Nih cuts spotlight a hidden crisis facing patients with experimental brain implants
Seeger's predicament highlights a growing problem for hundreds of people with experimental neural implants, including those for depression, quadriplegia, and other conditions. Although these patients take big risks to advance science, there's no guarantee that their devices will be maintained – particularly after they finish participating in clinical trials – and no mechanism requiring companies or insurers to do so. A research project led by Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, a Harvard University scientist, aimed to change that by creating partnerships between players in the burgeoning implant field to overcome barriers to device access and follow-up care. But the cancellation of hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants by the Trump administration this year left the project in limbo, dimming hope for Seeger and others like her who wonder what will happen to their health and progress.
An ethical quagmire – Unlike medications, implanted devices often require parts, maintenance, batteries, and surgeries when changes are needed. Insurance typically covers such expenses for federally approved devices considered medically necessary but not experimental ones. A procedure to replace a battery alone can cost more than $15,000 without insurance, Lázaro-Muñoz said. 'While companies stand to profit from research, there's really nothing that helps ensure that device manufacturers have to provide any of these parts or cover any kind of maintenance,' said Lázaro-Muñoz. Some companies also move on to newer versions of devices or abandon the research altogether, which can leave patients in an uncertain place. Medtronic, the company that made the deep brain stimulation or DBS technology Seeger used, said in a statement that every study is different and that the company puts patient safety first when considering care after studies end.
'People consider various possibilities when they join a clinical trial.' The Food and Drug Administration requires the informed consent process to include a description of reasonably foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant, a spokesperson said. However, the FDA doesn't require trial plans to include procedures for long-term device follow-up and maintenance, although the spokesperson stated that the agency has requested those in the past. While some informed consent forms say devices will be removed at a study's end, Lázaro-Muñoz said removal is ethically problematic when a device is helping a patient. Plus, he said some trial participants told him and his colleagues that they didn't remember everything discussed during the consent process, partly because they were so focused on getting better.
Brandy Ellis, a 49-year-old in Boynton Beach, Florida, said she was desperate for healing when she joined a trial testing the same treatment Seeger got, which delivers an electrical current into the brain to treat severe depression. She was willing to sign whatever forms were necessary to get help after nothing else had worked. 'I was facing death,' she said. 'So it was most definitely consent at the barrel of a gun, which is true for a lot of people who are in a terminal condition.'
Patients risk losing a treatment of last resort – Ellis and Seeger, 64, both turned to DBS as a last resort after trying many approved medications and treatments. 'I got in the trial fully expecting it not to work because nothing else had. So I was kind of surprised when it did,' said Ellis, whose device was implanted in 2011 at Emory University in Atlanta. 'I am celebrating every single milestone because I'm like: 'This is all bonus life for me.'' She's now on her third battery. She needed surgery to replace two single-use ones, and the one she has now is rechargeable. She's lucky her insurance has covered the procedures, she said, but she worries it may not in the future. 'I can't count on any coverage because there's nothing that says even though I've had this and it works that it has to be covered under my commercial or any other insurance,' said Ellis, who advocates for other former trial participants. Even if companies still make replacement parts for older devices, she added, availability and accessibility are entirely different things given most people can't afford continued care without insurance coverage.
Seeger, whose device was implanted in 2012 at Emory, said she went without a working device for around four months when the insurance coverage her wife's job at Emory provided wouldn't pay for battery replacement surgery. Neither would Medicare, which generally only covers DBS for FDA-approved uses. With her research team at Emory advocating for her, Seeger ultimately got financial help from the hospital's indigent care program and paid a few thousand dollars out of pocket. She now has a rechargeable battery, and the device has been working well. But at any point, she said that could change.
Federal cuts stall solutions – Lázaro-Muñoz hoped his work would protect people like Seeger and Ellis. 'We should do whatever we can as a society to be able to help them maintain their health,' he said. Lázaro-Muñoz's project received about $987,800 from the National Institute of Mental Health in the 2023 and 2024 fiscal years and was already underway when he was notified of the NIH funding cut in May. He declined to answer questions about it. Ellis said any delay in addressing the thorny issues around experimental brain devices hurts patients. 'Planning at the beginning of a clinical trial about how to continue treatment and maintain devices,' she said, 'would be much better than depending on the kindness of researchers and the whims of insurers.' 'If this turns off, I get sick again. Like, I'm not cured,' she said. 'This is a treatment that absolutely works but only as long as I've got a working device.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
a day ago
- Al Arabiya
Bid to relocate iconic US Space Shuttle Discovery faces museum pushback
Tucked inside President Donald Trump's flagship tax and spending bill last month was a little-noticed provision to relocate the iconic Space Shuttle Discovery from a museum outside Washington to Houston. The plan now faces legal uncertainty, with the Smithsonian Institution arguing Congress had no authority to give away what it considers private property -- even before accounting for the steep logistical and financial challenges. 'The Smithsonian Institution owns the Discovery and holds it in trust for the American public,' the museum network, which receives substantial federal funding yet remains an independent entity, said in a statement to AFP on Friday. 'In 2012, NASA transferred 'all rights, title, interest and ownership' of the shuttle to the Smithsonian,' the statement continued, calling Discovery one of the museum's 'centerpieces' that welcomes millions of visitors a year. The push to move Discovery from the Air and Space Museum's site in northern Virginia began in April, when Texas Senator John Cornyn, a Republican who faces a tough primary challenge next year by state attorney general Ken Paxton, introduced the 'Bring the Space Shuttle Home Act,' naming Discovery. The legislation stalled until it was folded into the mammoth 'Big Beautiful Bill,' signed into law on July 4. Its passage allocated $85 million for the move, though the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has projected a far higher cost of $325 million, adding that the NASA administrator's power over non-NASA entities is 'unclear.' To comply with Senate rules, the bill's language was modified such that Discovery is no longer named directly. Instead, the bill refers to a 'space vehicle,' though there is little doubt as to the target. NASA's administrator -- currently Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, serving in an acting capacity -- was given 30 days to identify which spacecraft is to be relocated, a deadline coming up on Sunday. End of an era NASA's Space Shuttle program ended in 2011, after a 30-year run that carried America's post-Apollo space ambitions. The four surviving orbiters -- Atlantis, Endeavour, prototype Enterprise, and Discovery -- were awarded to Florida, California, New York, and Virginia through a ranked selection process. Discovery, the most flown, was chosen as a vehicle-of-record in a near-complete state, intended for study by future generations. 'There was not a lot of support within Houston to want a shuttle,' space historian Robert Pearlman told AFP, adding that a proposal to house it at Space Center Houston was relatively weak. But after the announcement, Texas -- home to the Johnson Space Center, which oversees NASA's human spaceflight -- felt snubbed, and allegations of political interference by then-president Barack Obama swirled. A NASA inspector general probe found no evidence of foul play. Enormous challenges Relocating Discovery now would pose major technical hurdles. NASA had modified two Boeing 747s to ferry retired shuttles -- one is now a museum piece, and the other is out of service. That leaves land and water transport. 'The nearest water entrance to the Potomac River is about 30 miles away,' Pearlman said -- but it may be too shallow for the orbiter and required barge, requiring a 100-mile journey instead. A water transport would require a massive enclosed barge, he added. The US government owns only one such vessel, controlled by the military. Loaning it to a civilian agency would require another act of Congress, and the alternative would involve building one from scratch. Dennis Jenkins, a former shuttle engineer who oversaw the delivery of retired orbiters to their new homes, told the Collect Space outlet he could see costs reach a billion dollars. Nicholas O'Donnell, an attorney at Sullivan & Worcester with expertise in art and museum law, told AFP that assuming Smithsonian has valid paperwork, 'I don't think Secretary Duffy or anyone in the federal government has any more authority to order the move of Discovery than you or I do.' The government could invoke eminent domain -- seizing private property for public use -- but it would have to pay fair market value or try to sue. The Smithsonian is unlikely to want a court battle, and while it's legally independent, its financial reliance on federal funds leaves it politically vulnerable, said O'Donnell.
Arab News
2 days ago
- Arab News
An Ohio couple welcomes a baby boy from a nearly 31-year-old frozen embryo
In what's known as embryo adoption, Linda and Tim Pierce used a handful of embryos donated in 1994 in pursuit of having a child after fighting infertility for yearsTheir son was born Saturday from an embryo that had been in storage for 11,148 days, which the Pierces' doctor says sets a USA: A baby boy born last week to an Ohio couple developed from an embryo that had been frozen for more than 30 years in what is believed to be the longest storage time before a what's known as embryo adoption, Linda and Tim Pierce used a handful of embryos donated in 1994 in pursuit of having a child after fighting infertility for years. Their son was born Saturday from an embryo that had been in storage for 11,148 days, which the Pierces' doctor says sets a a concept that has been around since the 1990s but is gaining traction as some fertility clinics and advocates, often Christian-centered, oppose discarding leftover embryos because of their belief that life begins at or around conception and that all embryos deserve to be treated like children who need a home.'I felt all along that these three little hopes, these little embryos, deserved to live just like my daughter did,' said Linda Archerd, 62, who donated her embryos to the about 2 percent of births in the US are the result of in vitro fertilization, and an even smaller fraction involve donated medical experts estimate about 1.5 million frozen embryos are currently being stored throughout the country, with many of those in limbo as parents wrestle with what to do with their leftover embryos created in IVF complicating the topic is a 2024 Alabama Supreme Court decision that said that frozen embryos have the legal status of children. State leaders have since devised a temporary solution shielding clinics from liability stemming from that ruling, though questions linger about remaining says she turned to IVF in 1994. Back then, the ability to freeze, thaw and transfer embryos was making key progress and opening the door for hopeful parents to create more embryos and increase their chances of a successful wound up with four embryos and initially hoped to use them all. But after the birth of her daughter, Archerd and her husband divorced, disrupting her timeline for having more the years turned into decades, Archerd said she was wracked with guilt about what to do with the embryos as storage fees continued to she found Snowflakes, a division of Nightlight Christian Adoptions, which offers open adoptions to donors that allows people like Archerd. She was also able to set preferences for what families would adopt her embryos.'I wanted to be a part of this baby's life,' she said. 'And I wanted to know the adopting parents.'The process was tricky, requiring Archerd to contact her initial fertility doctor in Oregon and dig through paper records to get the proper documentation for the donation. The embryos then had to be shipped from Oregon to the Pierces' doctor in Tennessee. The clinic, Rejoice Fertility in Knoxville, refuses to discard frozen embryos and has become known for handling embryos stored in outdated and older the three donated embryos the Pierces received from Archerd, one didn't make the thaw. Two were transferred to Lindsey Pierce's womb, but just one successfully to Dr. John David Gordon, the transfer of the nearly 31-year-old embryo marks the longest-frozen embryo to result in a live birth. He would know, Gordon says his clinic assisted in the previous record, when Lydia and Timothy Ridgeway were born from embryos frozen for 30 years, or 10,905 days.'I think that these stories catch the imagination,' Gordon said. 'But I think they also provide a little bit of a cautionary tale to say: Why are these embryos sitting in storage? You know, why do we have this problem?'In a statement, Lindsey and Tim Pierce said the clinic's support was just what they needed.'We didn't go into this thinking about records — we just wanted to have a baby,' Lindsey Pierce Archerd, the donation process has been an emotional roller coaster. Relief that her embryos finally found a home, sadness it couldn't be with her and a little anxiety about what the future holds next, with possibly meeting the Pierces and the baby in person.'I'm hoping that they're going to send pictures,' she said, noting that the parents have already sent several after the birth. 'I'd love to meet them some day. That would be a dream come true to meet — meet them and the baby.'
Al Arabiya
3 days ago
- Al Arabiya
What are all these microplastics doing to our brains?
Tiny shards of plastic called microplastics have been detected accumulating in human brains, but there is not yet enough evidence to say whether this is doing us harm, experts have said. These mostly invisible pieces of plastic have been found everywhere from the top of mountains to the bottom of oceans, in the air we breathe and the food we eat. They have also been discovered riddled throughout human bodies, inside lungs, hearts, placentas and even crossing the blood–brain barrier. The increasing ubiquity of microplastics has become a key issue in efforts to hammer out the world's first plastic pollution treaty, with the latest round of UN talks being held in Geneva next week. The effects that microplastics and even smaller nanoplastics have on human health is not yet fully understood, but researchers have been working to find out more in this relatively new field. The most prominent study looking at microplastics in brains was published in the journal Nature Medicine in February. The scientists tested brain tissue from 28 people who died in 2016 and 24 who died last year in the US state of New Mexico, finding that the amount of microplastics in the samples increased over time. The study made headlines around the world when the lead researcher, US toxicologist Matthew Campen, told the media that they detected the equivalent of a plastic spoon's worth of microplastics in the brains. Campen also told Nature that he estimated the researchers could isolate around 10 grams of plastic from a donated human brain — comparing that amount to an unused crayon. But other researchers have since urged caution about the small study. 'While this is an interesting finding, it should be interpreted cautiously pending independent verification,' toxicologist Theodore Henry of Scotland's Heriot–Watt University told AFP. 'Currently, the speculation about the potential effects of plastic particles on health go far beyond the evidence,' he added. Oliver Jones, a chemistry professor at Australia's RMIT University, told AFP there was 'not enough data to make firm conclusions on the occurrence of microplastics in New Mexico, let alone globally.' He also found it 'rather unlikely' that brains could contain more microplastics than has been found in raw sewage — as the researchers had estimated. Jones pointed out the people in the study were perfectly healthy before they died, and that the researchers acknowledged there was not enough data to show that the microplastics caused harm. 'If (and it is a big if in my view) there are microplastics in our brains, there is as yet no evidence of harm,' Jones added. The study also contained duplicated images, the neuroscience news website The Transmitter has reported, though experts said this did not affect its main findings. Most of the research into the effects microplastics have on health has been observational, which means it cannot establish cause and effect. One such study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year, found that microplastics building up in blood vessels was linked to an increased risk of heart attack, stroke and death in patients with a disease that clogs arteries. There have also been experiments carried out on mice, including a study in Science Advances in January which detected microplastics in their brains. The Chinese researchers said that microplastics can cause rare blood clots in the brains of mice by obstructing cells — while emphasizing that the small mammals are very different from humans. A review by the World Health Organization in 2022 found that the 'evidence is insufficient to determine risks to human health' from microplastics. However, many health experts have cited the precautionary principle, saying the potential threat microplastics could pose requires action. A report on the health risks of microplastics by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health published this week ahead of the treaty talks said that 'policy decisions cannot wait for complete data.' 'By acting now to limit exposure, improve risk assessment methodologies, and prioritize vulnerable populations, we can address this pressing issue before it escalates into a broader public health crisis,' it added. The amount of plastic the world produces has doubled since 2000 — and is expected to triple from current rates by 2060.
