[*seriously consider using bothersome acronyms]

Two decades ago, an alarm was sounded on the exploding use of acronyms in clinical trials. The worst offender at the time was cardiology, which boasted 16 separate trials called HEART (Fred et al. Tex Heart Inst J 2003;30:255-257). With acronyms on the radar, other specialties soon joined in. Within a few years, the estimated prevalence of trial acronyms was 15% (40% in cardiology) (Pottegard et al. Br Med J 2014;349:g7092). For some it filled a GAP (Greater Acceptance by Publishers): studies with good acronyms were more likely to be cited by other researchers (Stanbrook et al. N Engl J Med 2006;355:101-2). Read More

The limited benefit of B cell-directed therapies in progressive MS has been attributed in part to poor penetration of the CNS by monoclonal antibodies. However, two new studies have reported that intrathecal administration of rituximab has little effect on CNS inflammation, suggesting that limited drug entry into the brain is not the main problem. Read More