logo
A pause in NIH funding leaves these Alzheimer's studies in limbo: ‘This is alarming'

A pause in NIH funding leaves these Alzheimer's studies in limbo: ‘This is alarming'

CNN24-04-2025

Zahydie Burgos Ribot and her husband, Francisco Rios, are checking items off their travel bucket list and spending quality time together before Francisco will no longer be able to travel – and before his brain forgets.
The Florida-based couple recently crossed Alaska off the list. Their next trip will be to Niagara Falls.
'We have a whole schedule,' Ribot said. 'We're choosing to live every single day with a lot of intention.'
That's because they know that Rios' window to easily create new memories is closing. About three years ago, at age 46, he was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's disease.
Although Rios has been doing well on a new treatment he receives through a clinical trial, Ribot is increasingly afraid that the study could be hindered by cuts to federal funding of biomedical research.
The Trump administration has been conducting a restructuring of the US Department of Health and Human Services as well as a review of funding, resulting in the abrupt cancellation of hundreds of research grants under the National Institutes of Health and many others left in limbo, waiting for a decision on whether their funding will be renewed.
In March, 14 of 35 Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers had their funding halted by the NIH as the administration stopped $65 million in funding for research, according to Democratic lawmakers.
CNN has contacted HHS and the White House for comment.
'This is alarming, because these are critical data that inform not only prognosis but inform trajectory of the disease and inform future treatments,' Ribot said.
Rios also has been following these developments and remains worried about his future.
'He just asked me, 'Am I going to continue getting the trial?' But he was crying and literally ripping the skin off his fingers because of the anxiety,' Ribot said. 'He knows what's at stake. He is aware. He wants to continue the medication.'
Rios has been participating in a clinical trial conducted by Washington University in St. Louis in which he has been receiving the Alzheimer's drug Leqembi paired with an experimental therapy called E2814, given as intravenous infusions, to help slow his Alzheimer's symptoms.
Ribot credits the trial with helping curb Rios' memory loss and cognitive decline.
Before Rios was diagnosed, he began to emotionally withdraw and disconnect from loved ones. He even got lost while driving to a routine doctor's appointment about 10 minutes from their home, Ribot said.
She initially thought he was showing signs of depression. But Rios' doctor realized that something else was happening in his brain and referred him to the Young-Onset Dementias Clinic at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
'They ran more tests, and they ran the genetic testing, and that's when we had the final confirmation that it was Alzheimer's,' Ribot said.
If funding for Rios' clinical trial is curtailed, she said, not only could he and the other participants lose access to the medications that they hope are giving them more time to live normally, the development of other impactful Alzheimer's treatments could be delayed.
About a dozen Alzheimer's disease research centers are still waiting for their federal funding to be renewed, said Dr. Michael Greicius, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at the Stanford University School of Medicine, whose Alzheimer's center is among those awaiting a decision.
'Our five-year renewal was reviewed in October. Normally, we would have gotten a decision probably around February,' he said, adding that research funding for his team at the Stanford Alzheimer's Disease Research Center ran out about three weeks ago.
'It seems like we're moving towards renewal, but it's very hard to read the tea leaves, and that makes it really challenging when you're thinking about projects you'd like to undertake or hiring new research coordinators, for example,' he said.
Greicius and his colleagues had to hold off on starting research projects because they didn't know whether there will be funding coming in, he said.
The uncertainty around funding baffles him.
'It's hard to imagine a less political topic than Alzheimer's disease. I mean, it affects people from red states and blue states and purple states. It's so common. Almost everyone either has a relative in their family or at least has a friend who has a relative that's been affected by Alzheimer's disease,' Greicius said.
'It still seems like the easiest-to-agree-upon target for federally funded research, and yet it's not at all clear that this progress is going to continue,' he said. 'That, for me, is a large part of the frustration – just the uncertainty of it all.'
Preventive neurologist Dr. Richard Isaacson, founder of one of the first Alzheimer's prevention clinics in the United States, is also waiting to see whether his federal grants will be renewed.
'We're somewhere between limbo and purgatory,' he said.
Isaacson, who directs research at the Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Florida, has developed free online software called RetainYourBrain, which aims to democratize access to brain health care. Users input their risk factors for Alzheimer's and receive a personalized risk assessment, as well as personalized recommendations and time-sensitive reminders on how to improve their brain health.
But without continued funding, 'it may never be released to the public,' Isaacson said.
Supporters of the funding cuts argue that the nation should reduce 'wasteful spending' and prioritize efficiency.
'With the government wanting to cut back on spending money, I get it. But Alzheimer's is one of the most expensive diseases to our health care system,' Isaacson said.
It's estimated that nearly 1 in every 6 Medicare dollars was spent on someone with the disease last year, according to the Alzheimer's Association, and the average per-person Medicare spending for older adults with Alzheimer's is estimated to be 2.8 times higher than average per-person spending for all other seniors.
'I feel that cutting Alzheimer's research that may save money over time, and doing it rapidly, is a bad investment,' Isaacson said.
While some studies are waiting to see if they'll continue, some studies have already had to take steps to shut down.
When the NIH canceled grants in March related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, some Alzheimer's studies were swept up in the consequences.
Federal funding for a multiyear study at the University of California, Davis' Alzheimer's Disease Research Center was abruptly terminated. This led the center's co-director, Dr. Charles DeCarli, to issue an appeal and fight to have the grant fully reinstated.
'The appeal had to be done within 30 days, and in the meantime, we had to shut down the study. So while I was working on the appeal, my team was doing all the things that closing a study needs to involve, which is hundreds of hours of work, notifying the 33 sites in this study,' he said.
DeCarli's appeal was successful. He won that battle but is still recovering from the turmoil.
'It was a very challenging month in my life,' DeCarli said. 'It just seems to me that the only reason that this was terminated is because it includes the word 'diverse' in the title.'
The study, titled 'The Clinical Significance of Incidental White Matter Lesions on MRI Amongst a Diverse Population with Cognitive Complaints (INDEED),' involves examining the effect that white matter injury in the brain and vascular issues may have on cognitive performance as well as health outcomes. The research was being funded by the NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Up to 25% of people who develop dementia later in life may have some type of vascular contributing factor to their disease, and DeCarli said his study could help 'lay out the foundation' for diagnostic tests and treatments for them.
'When these studies are terminated, an opportunity is lost to advance science,' he said.
Other studies may face similar threats to funding. According to a policy notice issued Monday, the NIH said it will begin pulling medical research funding from universities with diversity and inclusion programs and any boycotts of Israeli companies.
The agency 'reserves the right to terminate financial assistance awards and recover all funds' if grant recipients do not comply with federal guidelines barring diversity and equity research and 'prohibited boycotts,' the notice said.
The policy applies to 'domestic recipients of new, renewal, supplement, or continuation awards that are issued on or after' April 21, according to the notice.
Separately, the Washington-based nonprofit UsAgainstAlzheimer's has been tracking previously terminated grants and the funding cuts at the NIH that took place in March and earlier this month, and it warns that some cuts could stall the progress being made to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease.
'In the last 10 years, there have been groundbreaking advances in Alzheimer's disease research, in understanding where the disease comes from, and understanding how to diagnose the disease, and ultimately in how to treat the disease. But we don't have a cure yet,' said Russ Paulsen, chief operating officer at UsAgainstAlzheimer's.
'In looking through the list of grants that have been affected, it appears to cut across prevention, diagnosis, treatment and ultimately seeking a cure, as well as understanding the basics of the disease to start with,' he said. 'We've made huge progress, and now is not the time to take our foot off the accelerator.'
In the meantime, Ribot and Rios are trying to keep their heads up. They are keeping an eye on any new developments in research funding cuts while continuing to focus on their travel bucket list.
'While he's here and we're here, we're living our life. We are finding joy. Even when we cry, we laugh. Even when we are in despair, we have hope,' Ribot said.
'I'm not going to romanticize this disease, because that's not it – but there's still purpose and meaning and joy,' she said. 'We're not going to let this disease rob us of our present.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Legislature to repeal MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults
Legislature to repeal MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Legislature to repeal MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults

Demonstrators gather for a protest organized by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee calling for the continuation of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults at the Minnesota State Capitol Tuesday, May 27, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) Despite Democratic-Farmer-Labor control of the state Senate, the governor's office, and half of the House, Republicans forced Democrats to roll back one of their signature accomplishments from the 2023 legislative session: health care for undocumented people. The Legislature is expected to vote Monday to repeal undocumented adults' eligibility for MinnesotaCare, the state-subsidized health insurance program for the working poor. Children would still be covered. Republicans successfully used their leverage — the threat of a government shutdown starting July 1 — to force the Democrats' hand on an issue that is of supreme importance to GOP lawmakers. The DFL pulled out all nearly of the stops to avoid cutting health care access for undocumented adults. During negotiations, DFL leaders offered Republicans concessions related to paid leave, earned sick and safe time, and noncompete agreements — but Republicans didn't budge, said Sen. Alice Mann, DFL-Edina. 'They turned all of those things down, because all they wanted…was to make sure that the 17,000 people were left out to die, that we worsen our health care system and that we decrease our tax revenue,' Mann said at a press conference Monday decrying the move. When Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders announced a budget deal — contingent on repealing MinnesotaCare eligibility for undocumented adults — on May 15, lawmakers with the People of Color Indigenous Caucus protested outside the door. They told reporters later that they were blindsided by the deal. After the announcement, POCI caucus members brought alternatives to legislative leaders, said Rep. Liish Kozlowski, DFL-Duluth. The POCI caucus suggested capping undocumented enrollment in MinnesotaCare, raising premiums, allowing children currently enrolled to retain coverage instead of aging out, or making exceptions for elderly people or those with chronic conditions. None of those options made it into the bill, which is expected to be heard first on the House floor during a 21-hour special session beginning at 10 a.m. Republicans have repeatedly exaggerated the cost of providing health care to undocumented people enrolled in MinnesotaCare. Enrollment has exceeded the state's expectations, however, with more than 17,000 undocumented people currently enrolled. Meanwhile, per-person spending on the undocumented population has been lower than expected, according to the Department of Human Services. Federal politics and funding have complicated the issue: A budget bill passed by the GOP-controlled U.S. House would cut funding to states that provide health care to undocumented people, including Minnesota. And while the federal government pays for some of the cost of MinnesotaCare, it doesn't contribute any money for undocumented enrollees. Walz is expected to sign the bill into law.

Big Data Can Make America Healthier. How to Do It Right
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. How to Do It Right

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Big Data Can Make America Healthier. How to Do It Right

Credit - Ezra Bailey—Getty Images Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. Read More: Gun Injuries of All Kinds Go Up During Hunting Season The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Read More: Could the Shingles Vaccine Help Prevent Dementia? Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Read More: Why We Can't Rely on Science Alone to Make Public Health Decisions Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Read More: Why Do Taxi Drivers Have a Lower Risk of Alzheimer's? Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives. Contact us at letters@

Here Are The 9 States Being Hit With The Latest Egg Recall
Here Are The 9 States Being Hit With The Latest Egg Recall

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Here Are The 9 States Being Hit With The Latest Egg Recall

Egg price decreases have been slow to arrive at grocery stores nationwide. Over the past two months, prices have finally begun to cool and a multi-state salmonella outbreak is just the punctuation mark to months of relentless eggflation that weary consumers don't need. But, it's what they've got! According to an official FDA announcement on June 6, nearly 2 million dozen egg cartons are being pulled from shelves due to a mass salmonella contamination risk. As if consumers weren't feeling wary enough, the specific recalled product is 1.7 million dozen brown, cage-free, certified organic eggs -- health-centric buzzwords that make customers feel like they're purchasing a product they can trust. This latest salmonella outbreak risk exponentially compounds the growing issue of consumer trust in food safety. For the first time since October 2024, month-to-month dozen egg prices finally decreased from $6.23 in March to $5.12 in April -- a national average price which still remains at a historic high. Eggflation was due largely in part to a shortage caused by an avian flu outbreak, which makes this latest recall of millions of eggs feel somehow even worse. The outbreak traces back to August Egg Company, a California-based manufacturer. As of June 5, the CDC has reported 79 cases of illness spanning seven states. The affected eggs were sold at Walmart stores in nine states: Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming, as well as several other grocery chains concentrated in California and Nevada. Read more: 12 Gluten-Free Pasta Brands, Ranked Worst To Best Twenty-one of the 79 ill consumers have been hospitalized, and the CDC estimates that the actual number of sickened people is much higher. Consumers reported becoming ill between February 24, 2025 and May 17, 2025. Luckily, as an exercise in reducing food waste on such a mass scale, the August Egg Company "immediately began diverting all eggs from the plant to an egg-breaking facility, which pasteurizes the eggs and kills any pathogens," per a statement from the company, as reported by the FDA. To stay safe, people who have recently purchased eggs from Walmart should check their cartons for sell-by dates between March 4, 2025 and June 19, 2025. Foodies who have purchased eggs from grocery chains Save Mart, FoodMaxx, Lucky, Smart & Final, Safeway, Raleys, Food 4 Less, or Ralphs should look for sell-by dates from March 4, 2025 to June 4, 2025. The packages of affected eggs will be printed with the plant code number P-6562 or CA5330 with the Julian Dates between 32 and 126. A full list of affected plant numbers and UPCs is included in the FDA report. Shoppers who spy any of the above details on their egg cartons are being instructed to return the product to its place of purchase for a full refund. To be safe, sanitize all surfaces with which the affected product might have come into contact. Read the original article on Tasting Table.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store