New York Times review of controversial Q-Collar identifies concerns about efficacy, safety
Is the Q-Collar effective at concussion prevention, and is it safe? Matthew Futterman wrote a well-rounded critique of the device for The New York Times. Concussion Alliance wrote about the Q-Collar when the FDA first cleared it. Futterman directs the reader to the FDA summary, which states that the Q-Collar was not approved to prevent concussions and there are some risks to the device.
The Q-Collar was inspired by the observation that woodpeckers don’t get brain injuries from repetitive hits (in fact, woodpecker brains do show damage). Researchers developed a collar that “restricts the flow of blood from the head” on the theory that slightly more blood in the head would give the brain “an extra layer of cushioning,” protecting it “from effects associated with repetitive sub-concussive head impacts.” This last statement is from the October FDA summary of its decision, which Futterman points out is “far more measured than the February 2021 approval announcement.” This summary lists the limitations of the Q-Collar, which include the following:
“The Q-Collar has not been demonstrated to prevent long-term cognitive function deficits and the ultimate impact on clinical outcomes has not been evaluated.”
“Data do not demonstrate that the device can prevent concussion or serious brain injury.”
In the FDA summary, the Q-Collar’s “probable benefits” outweigh the “probable risks.” The risks include a risk of syncope (passing out) and giving the user a “false sense of protection,” which Futterman also discusses. “The danger with a device like this is that people will feel more protected and play differently and behave differently,” according to physiology professor James Smoliga, “who has led a crusade in academic journals against the device.”
In terms of the probable benefits, the studies (funded by the Q30, which makes the device) showed “it might limit damage to brain tissue.” However, the FDA cited “uncertainty surrounding the imaging technology that the studies relied on” and that “a link between the changes the studies revealed and actual brain injuries has not been ‘validated.’”
Fetterman states, “And yet the longing for equipment that can prevent traumatic brain injury and make dangerous sports feel safe is intense. The FDA experts cited the urgent need for devices that ‘may’ protect the brain from mild impacts in sports and the low risk of the Q-Collar.” And the market for the Q-Collar is anticipated to be worth $30 million.
