively focused on amyloid, or even dead-ended, but the papers seem to show something different.

We think this effort has helped, and will continue to help and foster investment and growth in treatments for our patients. It really does show how diverse the clinical trials landscape is now. People are surprised to learn of the number and diversity of approaches. Just last week I was presenting at the Center for Brain Health in Dallas and there was a doctor in the audience who was a caregiver to his wife with Alzheimer’s disease. He came up afterwards and said, “I had no idea there were so many drugs in clinical trials,” because there’s no way to find out if you don’t know about this resource.

Dr. Cummings discloses consulting for a range of companies working in Alzheimer’s therapies and diagnostics, including Acadia, Alkahest, AlphaCognition, AriBio, Avanir, Axsome, Behren, Biogen, Biohaven, Cassava, Cerecin, Cortexyme, Diadem, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols, Janssen, LSP, Merck, NervGen, Novo Nordisk, Oligomerix, Ono, Otsuka, PRODEO, ReMYND, Renew, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Suven, United Neuroscience, and Unlearn AI. He has received several grants from the National Institute on Aging.

For understanding the evolution in child neurology over the past 30 years, it would make sense to start with the science, particularly genetics, that have led to treatments and even cures for numerous inherited diseases over that time. When John Bodensteiner, MD, a pillar in the field of child neurology, was asked, he started with something different.

Parent advocacy accelerates advances in rare pediatric diseases

For the progress in many of the rare diseases seen by child neurologists in the last few decades, Dr. Bodensteiner first acknowledged parent support. “The concept was simple initially. For so many of these relatively rare diseases, like the Rett and Sturge-Weber syndromes, parents were learning of them for the first time. The support groups helped parents understand they were not alone. But it then evolved,” recalled Dr. Bodensteiner, who has been a professor of pediatrics and neurology at numerous institutions, most recently the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Many of these support groups first formed, or at least gained momentum, in the 1990s. “As the support groups grew, the members expanded their role to support research, in addition to supporting each other. They ended up volunteering their own data, providing more information about the epidemiology and disease course. They offered tissue samples for experimental studies. They enrolled their children in trials. And they raised funds,” Dr. Bodensteiner explained.

The impact of this advocacy has been enormous, according to Dr. Bodensteiner. As an expert in neuromuscular diseases, he worked directly with several of these groups.

Although the growth in parent advocacy took place in parallel with major advances in genetics that were driving new insights into disease pathophysiology, Dr. Bodensteiner characterized parent advocates as important partners in accelerating the transition of new information to clinical utility. He suggested that there is little doubt about the importance of their role in moving the science forward by drawing attention to rare disorders that had few, if any, treatment options at the time the advocacy groups were formed.

Since the 1990s, the list of childhood neurologic diseases for which there has been meaningful progress is long. Dr. Bodensteiner selected several examples. For Rett syndrome, key molecular mechanisms have now been isolated, providing meaningful targets that show potential for treatment. For spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), therapies have become available, one of which involves gene replacement that appears to provide cure if initiated early in life. For tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), gene targets are showing strong promise for controlling seizures and other TSC manifestations.

It has also to be acknowledged that much of the ongoing expansion in knowledge taking place across diseases in pediatric neurology would have taken place with or without parent support. Dr. Bodensteiner singled out seizure disorders only as an illustration. “In the various forms of epilepsy, we now understand mechanisms in much greater detail than we did even a decade ago, let alone 30 years ago,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. In the context of the seizure medicines once widely employed on an empirical basis, “we now often have a clearer picture of why one drug works and not another.”
 

Growing pains: Child neurology evolves from a subspecialty to a specialty

Until about 10 years ago, child neurology was a subspecialty, variably placed within the departments of pediatrics or neurology based on institution. The decision to elevate child neurology to its own specialty solved some issues but created others, according to Dr. Bodensteiner.

“The initial problem was there was no immediate funding mechanism of residency slots and training,” Dr. Bodensteiner explained. The issue was particularly acute at smaller centers that had been able to support a subspecialty within another department but struggled with a new autonomous unit.

So far, the training requirements for specializing in child neurology remain largely unchanged. Clinical training requires 2 years of straight pediatrics, 1 year of adult neurology, 1 year of basic neurological science,” and 1 year of child neurology, but Dr. Bodensteiner said it might be time to reconsider. He pointed out that neurologists in general and child neurologists specifically are becoming increasingly focused in one area of expertise, such as epilepsy, neuromuscular diseases, and neurodevelopmental delay.

“It can be argued that a few months spent in a dementia clinic during training might not be the best use of time for a child neurologist working in congenital neurological diseases,” he said.

One consequence of the increasing degree of specialization in neurology overall, not just child neurology, has been the changes in recertification, according to Dr. Bodensteiner. Following a model used in other specialties, recertification in child neurology was initially based on an every-10-year examination. Ultimately, this was recognized as inconsistent with the target of keeping clinicians up to date.

“In general, I think that a lot of people waited for 9.5 years before cramming for an examination that was not necessarily relevant to the area in which they were working,” Dr. Bodensteiner said.

The revised process, carried out on an every-3-year cycle, involves board-guided review of the medical literature in 10 topic areas. Child neurologists can elect an article in any of the topic areas, but to complete their recertification process they must read articles in eight of these areas. Dr. Bodensteiner said that this approach has been more popular and is presumably more useful for staying abreast of developments.
 

Increased specialization necessitates collaboration

The radical increase in specialization in child neurology, like neurology in general, has been a necessary consequence of an avalanche of new information as advances in the field accelerate, but Dr. Bodensteiner cautioned that it is important for those working in these specialized areas to collaborate with others outside of their field of expertise.

“We cannot recognize what we do not know,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. If subspecialization within neurology is critical to stay current with rapid advances in very different diseases, then it also means that clinicians at every level, including within the field of child neurology, need to know when to collaborate or refer to ensure early diagnosis in challenging cases.

“Epileptologists have been trying for years to make it widely known that patients resistant to standard medications deserve referral, but I think this is increasingly true across domains,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. Neurology and child neurology are not alone, but the window of opportunity for effective intervention in children with a progressive disease might be particularly limited.

“The point is that this is more of a risk than it was 20 years ago,” said Dr. Bodensteiner, referring to the growth in new therapies. He cited data suggesting that a causative gene mutation can be identified in about 60% of rare diseases, which is a relatively new phenomenon. Of advances to improve outcomes, faster triage is becoming one of the most important in this increasingly specialized world.

With the growth in knowledge, “there is really no way to be an expert across all diseases in child neurology,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. “As physicians become increasingly insulated in their areas of expertise, I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on communication and collaboration.”

To some degree, this type of specialization has always existed, but Dr. Bodensteiner said the intensification of this trend is among the ways the field has most evolved over the past few decades. In inherited diseases that affect early child development, working together for a prompt diagnosis has assumed a new level of urgency.

For understanding the evolution in child neurology over the past 30 years, it would make sense to start with the science, particularly genetics, that have led to treatments and even cures for numerous inherited diseases over that time. When John Bodensteiner, MD, a pillar in the field of child neurology, was asked, he started with something different.

Parent advocacy accelerates advances in rare pediatric diseases

For the progress in many of the rare diseases seen by child neurologists in the last few decades, Dr. Bodensteiner first acknowledged parent support. “The concept was simple initially. For so many of these relatively rare diseases, like the Rett and Sturge-Weber syndromes, parents were learning of them for the first time. The support groups helped parents understand they were not alone. But it then evolved,” recalled Dr. Bodensteiner, who has been a professor of pediatrics and neurology at numerous institutions, most recently the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Many of these support groups first formed, or at least gained momentum, in the 1990s. “As the support groups grew, the members expanded their role to support research, in addition to supporting each other. They ended up volunteering their own data, providing more information about the epidemiology and disease course. They offered tissue samples for experimental studies. They enrolled their children in trials. And they raised funds,” Dr. Bodensteiner explained.

The impact of this advocacy has been enormous, according to Dr. Bodensteiner. As an expert in neuromuscular diseases, he worked directly with several of these groups.

Although the growth in parent advocacy took place in parallel with major advances in genetics that were driving new insights into disease pathophysiology, Dr. Bodensteiner characterized parent advocates as important partners in accelerating the transition of new information to clinical utility. He suggested that there is little doubt about the importance of their role in moving the science forward by drawing attention to rare disorders that had few, if any, treatment options at the time the advocacy groups were formed.

Since the 1990s, the list of childhood neurologic diseases for which there has been meaningful progress is long. Dr. Bodensteiner selected several examples. For Rett syndrome, key molecular mechanisms have now been isolated, providing meaningful targets that show potential for treatment. For spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), therapies have become available, one of which involves gene replacement that appears to provide cure if initiated early in life. For tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), gene targets are showing strong promise for controlling seizures and other TSC manifestations.

It has also to be acknowledged that much of the ongoing expansion in knowledge taking place across diseases in pediatric neurology would have taken place with or without parent support. Dr. Bodensteiner singled out seizure disorders only as an illustration. “In the various forms of epilepsy, we now understand mechanisms in much greater detail than we did even a decade ago, let alone 30 years ago,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. In the context of the seizure medicines once widely employed on an empirical basis, “we now often have a clearer picture of why one drug works and not another.”
 

Growing pains: Child neurology evolves from a subspecialty to a specialty

Until about 10 years ago, child neurology was a subspecialty, variably placed within the departments of pediatrics or neurology based on institution. The decision to elevate child neurology to its own specialty solved some issues but created others, according to Dr. Bodensteiner.

“The initial problem was there was no immediate funding mechanism of residency slots and training,” Dr. Bodensteiner explained. The issue was particularly acute at smaller centers that had been able to support a subspecialty within another department but struggled with a new autonomous unit.

So far, the training requirements for specializing in child neurology remain largely unchanged. Clinical training requires 2 years of straight pediatrics, 1 year of adult neurology, 1 year of basic neurological science,” and 1 year of child neurology, but Dr. Bodensteiner said it might be time to reconsider. He pointed out that neurologists in general and child neurologists specifically are becoming increasingly focused in one area of expertise, such as epilepsy, neuromuscular diseases, and neurodevelopmental delay.

“It can be argued that a few months spent in a dementia clinic during training might not be the best use of time for a child neurologist working in congenital neurological diseases,” he said.

One consequence of the increasing degree of specialization in neurology overall, not just child neurology, has been the changes in recertification, according to Dr. Bodensteiner. Following a model used in other specialties, recertification in child neurology was initially based on an every-10-year examination. Ultimately, this was recognized as inconsistent with the target of keeping clinicians up to date.

“In general, I think that a lot of people waited for 9.5 years before cramming for an examination that was not necessarily relevant to the area in which they were working,” Dr. Bodensteiner said.

The revised process, carried out on an every-3-year cycle, involves board-guided review of the medical literature in 10 topic areas. Child neurologists can elect an article in any of the topic areas, but to complete their recertification process they must read articles in eight of these areas. Dr. Bodensteiner said that this approach has been more popular and is presumably more useful for staying abreast of developments.
 

Increased specialization necessitates collaboration

The radical increase in specialization in child neurology, like neurology in general, has been a necessary consequence of an avalanche of new information as advances in the field accelerate, but Dr. Bodensteiner cautioned that it is important for those working in these specialized areas to collaborate with others outside of their field of expertise.

“We cannot recognize what we do not know,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. If subspecialization within neurology is critical to stay current with rapid advances in very different diseases, then it also means that clinicians at every level, including within the field of child neurology, need to know when to collaborate or refer to ensure early diagnosis in challenging cases.

“Epileptologists have been trying for years to make it widely known that patients resistant to standard medications deserve referral, but I think this is increasingly true across domains,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. Neurology and child neurology are not alone, but the window of opportunity for effective intervention in children with a progressive disease might be particularly limited.

“The point is that this is more of a risk than it was 20 years ago,” said Dr. Bodensteiner, referring to the growth in new therapies. He cited data suggesting that a causative gene mutation can be identified in about 60% of rare diseases, which is a relatively new phenomenon. Of advances to improve outcomes, faster triage is becoming one of the most important in this increasingly specialized world.

With the growth in knowledge, “there is really no way to be an expert across all diseases in child neurology,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. “As physicians become increasingly insulated in their areas of expertise, I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on communication and collaboration.”

To some degree, this type of specialization has always existed, but Dr. Bodensteiner said the intensification of this trend is among the ways the field has most evolved over the past few decades. In inherited diseases that affect early child development, working together for a prompt diagnosis has assumed a new level of urgency.

For understanding the evolution in child neurology over the past 30 years, it would make sense to start with the science, particularly genetics, that have led to treatments and even cures for numerous inherited diseases over that time. When John Bodensteiner, MD, a pillar in the field of child neurology, was asked, he started with something different.

Parent advocacy accelerates advances in rare pediatric diseases

For the progress in many of the rare diseases seen by child neurologists in the last few decades, Dr. Bodensteiner first acknowledged parent support. “The concept was simple initially. For so many of these relatively rare diseases, like the Rett and Sturge-Weber syndromes, parents were learning of them for the first time. The support groups helped parents understand they were not alone. But it then evolved,” recalled Dr. Bodensteiner, who has been a professor of pediatrics and neurology at numerous institutions, most recently the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Many of these support groups first formed, or at least gained momentum, in the 1990s. “As the support groups grew, the members expanded their role to support research, in addition to supporting each other. They ended up volunteering their own data, providing more information about the epidemiology and disease course. They offered tissue samples for experimental studies. They enrolled their children in trials. And they raised funds,” Dr. Bodensteiner explained.

The impact of this advocacy has been enormous, according to Dr. Bodensteiner. As an expert in neuromuscular diseases, he worked directly with several of these groups.

Although the growth in parent advocacy took place in parallel with major advances in genetics that were driving new insights into disease pathophysiology, Dr. Bodensteiner characterized parent advocates as important partners in accelerating the transition of new information to clinical utility. He suggested that there is little doubt about the importance of their role in moving the science forward by drawing attention to rare disorders that had few, if any, treatment options at the time the advocacy groups were formed.

Since the 1990s, the list of childhood neurologic diseases for which there has been meaningful progress is long. Dr. Bodensteiner selected several examples. For Rett syndrome, key molecular mechanisms have now been isolated, providing meaningful targets that show potential for treatment. For spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), therapies have become available, one of which involves gene replacement that appears to provide cure if initiated early in life. For tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), gene targets are showing strong promise for controlling seizures and other TSC manifestations.

It has also to be acknowledged that much of the ongoing expansion in knowledge taking place across diseases in pediatric neurology would have taken place with or without parent support. Dr. Bodensteiner singled out seizure disorders only as an illustration. “In the various forms of epilepsy, we now understand mechanisms in much greater detail than we did even a decade ago, let alone 30 years ago,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. In the context of the seizure medicines once widely employed on an empirical basis, “we now often have a clearer picture of why one drug works and not another.”
 

Growing pains: Child neurology evolves from a subspecialty to a specialty

Until about 10 years ago, child neurology was a subspecialty, variably placed within the departments of pediatrics or neurology based on institution. The decision to elevate child neurology to its own specialty solved some issues but created others, according to Dr. Bodensteiner.

“The initial problem was there was no immediate funding mechanism of residency slots and training,” Dr. Bodensteiner explained. The issue was particularly acute at smaller centers that had been able to support a subspecialty within another department but struggled with a new autonomous unit.

So far, the training requirements for specializing in child neurology remain largely unchanged. Clinical training requires 2 years of straight pediatrics, 1 year of adult neurology, 1 year of basic neurological science,” and 1 year of child neurology, but Dr. Bodensteiner said it might be time to reconsider. He pointed out that neurologists in general and child neurologists specifically are becoming increasingly focused in one area of expertise, such as epilepsy, neuromuscular diseases, and neurodevelopmental delay.

“It can be argued that a few months spent in a dementia clinic during training might not be the best use of time for a child neurologist working in congenital neurological diseases,” he said.

One consequence of the increasing degree of specialization in neurology overall, not just child neurology, has been the changes in recertification, according to Dr. Bodensteiner. Following a model used in other specialties, recertification in child neurology was initially based on an every-10-year examination. Ultimately, this was recognized as inconsistent with the target of keeping clinicians up to date.

“In general, I think that a lot of people waited for 9.5 years before cramming for an examination that was not necessarily relevant to the area in which they were working,” Dr. Bodensteiner said.

The revised process, carried out on an every-3-year cycle, involves board-guided review of the medical literature in 10 topic areas. Child neurologists can elect an article in any of the topic areas, but to complete their recertification process they must read articles in eight of these areas. Dr. Bodensteiner said that this approach has been more popular and is presumably more useful for staying abreast of developments.
 

Increased specialization necessitates collaboration

The radical increase in specialization in child neurology, like neurology in general, has been a necessary consequence of an avalanche of new information as advances in the field accelerate, but Dr. Bodensteiner cautioned that it is important for those working in these specialized areas to collaborate with others outside of their field of expertise.

“We cannot recognize what we do not know,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. If subspecialization within neurology is critical to stay current with rapid advances in very different diseases, then it also means that clinicians at every level, including within the field of child neurology, need to know when to collaborate or refer to ensure early diagnosis in challenging cases.

“Epileptologists have been trying for years to make it widely known that patients resistant to standard medications deserve referral, but I think this is increasingly true across domains,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. Neurology and child neurology are not alone, but the window of opportunity for effective intervention in children with a progressive disease might be particularly limited.

“The point is that this is more of a risk than it was 20 years ago,” said Dr. Bodensteiner, referring to the growth in new therapies. He cited data suggesting that a causative gene mutation can be identified in about 60% of rare diseases, which is a relatively new phenomenon. Of advances to improve outcomes, faster triage is becoming one of the most important in this increasingly specialized world.

With the growth in knowledge, “there is really no way to be an expert across all diseases in child neurology,” Dr. Bodensteiner said. “As physicians become increasingly insulated in their areas of expertise, I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on communication and collaboration.”

To some degree, this type of specialization has always existed, but Dr. Bodensteiner said the intensification of this trend is among the ways the field has most evolved over the past few decades. In inherited diseases that affect early child development, working together for a prompt diagnosis has assumed a new level of urgency.

Although the past 30 years have stirred up a whirlwind of neurological research that has dramatically expanded therapeutic options for patients with epilepsy, historical pioneers in the field might be disappointed at the fact that treatment response has remained stubbornly stagnant. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” they might say: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In fact, since 1993, despite an explosion of third-generation drugs, an abundance of new surgical approaches, and a whole new category of treatment in the form of neurostimulation devices, response rates in epilepsy have not budged, with roughly two-thirds of patients achieving seizure freedom and a third still struggling with treatment resistance.

But if you widen the lens and look towards the horizon, things are “on the cusp and going like a rocket,” said Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology in the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health, New York. While treatment response rates may be stuck, adverse effects of those treatments have plummeted, and even treatment-resistant patients dealing with residual seizures live a much freer life with far fewer and less serious episodes.
 

Simpler times

In the late 1980s, just as Dr. French was finishing her second epilepsy fellowship at Yale, it was “almost laughable that things were so simple,” she recalls. “There were a few major centers that were doing epilepsy surgery … and in the world of medication, there were just five major drugs: phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate.” That all changed as she was settling in to her first academic position at the University of Pennsylvania, with the “explosive” introduction of felbamate, a new antiseizure drug whose precipitous rise and fall from favor cast a sobering shadow which set the course for future drug development in the field.

“The felbamate story has a lot to do with what came after, but it was a drug that was much more advantageous in regards to a lot of the things that we didn’t like about antiseizure medicines or antiepileptic drugs as we called them at that time,” she said. The older drugs affected the cerebellum, making people sleepy and unable to concentrate. They also came with the risk of serious adverse effects such as hepatic enzyme induction and teratogenicity. Not only was felbamate nonsedating, “it actually was a little bit alerting,” said Dr. French. “People felt so different and so great on it, and it was effective for some seizure types that we didn’t really have good drugs for.” Very quickly, felbamate became a first-line therapy. Within its first year on the market, 150,000 newly diagnosed patients were started on it, “which is unthinkable now,” she said.

Sure enough, it all came crashing down a year later, on Aug. 1, 1994, when the drug was urgently withdrawn by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after being linked to the development of aplastic anemia. “There was a day that anybody who was there at the time will remember when we all got the news, that everybody had to be taken off the drug,” Dr. French recalled. “We spent the weekend in the chart room, looking chart by chart by chart, for who was on felbamate.”

Until then, Dr. French had been straddling the line between her interests in pharmacologic versus surgical treatments for epilepsy. In fact, during her second epilepsy fellowship, which was dedicated to surgery, she published “Characteristics of medial temporal lobe epilepsy” in Annals of Neurology, one of the most-cited papers of her career. “Epilepsy from the temporal lobe is the biggest and best shot on goal when you’re talking about sending somebody to epilepsy surgery and rendering them completely seizure free,” she said. “Early in my career at the University of Pennsylvania, it was all about identifying those patients. And you know, there is nothing more gratifying than taking somebody whose life has been devastated by frequent seizures, who is injuring themselves and not able to be independent, and doing a surgery, which is very safe, and then all the seizures are gone – which is probably why I was so excited by surgery at the time.”

For a while, in the early 1990s, temporal lobectomy eclipsed many of the other avenues in epilepsy treatment, but it too has given way to a much wider variety of more complex techniques, which may be less curative but more palliative.
 

More drug options

Meanwhile, the felbamate story had ignited debate in the field about safer drug development – pushing Dr. French into establishing what was then known as the Antiepileptic Drug Trials conference, later renamed the Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development Symposium – a forum that encouraged safer, but also swifter movement of drugs through the pipeline and onto the market. “After felbamate, came gabapentin, and then came to topiramate and lamotrigine, and very quickly there were many, many, many choices,” she explained. “But once stung, twice shy. Felbamate really gave us a new perspective on which patients we put on the new drugs. Now we have a process of starting them in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy first. The risk-benefit equation is more reasonable because they have lots of risks. And then we work our way back to people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.”

Disease-modifying therapies

Today, the medications used to treat epilepsy are referred to as antiseizure rather than antiepileptic drugs because they simply suppress seizure symptoms and do not address the cause. But the rocket that Dr. French is watching gain speed and momentum is the disease-modifying gene therapies – true antiepileptics that may significantly move the needle on the number and type of patients who can reach seizure freedom. “We spent the last 25 years not even thinking we would ever have antiepileptic therapies, and now in the last 5 years or so, we were pretty sure we will,” she said. “We have gene therapies that can intervene now – none yet that have actually reached approval, these are all currently in trials – but we certainly have high expectations that they will very soon be available.”

Improving patients’ lives

While gene therapy rockets ahead, new device developments are already improving life for patients, even despite ongoing seizures. A drug-delivering pump is still in trials, but could make a big difference to daily medication adherence, and wearable or implantable devices are being developed to track seizures. More accurate tracking has also revealed that many people’s seizures are actually quite predictable, with regular cycles allowing for the possibility of prophylactic medication when increased seizure activity is expected.

Despite 30 years of no change in the proportion of epilepsy patients experiencing treatment resistance, Dr. French said that drugs, devices, and surgeries have improved the lives of all patients – both treatment resistant and treatment sensitive. “The difference between almost seizure free and completely seizure free is a big one because it means you can’t drive, you may have difficulty with your employment, but being able to take a pill every day and feel otherwise completely normal? We’ve come a long way.”

Although the past 30 years have stirred up a whirlwind of neurological research that has dramatically expanded therapeutic options for patients with epilepsy, historical pioneers in the field might be disappointed at the fact that treatment response has remained stubbornly stagnant. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” they might say: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In fact, since 1993, despite an explosion of third-generation drugs, an abundance of new surgical approaches, and a whole new category of treatment in the form of neurostimulation devices, response rates in epilepsy have not budged, with roughly two-thirds of patients achieving seizure freedom and a third still struggling with treatment resistance.

But if you widen the lens and look towards the horizon, things are “on the cusp and going like a rocket,” said Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology in the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health, New York. While treatment response rates may be stuck, adverse effects of those treatments have plummeted, and even treatment-resistant patients dealing with residual seizures live a much freer life with far fewer and less serious episodes.
 

Simpler times

In the late 1980s, just as Dr. French was finishing her second epilepsy fellowship at Yale, it was “almost laughable that things were so simple,” she recalls. “There were a few major centers that were doing epilepsy surgery … and in the world of medication, there were just five major drugs: phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate.” That all changed as she was settling in to her first academic position at the University of Pennsylvania, with the “explosive” introduction of felbamate, a new antiseizure drug whose precipitous rise and fall from favor cast a sobering shadow which set the course for future drug development in the field.

“The felbamate story has a lot to do with what came after, but it was a drug that was much more advantageous in regards to a lot of the things that we didn’t like about antiseizure medicines or antiepileptic drugs as we called them at that time,” she said. The older drugs affected the cerebellum, making people sleepy and unable to concentrate. They also came with the risk of serious adverse effects such as hepatic enzyme induction and teratogenicity. Not only was felbamate nonsedating, “it actually was a little bit alerting,” said Dr. French. “People felt so different and so great on it, and it was effective for some seizure types that we didn’t really have good drugs for.” Very quickly, felbamate became a first-line therapy. Within its first year on the market, 150,000 newly diagnosed patients were started on it, “which is unthinkable now,” she said.

Sure enough, it all came crashing down a year later, on Aug. 1, 1994, when the drug was urgently withdrawn by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after being linked to the development of aplastic anemia. “There was a day that anybody who was there at the time will remember when we all got the news, that everybody had to be taken off the drug,” Dr. French recalled. “We spent the weekend in the chart room, looking chart by chart by chart, for who was on felbamate.”

Until then, Dr. French had been straddling the line between her interests in pharmacologic versus surgical treatments for epilepsy. In fact, during her second epilepsy fellowship, which was dedicated to surgery, she published “Characteristics of medial temporal lobe epilepsy” in Annals of Neurology, one of the most-cited papers of her career. “Epilepsy from the temporal lobe is the biggest and best shot on goal when you’re talking about sending somebody to epilepsy surgery and rendering them completely seizure free,” she said. “Early in my career at the University of Pennsylvania, it was all about identifying those patients. And you know, there is nothing more gratifying than taking somebody whose life has been devastated by frequent seizures, who is injuring themselves and not able to be independent, and doing a surgery, which is very safe, and then all the seizures are gone – which is probably why I was so excited by surgery at the time.”

For a while, in the early 1990s, temporal lobectomy eclipsed many of the other avenues in epilepsy treatment, but it too has given way to a much wider variety of more complex techniques, which may be less curative but more palliative.
 

More drug options

Meanwhile, the felbamate story had ignited debate in the field about safer drug development – pushing Dr. French into establishing what was then known as the Antiepileptic Drug Trials conference, later renamed the Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development Symposium – a forum that encouraged safer, but also swifter movement of drugs through the pipeline and onto the market. “After felbamate, came gabapentin, and then came to topiramate and lamotrigine, and very quickly there were many, many, many choices,” she explained. “But once stung, twice shy. Felbamate really gave us a new perspective on which patients we put on the new drugs. Now we have a process of starting them in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy first. The risk-benefit equation is more reasonable because they have lots of risks. And then we work our way back to people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.”

Disease-modifying therapies

Today, the medications used to treat epilepsy are referred to as antiseizure rather than antiepileptic drugs because they simply suppress seizure symptoms and do not address the cause. But the rocket that Dr. French is watching gain speed and momentum is the disease-modifying gene therapies – true antiepileptics that may significantly move the needle on the number and type of patients who can reach seizure freedom. “We spent the last 25 years not even thinking we would ever have antiepileptic therapies, and now in the last 5 years or so, we were pretty sure we will,” she said. “We have gene therapies that can intervene now – none yet that have actually reached approval, these are all currently in trials – but we certainly have high expectations that they will very soon be available.”

Improving patients’ lives

While gene therapy rockets ahead, new device developments are already improving life for patients, even despite ongoing seizures. A drug-delivering pump is still in trials, but could make a big difference to daily medication adherence, and wearable or implantable devices are being developed to track seizures. More accurate tracking has also revealed that many people’s seizures are actually quite predictable, with regular cycles allowing for the possibility of prophylactic medication when increased seizure activity is expected.

Despite 30 years of no change in the proportion of epilepsy patients experiencing treatment resistance, Dr. French said that drugs, devices, and surgeries have improved the lives of all patients – both treatment resistant and treatment sensitive. “The difference between almost seizure free and completely seizure free is a big one because it means you can’t drive, you may have difficulty with your employment, but being able to take a pill every day and feel otherwise completely normal? We’ve come a long way.”

Although the past 30 years have stirred up a whirlwind of neurological research that has dramatically expanded therapeutic options for patients with epilepsy, historical pioneers in the field might be disappointed at the fact that treatment response has remained stubbornly stagnant. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” they might say: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In fact, since 1993, despite an explosion of third-generation drugs, an abundance of new surgical approaches, and a whole new category of treatment in the form of neurostimulation devices, response rates in epilepsy have not budged, with roughly two-thirds of patients achieving seizure freedom and a third still struggling with treatment resistance.

But if you widen the lens and look towards the horizon, things are “on the cusp and going like a rocket,” said Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology in the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health, New York. While treatment response rates may be stuck, adverse effects of those treatments have plummeted, and even treatment-resistant patients dealing with residual seizures live a much freer life with far fewer and less serious episodes.
 

Simpler times

In the late 1980s, just as Dr. French was finishing her second epilepsy fellowship at Yale, it was “almost laughable that things were so simple,” she recalls. “There were a few major centers that were doing epilepsy surgery … and in the world of medication, there were just five major drugs: phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate.” That all changed as she was settling in to her first academic position at the University of Pennsylvania, with the “explosive” introduction of felbamate, a new antiseizure drug whose precipitous rise and fall from favor cast a sobering shadow which set the course for future drug development in the field.

“The felbamate story has a lot to do with what came after, but it was a drug that was much more advantageous in regards to a lot of the things that we didn’t like about antiseizure medicines or antiepileptic drugs as we called them at that time,” she said. The older drugs affected the cerebellum, making people sleepy and unable to concentrate. They also came with the risk of serious adverse effects such as hepatic enzyme induction and teratogenicity. Not only was felbamate nonsedating, “it actually was a little bit alerting,” said Dr. French. “People felt so different and so great on it, and it was effective for some seizure types that we didn’t really have good drugs for.” Very quickly, felbamate became a first-line therapy. Within its first year on the market, 150,000 newly diagnosed patients were started on it, “which is unthinkable now,” she said.

Sure enough, it all came crashing down a year later, on Aug. 1, 1994, when the drug was urgently withdrawn by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after being linked to the development of aplastic anemia. “There was a day that anybody who was there at the time will remember when we all got the news, that everybody had to be taken off the drug,” Dr. French recalled. “We spent the weekend in the chart room, looking chart by chart by chart, for who was on felbamate.”

Until then, Dr. French had been straddling the line between her interests in pharmacologic versus surgical treatments for epilepsy. In fact, during her second epilepsy fellowship, which was dedicated to surgery, she published “Characteristics of medial temporal lobe epilepsy” in Annals of Neurology, one of the most-cited papers of her career. “Epilepsy from the temporal lobe is the biggest and best shot on goal when you’re talking about sending somebody to epilepsy surgery and rendering them completely seizure free,” she said. “Early in my career at the University of Pennsylvania, it was all about identifying those patients. And you know, there is nothing more gratifying than taking somebody whose life has been devastated by frequent seizures, who is injuring themselves and not able to be independent, and doing a surgery, which is very safe, and then all the seizures are gone – which is probably why I was so excited by surgery at the time.”

For a while, in the early 1990s, temporal lobectomy eclipsed many of the other avenues in epilepsy treatment, but it too has given way to a much wider variety of more complex techniques, which may be less curative but more palliative.
 

More drug options

Meanwhile, the felbamate story had ignited debate in the field about safer drug development – pushing Dr. French into establishing what was then known as the Antiepileptic Drug Trials conference, later renamed the Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development Symposium – a forum that encouraged safer, but also swifter movement of drugs through the pipeline and onto the market. “After felbamate, came gabapentin, and then came to topiramate and lamotrigine, and very quickly there were many, many, many choices,” she explained. “But once stung, twice shy. Felbamate really gave us a new perspective on which patients we put on the new drugs. Now we have a process of starting them in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy first. The risk-benefit equation is more reasonable because they have lots of risks. And then we work our way back to people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.”

Disease-modifying therapies

Today, the medications used to treat epilepsy are referred to as antiseizure rather than antiepileptic drugs because they simply suppress seizure symptoms and do not address the cause. But the rocket that Dr. French is watching gain speed and momentum is the disease-modifying gene therapies – true antiepileptics that may significantly move the needle on the number and type of patients who can reach seizure freedom. “We spent the last 25 years not even thinking we would ever have antiepileptic therapies, and now in the last 5 years or so, we were pretty sure we will,” she said. “We have gene therapies that can intervene now – none yet that have actually reached approval, these are all currently in trials – but we certainly have high expectations that they will very soon be available.”

Improving patients’ lives

While gene therapy rockets ahead, new device developments are already improving life for patients, even despite ongoing seizures. A drug-delivering pump is still in trials, but could make a big difference to daily medication adherence, and wearable or implantable devices are being developed to track seizures. More accurate tracking has also revealed that many people’s seizures are actually quite predictable, with regular cycles allowing for the possibility of prophylactic medication when increased seizure activity is expected.

Despite 30 years of no change in the proportion of epilepsy patients experiencing treatment resistance, Dr. French said that drugs, devices, and surgeries have improved the lives of all patients – both treatment resistant and treatment sensitive. “The difference between almost seizure free and completely seizure free is a big one because it means you can’t drive, you may have difficulty with your employment, but being able to take a pill every day and feel otherwise completely normal? We’ve come a long way.”

Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.

For practicing neurologists today, headache is one subspecialty in which options and opportunities abound. But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.

In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.

After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.

But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
 

The early years

Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.

On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”

DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.

“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.

“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.

Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
 

The triptan era

Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)

Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.

Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
 

Medication overuse headache

The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.

Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”

Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
 

The next revolution: CGRP and gepants

Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.

In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”

The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.

Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.

In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
 

Headache treatment today

Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.

Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.

“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”

Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.

“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”

Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.

*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.

Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.

For practicing neurologists today, headache is one subspecialty in which options and opportunities abound. But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.

In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.

After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.

But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
 

The early years

Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.

On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”

DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.

“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.

“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.

Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
 

The triptan era

Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)

Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.

Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
 

Medication overuse headache

The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.

Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”

Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
 

The next revolution: CGRP and gepants

Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.

In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”

The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.

Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.

In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
 

Headache treatment today

Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.

Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.

“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”

Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.

“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”

Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.

*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.

Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.

For practicing neurologists today, headache is one subspecialty in which options and opportunities abound. But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.

In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.

After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.

But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
 

The early years

Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.

On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”

DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.

“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.

“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.

Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
 

The triptan era

Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)

Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.

Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
 

Medication overuse headache

The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.

Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”

Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
 

The next revolution: CGRP and gepants

Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.

In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”

The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.

Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.

In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
 

Headache treatment today

Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.

Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.

“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”

Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.

“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”

Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.

*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.

Prior to 1993, a multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis could often mean an abbreviated lifespan marked by progressive disability and loss of function. That changed when the Food and Drug Administration approved interferon beta-1b (Betaseron) in 1993, which revolutionized MS therapy and gave hope to the entire MS community.

"The most surprising thing about MS management over the last 30 years is that we’ve been able to treat MS – especially relapsing MS,” said Fred D. Lublin, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis in Mount Sinai in New York. “The approval of interferon was a major therapeutic advancement because it was the first treatment for what was an untreatable disease.”

Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center of South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., agrees.

“For people with MS, it’s an extraordinarily lucky and amazingly optimistic time,” he said. “Before interferon beta-1b, MS was called ‘the crippler of young adults’ because more than 50% of these people would require a walker 10 years after diagnosis, and a large number of young and middle-age patients with MS were residing in nursing homes.”

Treatment options, treatment challenges

Dr. Gudesblatt points out that having numerous therapies from which to choose is both a blessing and a problem.

“The good news is that there are so many options for treating relapsing MS today,” he said. “The bad news is there are so many options. Like doctors who are treating high blood pressure, doctors managing patients with MS often struggle to determine which medication is best for individual patients.”

Despite the promise of vastly better outcomes and prolonged lifespan, MS therapy still faces its share of challenges, including effective therapies for progressive MS and reparative-restorative therapies.

“Choice in route of administration and timing of administration allow for larger and broader discussions to try to meet patients’ needs,” Dr. Lublin said. “We’ve been extremely successful at treating relapses, but not as successful in treating progressive disease.”

The unclear mechanism of pathogenesis amplifies the challenges clinicians face in successful management of patients with MS. For example, experts agree that the therapies for progressive MS have only proven moderately effective at best. The paucity of therapies available for progressive MS and the limitations of the current therapies further limit the outcomes.
 

Looking ahead

Experts expressed optimistic views about the future of MS therapy as a whole. From Dr. Lublin’s perspective, the MS community stands to gain valuable insights from emerging research focused on treating progressive disease along with new testing to understand the underlying mechanism of progressive disease. Enhanced understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of progressive MS coupled with the ability to diagnose MS – such as improved MRI techniques – have facilitated this process.

Among the therapies with novel mechanisms of action in the pipeline include agents that generate myelin sheath repair. Another potential therapeutic class on the horizon, known as TPK inhibitors, addresses the smoldering of the disease. With these and other therapeutic advances, Dr. Lublin hopes to see better control of progressive disease.
 

An agenda for the future

In addition, barriers such as access to care, cost, insurance coverage, and tolerance remain ongoing stressors that will likely continue weighing on the MS community and its stakeholders into the future.

Dr. Gudesblatt concluded that advancing MS outcomes in the future hinges on several additional factors.

“We need medicines that are better for relapse and progression; medicines that are better tolerated and safer; and better medicine to address the underlying disease as well as its symptoms. But we also need to appreciate, recognize, and address cognitive impairment along the MS continuum and develop effective reparative options,” he said.

Regardless, he emphasized that these “amazing advancements” in MS therapy have renewed hope that research may identify and expand effective treatments for multiple other neurologic conditions such as muscular dystrophies, neurodegenerative and genetic disorders, movement disorders, and dysautonomia-related diseases. Like MS, all of these conditions have limited therapies, some of which have minimal efficacy. But none of these other disorders has disease-modifying therapies currently available.
 

‘A beacon of hope’

“MS is the beacon of hope for multiple disease states because it’s cracked the door wide open,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. Relapse no longer gauges the prognosis of today’s MS patient – a prognosis both experts think will only continue to improve with forthcoming innovations.

While the challenges for MS still exist, the bright future that lies ahead may eventually eclipse them.

Prior to 1993, a multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis could often mean an abbreviated lifespan marked by progressive disability and loss of function. That changed when the Food and Drug Administration approved interferon beta-1b (Betaseron) in 1993, which revolutionized MS therapy and gave hope to the entire MS community.

"The most surprising thing about MS management over the last 30 years is that we’ve been able to treat MS – especially relapsing MS,” said Fred D. Lublin, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis in Mount Sinai in New York. “The approval of interferon was a major therapeutic advancement because it was the first treatment for what was an untreatable disease.”

Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center of South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., agrees.

“For people with MS, it’s an extraordinarily lucky and amazingly optimistic time,” he said. “Before interferon beta-1b, MS was called ‘the crippler of young adults’ because more than 50% of these people would require a walker 10 years after diagnosis, and a large number of young and middle-age patients with MS were residing in nursing homes.”

Treatment options, treatment challenges

Dr. Gudesblatt points out that having numerous therapies from which to choose is both a blessing and a problem.

“The good news is that there are so many options for treating relapsing MS today,” he said. “The bad news is there are so many options. Like doctors who are treating high blood pressure, doctors managing patients with MS often struggle to determine which medication is best for individual patients.”

Despite the promise of vastly better outcomes and prolonged lifespan, MS therapy still faces its share of challenges, including effective therapies for progressive MS and reparative-restorative therapies.

“Choice in route of administration and timing of administration allow for larger and broader discussions to try to meet patients’ needs,” Dr. Lublin said. “We’ve been extremely successful at treating relapses, but not as successful in treating progressive disease.”

The unclear mechanism of pathogenesis amplifies the challenges clinicians face in successful management of patients with MS. For example, experts agree that the therapies for progressive MS have only proven moderately effective at best. The paucity of therapies available for progressive MS and the limitations of the current therapies further limit the outcomes.
 

Looking ahead

Experts expressed optimistic views about the future of MS therapy as a whole. From Dr. Lublin’s perspective, the MS community stands to gain valuable insights from emerging research focused on treating progressive disease along with new testing to understand the underlying mechanism of progressive disease. Enhanced understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of progressive MS coupled with the ability to diagnose MS – such as improved MRI techniques – have facilitated this process.

Among the therapies with novel mechanisms of action in the pipeline include agents that generate myelin sheath repair. Another potential therapeutic class on the horizon, known as TPK inhibitors, addresses the smoldering of the disease. With these and other therapeutic advances, Dr. Lublin hopes to see better control of progressive disease.
 

An agenda for the future

In addition, barriers such as access to care, cost, insurance coverage, and tolerance remain ongoing stressors that will likely continue weighing on the MS community and its stakeholders into the future.

Dr. Gudesblatt concluded that advancing MS outcomes in the future hinges on several additional factors.

“We need medicines that are better for relapse and progression; medicines that are better tolerated and safer; and better medicine to address the underlying disease as well as its symptoms. But we also need to appreciate, recognize, and address cognitive impairment along the MS continuum and develop effective reparative options,” he said.

Regardless, he emphasized that these “amazing advancements” in MS therapy have renewed hope that research may identify and expand effective treatments for multiple other neurologic conditions such as muscular dystrophies, neurodegenerative and genetic disorders, movement disorders, and dysautonomia-related diseases. Like MS, all of these conditions have limited therapies, some of which have minimal efficacy. But none of these other disorders has disease-modifying therapies currently available.
 

‘A beacon of hope’

“MS is the beacon of hope for multiple disease states because it’s cracked the door wide open,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. Relapse no longer gauges the prognosis of today’s MS patient – a prognosis both experts think will only continue to improve with forthcoming innovations.

While the challenges for MS still exist, the bright future that lies ahead may eventually eclipse them.

Prior to 1993, a multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis could often mean an abbreviated lifespan marked by progressive disability and loss of function. That changed when the Food and Drug Administration approved interferon beta-1b (Betaseron) in 1993, which revolutionized MS therapy and gave hope to the entire MS community.

"The most surprising thing about MS management over the last 30 years is that we’ve been able to treat MS – especially relapsing MS,” said Fred D. Lublin, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis in Mount Sinai in New York. “The approval of interferon was a major therapeutic advancement because it was the first treatment for what was an untreatable disease.”

Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center of South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., agrees.

“For people with MS, it’s an extraordinarily lucky and amazingly optimistic time,” he said. “Before interferon beta-1b, MS was called ‘the crippler of young adults’ because more than 50% of these people would require a walker 10 years after diagnosis, and a large number of young and middle-age patients with MS were residing in nursing homes.”

Treatment options, treatment challenges

Dr. Gudesblatt points out that having numerous therapies from which to choose is both a blessing and a problem.

“The good news is that there are so many options for treating relapsing MS today,” he said. “The bad news is there are so many options. Like doctors who are treating high blood pressure, doctors managing patients with MS often struggle to determine which medication is best for individual patients.”

Despite the promise of vastly better outcomes and prolonged lifespan, MS therapy still faces its share of challenges, including effective therapies for progressive MS and reparative-restorative therapies.

“Choice in route of administration and timing of administration allow for larger and broader discussions to try to meet patients’ needs,” Dr. Lublin said. “We’ve been extremely successful at treating relapses, but not as successful in treating progressive disease.”

The unclear mechanism of pathogenesis amplifies the challenges clinicians face in successful management of patients with MS. For example, experts agree that the therapies for progressive MS have only proven moderately effective at best. The paucity of therapies available for progressive MS and the limitations of the current therapies further limit the outcomes.
 

Looking ahead

Experts expressed optimistic views about the future of MS therapy as a whole. From Dr. Lublin’s perspective, the MS community stands to gain valuable insights from emerging research focused on treating progressive disease along with new testing to understand the underlying mechanism of progressive disease. Enhanced understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of progressive MS coupled with the ability to diagnose MS – such as improved MRI techniques – have facilitated this process.

Among the therapies with novel mechanisms of action in the pipeline include agents that generate myelin sheath repair. Another potential therapeutic class on the horizon, known as TPK inhibitors, addresses the smoldering of the disease. With these and other therapeutic advances, Dr. Lublin hopes to see better control of progressive disease.
 

An agenda for the future

In addition, barriers such as access to care, cost, insurance coverage, and tolerance remain ongoing stressors that will likely continue weighing on the MS community and its stakeholders into the future.

Dr. Gudesblatt concluded that advancing MS outcomes in the future hinges on several additional factors.

“We need medicines that are better for relapse and progression; medicines that are better tolerated and safer; and better medicine to address the underlying disease as well as its symptoms. But we also need to appreciate, recognize, and address cognitive impairment along the MS continuum and develop effective reparative options,” he said.

Regardless, he emphasized that these “amazing advancements” in MS therapy have renewed hope that research may identify and expand effective treatments for multiple other neurologic conditions such as muscular dystrophies, neurodegenerative and genetic disorders, movement disorders, and dysautonomia-related diseases. Like MS, all of these conditions have limited therapies, some of which have minimal efficacy. But none of these other disorders has disease-modifying therapies currently available.
 

‘A beacon of hope’

“MS is the beacon of hope for multiple disease states because it’s cracked the door wide open,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. Relapse no longer gauges the prognosis of today’s MS patient – a prognosis both experts think will only continue to improve with forthcoming innovations.

While the challenges for MS still exist, the bright future that lies ahead may eventually eclipse them.

In 1993, managing patients with stroke had long remained an elusive and somewhat intimidating task for the neurological world. Previous efforts to treat the condition had produced more frustration than success, leaving clinicians and patients alike in despair for a solution. However, some successes in treating coronary thrombosis during that era rejuvenated researchers’ efforts to crack the code. An international team of researchers had studied a Streptococcus derivative (streptokinase) and others had begun to study a natural substance termed tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) as thrombolytic agents to lyse coronary clots and to treat pulmonary embolism. The adverse event of excessive bleeding found in Australian studies done on streptokinase intervention in patients with stroke prompted researchers to contemplate use of tPA in stroke management.

The combination of tPA and advanced imaging technology led researchers to take a unique approach that would forever revolutionize stroke management, beginning in the early 1990s.

A group of German, Japanese, and American investigators began to research thrombolysis in acute stroke patients during the mid-1980s.

“What was unique is that patients had a CT scan followed by a catheter angiogram,” said Louis Caplan, MD, a senior member of the division of cerebrovascular disease at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

“If they had a blocked vessel, they got the drug, delivered either intravenously or intra-arterially.”

The process involved keeping the catheter open after drug administration to determine whether the vessel had opened or remained occluded. The researchers learned which blocked vessels opened when the drug was given intravenously and which required direct introduction of the drug into the clots.

A group of investigators in the United States funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke then performed a randomized therapeutic trial of intravenous tPA given within 90 minutes and 180 minutes after stroke symptom onset. The study was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Soon thereafter, in 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of tPA following the inclusion and exclusion rules used in the NINDS trial.

After the FDA approved tPA in 1995, stroke management was never the same.
 

tPA was just one factor in optimizing stroke management

Despite the major therapeutic breakthrough with tPA’s approval, it took the clinics, hospitals, and other acute care systems a while to catch up. “Neurologists and hospitals weren’t ready for acute stroke intervention and proper stroke management in the mid-90s,” Dr. Caplan recalled. “At the time, stroke wasn’t at the forefront of treatment, general neurologists weren’t trained, and there weren’t enough stroke neurologists.”

The preparation and training deficit was further exacerbated by low reimbursement for services. As a result, only about 5% of patients who were eligible for acute stroke management were treated with tPA.

According to Dr. Caplan, during the next 15-20 years, the accumulation of stroke data from MRI and CT vascular imaging clarified further which patients, with what extent of infarction, with which blocked vessels, would be good candidates for treatment.

More patients received interventional treatment using catheters directed into the area of clotting in attempt to remove the blockages. In addition, information regarding intervention at different periods (10-16 hours, up to 24 hours) and conditions (for example, patients with varying degrees of disability, infarct) were tested.

Eventually, hospitals became more attuned to emergency stroke treatment. More neurologists became trained, more stroke centers emerged, and clinicians enjoyed the benefit of technological advancements that allowed them to explore perfusion.
 

While decentralized care enhances outcomes in stroke management, more progress is needed

As of early 2023, stroke is one of the leading emergency diagnoses, and patients have access to primary and secondary stroke centers that are sprinkled throughout the United States. As impressive as the feat may seem, health care systems still have major strides to make to truly optimize therapy and outcomes in this patient population.

For example, location and access remain important issues. Secondary centers are typically located in large, metropolitan areas. While an urban location makes a primary center geographically more accessible to a larger patient population, traffic frequently hinders door-to-door access.

In the case of rural centers, distance can retard access, but they also face the challenges of how to route patients – especially patients who require more specialized care offered by secondary centers. Fortunately, primary centers have some ways to help better support their patients.

“One thing that happened is that primary centers made agreements with secondary centers via telemedicine to determine whether patients should be treated at the primary center or whether they should be routed to the higher-level center. These arrangements were termed ‘spoke and wheel,’ ” Dr. Caplan told this publication.

However, not all patients who are candidates for transport to a secondary center are able to be transported. In such cases, primary centers can use telemedicine to collaborate with secondary centers for support.

Logistics aside, perhaps today’s greatest challenge for clinicians is ensuring their patients and families receive education to increase their awareness of stroke centers as an important option for treatment and outcome optimization. Many patients and their loved ones do not realize that these centers exist or how to utilize them if and when the time comes.

Right now, some cities have stroke ambulances staffed with physicians to treat patients in the field. This decentralized model helps address access burdens such as door-to-needle delays and transportation while improving survival and recovery. Dr. Caplan said these services are available in Munich, and in a few select U.S. cities such as Cleveland and Houston, which helped pioneer the concept.
 

Better access in the future?

Looking ahead, Dr. Caplan seems optimistic about how stroke management will continue to evolve. Many cities will have stroke ambulances to provide on-site care, while stroke institutions will improve their cross-collaborative efforts to support their patient populations.

At the crux of cross-collaboration lies enhanced communication between peripheral and urban hospitals.

“Peripheral and urban hospitals and state organizations will engage in smoother integration to figure out when to take patient to the bigger hospitals,” Dr. Caplan said. “I also believe we will see greater emphasis on rehabilitation and recovery.”

As promising as the future looks, only time will tell.
 

In 1993, managing patients with stroke had long remained an elusive and somewhat intimidating task for the neurological world. Previous efforts to treat the condition had produced more frustration than success, leaving clinicians and patients alike in despair for a solution. However, some successes in treating coronary thrombosis during that era rejuvenated researchers’ efforts to crack the code. An international team of researchers had studied a Streptococcus derivative (streptokinase) and others had begun to study a natural substance termed tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) as thrombolytic agents to lyse coronary clots and to treat pulmonary embolism. The adverse event of excessive bleeding found in Australian studies done on streptokinase intervention in patients with stroke prompted researchers to contemplate use of tPA in stroke management.

The combination of tPA and advanced imaging technology led researchers to take a unique approach that would forever revolutionize stroke management, beginning in the early 1990s.

A group of German, Japanese, and American investigators began to research thrombolysis in acute stroke patients during the mid-1980s.

“What was unique is that patients had a CT scan followed by a catheter angiogram,” said Louis Caplan, MD, a senior member of the division of cerebrovascular disease at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

“If they had a blocked vessel, they got the drug, delivered either intravenously or intra-arterially.”

The process involved keeping the catheter open after drug administration to determine whether the vessel had opened or remained occluded. The researchers learned which blocked vessels opened when the drug was given intravenously and which required direct introduction of the drug into the clots.

A group of investigators in the United States funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke then performed a randomized therapeutic trial of intravenous tPA given within 90 minutes and 180 minutes after stroke symptom onset. The study was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Soon thereafter, in 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of tPA following the inclusion and exclusion rules used in the NINDS trial.

After the FDA approved tPA in 1995, stroke management was never the same.
 

tPA was just one factor in optimizing stroke management

Despite the major therapeutic breakthrough with tPA’s approval, it took the clinics, hospitals, and other acute care systems a while to catch up. “Neurologists and hospitals weren’t ready for acute stroke intervention and proper stroke management in the mid-90s,” Dr. Caplan recalled. “At the time, stroke wasn’t at the forefront of treatment, general neurologists weren’t trained, and there weren’t enough stroke neurologists.”

The preparation and training deficit was further exacerbated by low reimbursement for services. As a result, only about 5% of patients who were eligible for acute stroke management were treated with tPA.

According to Dr. Caplan, during the next 15-20 years, the accumulation of stroke data from MRI and CT vascular imaging clarified further which patients, with what extent of infarction, with which blocked vessels, would be good candidates for treatment.

More patients received interventional treatment using catheters directed into the area of clotting in attempt to remove the blockages. In addition, information regarding intervention at different periods (10-16 hours, up to 24 hours) and conditions (for example, patients with varying degrees of disability, infarct) were tested.

Eventually, hospitals became more attuned to emergency stroke treatment. More neurologists became trained, more stroke centers emerged, and clinicians enjoyed the benefit of technological advancements that allowed them to explore perfusion.
 

While decentralized care enhances outcomes in stroke management, more progress is needed

As of early 2023, stroke is one of the leading emergency diagnoses, and patients have access to primary and secondary stroke centers that are sprinkled throughout the United States. As impressive as the feat may seem, health care systems still have major strides to make to truly optimize therapy and outcomes in this patient population.

For example, location and access remain important issues. Secondary centers are typically located in large, metropolitan areas. While an urban location makes a primary center geographically more accessible to a larger patient population, traffic frequently hinders door-to-door access.

In the case of rural centers, distance can retard access, but they also face the challenges of how to route patients – especially patients who require more specialized care offered by secondary centers. Fortunately, primary centers have some ways to help better support their patients.

“One thing that happened is that primary centers made agreements with secondary centers via telemedicine to determine whether patients should be treated at the primary center or whether they should be routed to the higher-level center. These arrangements were termed ‘spoke and wheel,’ ” Dr. Caplan told this publication.

However, not all patients who are candidates for transport to a secondary center are able to be transported. In such cases, primary centers can use telemedicine to collaborate with secondary centers for support.

Logistics aside, perhaps today’s greatest challenge for clinicians is ensuring their patients and families receive education to increase their awareness of stroke centers as an important option for treatment and outcome optimization. Many patients and their loved ones do not realize that these centers exist or how to utilize them if and when the time comes.

Right now, some cities have stroke ambulances staffed with physicians to treat patients in the field. This decentralized model helps address access burdens such as door-to-needle delays and transportation while improving survival and recovery. Dr. Caplan said these services are available in Munich, and in a few select U.S. cities such as Cleveland and Houston, which helped pioneer the concept.
 

Better access in the future?

Looking ahead, Dr. Caplan seems optimistic about how stroke management will continue to evolve. Many cities will have stroke ambulances to provide on-site care, while stroke institutions will improve their cross-collaborative efforts to support their patient populations.

At the crux of cross-collaboration lies enhanced communication between peripheral and urban hospitals.

“Peripheral and urban hospitals and state organizations will engage in smoother integration to figure out when to take patient to the bigger hospitals,” Dr. Caplan said. “I also believe we will see greater emphasis on rehabilitation and recovery.”

As promising as the future looks, only time will tell.
 

In 1993, managing patients with stroke had long remained an elusive and somewhat intimidating task for the neurological world. Previous efforts to treat the condition had produced more frustration than success, leaving clinicians and patients alike in despair for a solution. However, some successes in treating coronary thrombosis during that era rejuvenated researchers’ efforts to crack the code. An international team of researchers had studied a Streptococcus derivative (streptokinase) and others had begun to study a natural substance termed tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) as thrombolytic agents to lyse coronary clots and to treat pulmonary embolism. The adverse event of excessive bleeding found in Australian studies done on streptokinase intervention in patients with stroke prompted researchers to contemplate use of tPA in stroke management.

The combination of tPA and advanced imaging technology led researchers to take a unique approach that would forever revolutionize stroke management, beginning in the early 1990s.

A group of German, Japanese, and American investigators began to research thrombolysis in acute stroke patients during the mid-1980s.

“What was unique is that patients had a CT scan followed by a catheter angiogram,” said Louis Caplan, MD, a senior member of the division of cerebrovascular disease at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

“If they had a blocked vessel, they got the drug, delivered either intravenously or intra-arterially.”

The process involved keeping the catheter open after drug administration to determine whether the vessel had opened or remained occluded. The researchers learned which blocked vessels opened when the drug was given intravenously and which required direct introduction of the drug into the clots.

A group of investigators in the United States funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke then performed a randomized therapeutic trial of intravenous tPA given within 90 minutes and 180 minutes after stroke symptom onset. The study was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Soon thereafter, in 1995, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of tPA following the inclusion and exclusion rules used in the NINDS trial.

After the FDA approved tPA in 1995, stroke management was never the same.
 

tPA was just one factor in optimizing stroke management

Despite the major therapeutic breakthrough with tPA’s approval, it took the clinics, hospitals, and other acute care systems a while to catch up. “Neurologists and hospitals weren’t ready for acute stroke intervention and proper stroke management in the mid-90s,” Dr. Caplan recalled. “At the time, stroke wasn’t at the forefront of treatment, general neurologists weren’t trained, and there weren’t enough stroke neurologists.”

The preparation and training deficit was further exacerbated by low reimbursement for services. As a result, only about 5% of patients who were eligible for acute stroke management were treated with tPA.

According to Dr. Caplan, during the next 15-20 years, the accumulation of stroke data from MRI and CT vascular imaging clarified further which patients, with what extent of infarction, with which blocked vessels, would be good candidates for treatment.

More patients received interventional treatment using catheters directed into the area of clotting in attempt to remove the blockages. In addition, information regarding intervention at different periods (10-16 hours, up to 24 hours) and conditions (for example, patients with varying degrees of disability, infarct) were tested.

Eventually, hospitals became more attuned to emergency stroke treatment. More neurologists became trained, more stroke centers emerged, and clinicians enjoyed the benefit of technological advancements that allowed them to explore perfusion.
 

While decentralized care enhances outcomes in stroke management, more progress is needed

As of early 2023, stroke is one of the leading emergency diagnoses, and patients have access to primary and secondary stroke centers that are sprinkled throughout the United States. As impressive as the feat may seem, health care systems still have major strides to make to truly optimize therapy and outcomes in this patient population.

For example, location and access remain important issues. Secondary centers are typically located in large, metropolitan areas. While an urban location makes a primary center geographically more accessible to a larger patient population, traffic frequently hinders door-to-door access.

In the case of rural centers, distance can retard access, but they also face the challenges of how to route patients – especially patients who require more specialized care offered by secondary centers. Fortunately, primary centers have some ways to help better support their patients.

“One thing that happened is that primary centers made agreements with secondary centers via telemedicine to determine whether patients should be treated at the primary center or whether they should be routed to the higher-level center. These arrangements were termed ‘spoke and wheel,’ ” Dr. Caplan told this publication.

However, not all patients who are candidates for transport to a secondary center are able to be transported. In such cases, primary centers can use telemedicine to collaborate with secondary centers for support.

Logistics aside, perhaps today’s greatest challenge for clinicians is ensuring their patients and families receive education to increase their awareness of stroke centers as an important option for treatment and outcome optimization. Many patients and their loved ones do not realize that these centers exist or how to utilize them if and when the time comes.

Right now, some cities have stroke ambulances staffed with physicians to treat patients in the field. This decentralized model helps address access burdens such as door-to-needle delays and transportation while improving survival and recovery. Dr. Caplan said these services are available in Munich, and in a few select U.S. cities such as Cleveland and Houston, which helped pioneer the concept.
 

Better access in the future?

Looking ahead, Dr. Caplan seems optimistic about how stroke management will continue to evolve. Many cities will have stroke ambulances to provide on-site care, while stroke institutions will improve their cross-collaborative efforts to support their patient populations.

At the crux of cross-collaboration lies enhanced communication between peripheral and urban hospitals.

“Peripheral and urban hospitals and state organizations will engage in smoother integration to figure out when to take patient to the bigger hospitals,” Dr. Caplan said. “I also believe we will see greater emphasis on rehabilitation and recovery.”

As promising as the future looks, only time will tell.