User login
Fibromyalgia linked to higher mortality risk
People who experience chronic pain and tiredness from fibromyalgia have an increased risk for all-cause mortality, a new analysis of evidence says.
The condition can lead people to be vulnerable to accidents, infections, and even suicide, according to the report published in RMD Open.
The researchers suggest that care providers monitor physical and mental health to lower the dangers.
People with fibromyalgia often have other health issues, including rheumatic, gut, neurological, and mental health disorders, according to The BMJ. More and more people are being diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The cause of the illness remains unclear.
The researchers looked at eight studies published between 1999 and 2020 and pooled results from six of them. The studies involved a total of 188,000 adults.
The analysis of the data revealed that fibromyalgia was linked to a 27% greater risk of death from all causes.
Those with fibromyalgia were at a 44% greater risk of infections, including pneumonia. Their suicide risk was more than three times higher.
The greater risk of all-cause death could result from fatigue, poor sleep, and concentration problems, The BMJ said.
The patients had a 12% lower risk of dying from cancer, the analysis found. This could be because they tend to make more visits to health care professionals, the authors suggest.
“Fibromyalgia is often called an ‘imaginary condition,’ with ongoing debates on the legitimacy and clinical usefulness of this diagnosis. Our review provides further proof that fibromyalgia patients should be taken seriously, with particular focus on screening for suicidal ideation, prevention of accidents, and prevention and treatment of infections,” the researchers say.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
People who experience chronic pain and tiredness from fibromyalgia have an increased risk for all-cause mortality, a new analysis of evidence says.
The condition can lead people to be vulnerable to accidents, infections, and even suicide, according to the report published in RMD Open.
The researchers suggest that care providers monitor physical and mental health to lower the dangers.
People with fibromyalgia often have other health issues, including rheumatic, gut, neurological, and mental health disorders, according to The BMJ. More and more people are being diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The cause of the illness remains unclear.
The researchers looked at eight studies published between 1999 and 2020 and pooled results from six of them. The studies involved a total of 188,000 adults.
The analysis of the data revealed that fibromyalgia was linked to a 27% greater risk of death from all causes.
Those with fibromyalgia were at a 44% greater risk of infections, including pneumonia. Their suicide risk was more than three times higher.
The greater risk of all-cause death could result from fatigue, poor sleep, and concentration problems, The BMJ said.
The patients had a 12% lower risk of dying from cancer, the analysis found. This could be because they tend to make more visits to health care professionals, the authors suggest.
“Fibromyalgia is often called an ‘imaginary condition,’ with ongoing debates on the legitimacy and clinical usefulness of this diagnosis. Our review provides further proof that fibromyalgia patients should be taken seriously, with particular focus on screening for suicidal ideation, prevention of accidents, and prevention and treatment of infections,” the researchers say.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
People who experience chronic pain and tiredness from fibromyalgia have an increased risk for all-cause mortality, a new analysis of evidence says.
The condition can lead people to be vulnerable to accidents, infections, and even suicide, according to the report published in RMD Open.
The researchers suggest that care providers monitor physical and mental health to lower the dangers.
People with fibromyalgia often have other health issues, including rheumatic, gut, neurological, and mental health disorders, according to The BMJ. More and more people are being diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The cause of the illness remains unclear.
The researchers looked at eight studies published between 1999 and 2020 and pooled results from six of them. The studies involved a total of 188,000 adults.
The analysis of the data revealed that fibromyalgia was linked to a 27% greater risk of death from all causes.
Those with fibromyalgia were at a 44% greater risk of infections, including pneumonia. Their suicide risk was more than three times higher.
The greater risk of all-cause death could result from fatigue, poor sleep, and concentration problems, The BMJ said.
The patients had a 12% lower risk of dying from cancer, the analysis found. This could be because they tend to make more visits to health care professionals, the authors suggest.
“Fibromyalgia is often called an ‘imaginary condition,’ with ongoing debates on the legitimacy and clinical usefulness of this diagnosis. Our review provides further proof that fibromyalgia patients should be taken seriously, with particular focus on screening for suicidal ideation, prevention of accidents, and prevention and treatment of infections,” the researchers say.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Millions who had COVID-19 still don’t have sense of smell, taste
Almost 36 million people were diagnosed in 2021, and 60% of them reported accompanying losses in smell or taste, according to the study by Mass Eye and Ear, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published in The Laryngoscope.
Most people fully regained the senses, but about 24% didn’t get smell back completely, and more than 3% had no recovery, the researchers reported. The numbers were similar among those who lost the sense of taste, they added.
“Many people never fully recovered,” Neil Bhattacharyya, MD, professor of otolaryngology and one of the study’s authors, told Fortune, estimating that up to 6 million people still have lingering symptoms. “If you lost your sense of smell, did you get it back? There’s about a one in four chance you didn’t. That’s terrible.”
Researchers looked at the records of 30,000 adults who had COVID-19 in 2021. They reported that patients who suffered more severe cases were less likely to regain some or all their senses.
Some patients said they lost appetite because they couldn’t smell food. There’s concern, too, about losing the ability to smell gas and smoke, spoiled food, and dirty diapers.
People with symptoms should see their doctors, Dr. Bhattacharyya said. The symptoms might be caused by something other than lingering COVID-19 effects and might be treatable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Almost 36 million people were diagnosed in 2021, and 60% of them reported accompanying losses in smell or taste, according to the study by Mass Eye and Ear, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published in The Laryngoscope.
Most people fully regained the senses, but about 24% didn’t get smell back completely, and more than 3% had no recovery, the researchers reported. The numbers were similar among those who lost the sense of taste, they added.
“Many people never fully recovered,” Neil Bhattacharyya, MD, professor of otolaryngology and one of the study’s authors, told Fortune, estimating that up to 6 million people still have lingering symptoms. “If you lost your sense of smell, did you get it back? There’s about a one in four chance you didn’t. That’s terrible.”
Researchers looked at the records of 30,000 adults who had COVID-19 in 2021. They reported that patients who suffered more severe cases were less likely to regain some or all their senses.
Some patients said they lost appetite because they couldn’t smell food. There’s concern, too, about losing the ability to smell gas and smoke, spoiled food, and dirty diapers.
People with symptoms should see their doctors, Dr. Bhattacharyya said. The symptoms might be caused by something other than lingering COVID-19 effects and might be treatable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Almost 36 million people were diagnosed in 2021, and 60% of them reported accompanying losses in smell or taste, according to the study by Mass Eye and Ear, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published in The Laryngoscope.
Most people fully regained the senses, but about 24% didn’t get smell back completely, and more than 3% had no recovery, the researchers reported. The numbers were similar among those who lost the sense of taste, they added.
“Many people never fully recovered,” Neil Bhattacharyya, MD, professor of otolaryngology and one of the study’s authors, told Fortune, estimating that up to 6 million people still have lingering symptoms. “If you lost your sense of smell, did you get it back? There’s about a one in four chance you didn’t. That’s terrible.”
Researchers looked at the records of 30,000 adults who had COVID-19 in 2021. They reported that patients who suffered more severe cases were less likely to regain some or all their senses.
Some patients said they lost appetite because they couldn’t smell food. There’s concern, too, about losing the ability to smell gas and smoke, spoiled food, and dirty diapers.
People with symptoms should see their doctors, Dr. Bhattacharyya said. The symptoms might be caused by something other than lingering COVID-19 effects and might be treatable.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE LARYNGOSCOPE
Study finds COVID-19 boosters don’t increase miscarriage risk
COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.
Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.
They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.
The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.
“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.
The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”
The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.
Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.
They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.
The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.
“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.
The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”
The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 boosters are not linked to an increased chance of miscarriage, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.
Researchers were seeking to learn whether a booster in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion.
They examined more than 100,000 pregnancies at 6-19 weeks from eight health systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). They found that receiving a COVID-19 booster shot in a 28-day or 42-day exposure window did not increase the chances of miscarriage.
The VSD is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Safety Office and large health care systems. The “observational, case-control, surveillance study” was conducted from Nov. 1, 2021, to June 12, 2022.
“COVID infection during pregnancy increases risk of poor outcomes, yet many people who are pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant are hesitant to get a booster dose because of questions about safety,” said Elyse Kharbanda, MD, senior investigator at HealthPartners Institute and lead author of the study in a press release.
The University of Minnesota reported that “previous studies have shown COIVD-19 primary vaccination is safe in pregnancy and not associated with an increased risk for miscarriage. Several studies have also shown COVID-19 can be more severe in pregnancy and lead to worse outcomes for the mother.”
The study was funded by the CDC. Five study authors reported conflicts of interest with Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, and Sanofi Pasteur.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Weight-control surgery surging among children and teens, report says
.
Metabolic and bariatric surgeries have been on the rise among youths aged 10 to 19 since 2016, the report says. From 2020 to 2021, the number shot up by 19%.
The procedures change parts of the digestive system, helping the person feel more full and less hungry – thereby contributing to weight loss.
Among American children, obesity affects 20%, or 15 million people between 2 and 19. In addition, more are becoming afflicted with severe obesity, with a body mass index 20% higher than the marker for obesity.
“Behavioral lifestyle interventions alone do not result in long-term, clinically important weight loss among youth with severe obesity,” the study’s authors wrote. “Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the treatment of obesity this year for the first time in 15 years, CNN reported. “The new guidelines urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes and, for the first time, recommend surgery and medications for some young people,” CNN wrote.
Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of childhood obesity, the CDC says. Use of surgeries rose 42% among Black youths and 53% among Hispanic youths between 2020 and 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
.
Metabolic and bariatric surgeries have been on the rise among youths aged 10 to 19 since 2016, the report says. From 2020 to 2021, the number shot up by 19%.
The procedures change parts of the digestive system, helping the person feel more full and less hungry – thereby contributing to weight loss.
Among American children, obesity affects 20%, or 15 million people between 2 and 19. In addition, more are becoming afflicted with severe obesity, with a body mass index 20% higher than the marker for obesity.
“Behavioral lifestyle interventions alone do not result in long-term, clinically important weight loss among youth with severe obesity,” the study’s authors wrote. “Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the treatment of obesity this year for the first time in 15 years, CNN reported. “The new guidelines urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes and, for the first time, recommend surgery and medications for some young people,” CNN wrote.
Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of childhood obesity, the CDC says. Use of surgeries rose 42% among Black youths and 53% among Hispanic youths between 2020 and 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
.
Metabolic and bariatric surgeries have been on the rise among youths aged 10 to 19 since 2016, the report says. From 2020 to 2021, the number shot up by 19%.
The procedures change parts of the digestive system, helping the person feel more full and less hungry – thereby contributing to weight loss.
Among American children, obesity affects 20%, or 15 million people between 2 and 19. In addition, more are becoming afflicted with severe obesity, with a body mass index 20% higher than the marker for obesity.
“Behavioral lifestyle interventions alone do not result in long-term, clinically important weight loss among youth with severe obesity,” the study’s authors wrote. “Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guidelines for the treatment of obesity this year for the first time in 15 years, CNN reported. “The new guidelines urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes and, for the first time, recommend surgery and medications for some young people,” CNN wrote.
Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of childhood obesity, the CDC says. Use of surgeries rose 42% among Black youths and 53% among Hispanic youths between 2020 and 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Researchers locate signals in brain related to chronic pain
a new study in Nature Neuroscience concluded.
The researchers used the devices on four patients who had felt endless nerve pain for more than a year. The devices recorded several times a day, which could pave “the way for implanted devices to one day predict pain signals or even short-circuit them,” The New York Times reported.
The study says the pain “was associated with electrical fluctuations in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation, self-evaluation, and decision-making,” The Times reported. “The research suggests that such patterns of brain activity could serve as biomarkers to guide diagnosis and treatment for millions of people with shooting or burning chronic pain linked to a damaged nervous system.”
Ajay Wasan, MD, and a pain specialist at the University of Pittsburgh who was not involved in the study praised it to the Times.
“The study really advances a whole generation of research that has shown that the functioning of the brain is really important to processing and perceiving pain,” he said.
Chronic pain is defined as persistent or recurring and lasting more than three months. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 20% of Americans experience it. It has been linked with depression, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, suicide, and substance use.
Yet, the study’s authors noted, “pain severity is often measured through subjective report, while objective biomarkers that may guide diagnosis and treatment are lacking.”
Medtronic provided devices for the study. The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
a new study in Nature Neuroscience concluded.
The researchers used the devices on four patients who had felt endless nerve pain for more than a year. The devices recorded several times a day, which could pave “the way for implanted devices to one day predict pain signals or even short-circuit them,” The New York Times reported.
The study says the pain “was associated with electrical fluctuations in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation, self-evaluation, and decision-making,” The Times reported. “The research suggests that such patterns of brain activity could serve as biomarkers to guide diagnosis and treatment for millions of people with shooting or burning chronic pain linked to a damaged nervous system.”
Ajay Wasan, MD, and a pain specialist at the University of Pittsburgh who was not involved in the study praised it to the Times.
“The study really advances a whole generation of research that has shown that the functioning of the brain is really important to processing and perceiving pain,” he said.
Chronic pain is defined as persistent or recurring and lasting more than three months. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 20% of Americans experience it. It has been linked with depression, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, suicide, and substance use.
Yet, the study’s authors noted, “pain severity is often measured through subjective report, while objective biomarkers that may guide diagnosis and treatment are lacking.”
Medtronic provided devices for the study. The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
a new study in Nature Neuroscience concluded.
The researchers used the devices on four patients who had felt endless nerve pain for more than a year. The devices recorded several times a day, which could pave “the way for implanted devices to one day predict pain signals or even short-circuit them,” The New York Times reported.
The study says the pain “was associated with electrical fluctuations in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation, self-evaluation, and decision-making,” The Times reported. “The research suggests that such patterns of brain activity could serve as biomarkers to guide diagnosis and treatment for millions of people with shooting or burning chronic pain linked to a damaged nervous system.”
Ajay Wasan, MD, and a pain specialist at the University of Pittsburgh who was not involved in the study praised it to the Times.
“The study really advances a whole generation of research that has shown that the functioning of the brain is really important to processing and perceiving pain,” he said.
Chronic pain is defined as persistent or recurring and lasting more than three months. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 20% of Americans experience it. It has been linked with depression, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, suicide, and substance use.
Yet, the study’s authors noted, “pain severity is often measured through subjective report, while objective biomarkers that may guide diagnosis and treatment are lacking.”
Medtronic provided devices for the study. The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE NEUROSCIENCE
Study says casual pot use harmful to teens
Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.
The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police.
“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.
Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”
The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.
“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”
Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.
NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.
The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police.
“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.
Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”
The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.
“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”
Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.
NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Teenagers who use cannabis recreationally are two to three times more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts than those who don’t use it. And teens who have cannabis use disorder – which means they can’t stop using it despite health and social problems – are four times more likely to have those same thoughts and feelings.
The study was published in JAMA. It looked at information from 68,000 teens in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
Marijuana use was also linked to other issues including not doing well in school, skipping school, and getting in trouble with the police.
“Kids, year by year, have been moving towards a view that marijuana is safe and benign – that’s factually incorrect,” lead author of the study, Ryan Sultan, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, told Yahoo Life.
Dr. Sultan said he was surprised that recreational users had a much higher risk of mental health issues. “We typically think of recreational use as not being a concerning behavior.”
The study did not seek to explain the link between mental health problems and cannabis use.
“The more you use it, the more it negatively affects your thinking. That’s increasing the likelihood of depression and more suicidal thoughts,” Dr. Sultan said. “It’s feedback that spirals downward and gets to a place that really concerns us as child psychiatrists.”
Dr. Sultan said parents should talk to their children about marijuana use, depression, and anxiety.
NIDA and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provided funding for the study. One coauthor reported receiving grants and personal fees from several medical and sports organizations. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA
Review supports continued mask-wearing in health care visits
A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.
Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.
The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.
Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.
“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.
Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.
The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.
The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.
Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.
The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.
Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.
“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.
Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.
The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.
The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.
Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.
The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.
Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.
“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.
Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.
The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.
The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Trial shows some relief for long COVID fatigue, researchers say
In a phase 2 clinical trial of a potential treatment for fatigue associated with long COVID-19, people who received the medicine reported positive results over those receiving a placebo.
The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Oxford, England, and published in eClinical Medicine.
It was one of the first randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial for a possible treatment for long COVID, according to a press release from the university.
the university reported.
Forty-one people participated. They had fatigue for 18 months beforehand. All completed the study, and none reported serious side effects.
AXA1125 was developed by U.S. pharmaceutical company Axcella Therapeutics.
“Potential causes [of long COVID fatigue] include reduced mitochondrial function and cellular bioenergetics,” the researchers reported.
“AXA1125 was tested in long COVID fatigue as previous data from Axcella showed effects on cellular energetics and inflammation. Emerging data on long COVID suggests that the virus targets the mitochondrial, which are essential to normal energy generation and control of inflammation,” the university noted in its press release. “AXA1125 may improve energy generation and reduce the amount of inflammation in the body.”
The study’s authors wrote that AXA1125 was tied to a “significant reduction in 28-day Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire score relative to placebo.” They said participants who reported less fatigue also had better mitochondrial health and walked farther in a 6-minute test.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
In a phase 2 clinical trial of a potential treatment for fatigue associated with long COVID-19, people who received the medicine reported positive results over those receiving a placebo.
The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Oxford, England, and published in eClinical Medicine.
It was one of the first randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial for a possible treatment for long COVID, according to a press release from the university.
the university reported.
Forty-one people participated. They had fatigue for 18 months beforehand. All completed the study, and none reported serious side effects.
AXA1125 was developed by U.S. pharmaceutical company Axcella Therapeutics.
“Potential causes [of long COVID fatigue] include reduced mitochondrial function and cellular bioenergetics,” the researchers reported.
“AXA1125 was tested in long COVID fatigue as previous data from Axcella showed effects on cellular energetics and inflammation. Emerging data on long COVID suggests that the virus targets the mitochondrial, which are essential to normal energy generation and control of inflammation,” the university noted in its press release. “AXA1125 may improve energy generation and reduce the amount of inflammation in the body.”
The study’s authors wrote that AXA1125 was tied to a “significant reduction in 28-day Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire score relative to placebo.” They said participants who reported less fatigue also had better mitochondrial health and walked farther in a 6-minute test.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
In a phase 2 clinical trial of a potential treatment for fatigue associated with long COVID-19, people who received the medicine reported positive results over those receiving a placebo.
The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Oxford, England, and published in eClinical Medicine.
It was one of the first randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial for a possible treatment for long COVID, according to a press release from the university.
the university reported.
Forty-one people participated. They had fatigue for 18 months beforehand. All completed the study, and none reported serious side effects.
AXA1125 was developed by U.S. pharmaceutical company Axcella Therapeutics.
“Potential causes [of long COVID fatigue] include reduced mitochondrial function and cellular bioenergetics,” the researchers reported.
“AXA1125 was tested in long COVID fatigue as previous data from Axcella showed effects on cellular energetics and inflammation. Emerging data on long COVID suggests that the virus targets the mitochondrial, which are essential to normal energy generation and control of inflammation,” the university noted in its press release. “AXA1125 may improve energy generation and reduce the amount of inflammation in the body.”
The study’s authors wrote that AXA1125 was tied to a “significant reduction in 28-day Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire score relative to placebo.” They said participants who reported less fatigue also had better mitochondrial health and walked farther in a 6-minute test.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Negative expectations of COVID shots may amplify side effects
It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others.
In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.
Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.
The research was published in JAMA Network Open.
“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”
More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.
The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others.
In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.
Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.
The research was published in JAMA Network Open.
“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”
More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.
The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others.
In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.
Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.
The research was published in JAMA Network Open.
“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”
More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.
The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Algorithm can spot signs of autism in babies, study says
a study from Duke University, Durham, N.C., says.
,“We can use the first 30 days of a child’s health care experience to say, ‘This child is really at risk,’ ” said David Mandell, DSc, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in USA Today. He was not involved in the research.
Researchers analyzed electronic medical records of 45,000 children treated in the Duke University Health System as infants between 2006 and 2020. They created an algorithm that could predict which babies later developed autism. These babies were more likely to have been to an ophthalmologist or neurologist; had stomach or gastrointestinal issues; or received physical therapy.
“A huge number of factors across the infant’s entire health profile” went into the models, said study coauthor Matthew Engelhard, MD, an assistant professor of biostatistics and bioinformatics at Duke University. “Each one of those factors contributes incrementally.”
USA Today said the team “paid particular attention to how the model performed in groups of children who are often overlooked by traditional screening methods and, therefore, miss the advantages of early diagnosis, including girls, children of color, and children with combined diagnoses of autism and ADHD,” according to Dr. Engelhard.
The study could lead to the algorithm being used with other tools to diagnose and help children earlier, said study author Geraldine Dawson, PhD, who directs the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development.
“We need to be thinking about autism as not only a behavioral health condition but also a condition that involves physical health,” she said. “This is one way to take advantage of that information: in doing a better job at early detection.”
Autism is a complicated condition that includes communication and behavior challenges involving a range of symptoms and skills. It can be minor or a disability that requires full-time care.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
a study from Duke University, Durham, N.C., says.
,“We can use the first 30 days of a child’s health care experience to say, ‘This child is really at risk,’ ” said David Mandell, DSc, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in USA Today. He was not involved in the research.
Researchers analyzed electronic medical records of 45,000 children treated in the Duke University Health System as infants between 2006 and 2020. They created an algorithm that could predict which babies later developed autism. These babies were more likely to have been to an ophthalmologist or neurologist; had stomach or gastrointestinal issues; or received physical therapy.
“A huge number of factors across the infant’s entire health profile” went into the models, said study coauthor Matthew Engelhard, MD, an assistant professor of biostatistics and bioinformatics at Duke University. “Each one of those factors contributes incrementally.”
USA Today said the team “paid particular attention to how the model performed in groups of children who are often overlooked by traditional screening methods and, therefore, miss the advantages of early diagnosis, including girls, children of color, and children with combined diagnoses of autism and ADHD,” according to Dr. Engelhard.
The study could lead to the algorithm being used with other tools to diagnose and help children earlier, said study author Geraldine Dawson, PhD, who directs the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development.
“We need to be thinking about autism as not only a behavioral health condition but also a condition that involves physical health,” she said. “This is one way to take advantage of that information: in doing a better job at early detection.”
Autism is a complicated condition that includes communication and behavior challenges involving a range of symptoms and skills. It can be minor or a disability that requires full-time care.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
a study from Duke University, Durham, N.C., says.
,“We can use the first 30 days of a child’s health care experience to say, ‘This child is really at risk,’ ” said David Mandell, DSc, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in USA Today. He was not involved in the research.
Researchers analyzed electronic medical records of 45,000 children treated in the Duke University Health System as infants between 2006 and 2020. They created an algorithm that could predict which babies later developed autism. These babies were more likely to have been to an ophthalmologist or neurologist; had stomach or gastrointestinal issues; or received physical therapy.
“A huge number of factors across the infant’s entire health profile” went into the models, said study coauthor Matthew Engelhard, MD, an assistant professor of biostatistics and bioinformatics at Duke University. “Each one of those factors contributes incrementally.”
USA Today said the team “paid particular attention to how the model performed in groups of children who are often overlooked by traditional screening methods and, therefore, miss the advantages of early diagnosis, including girls, children of color, and children with combined diagnoses of autism and ADHD,” according to Dr. Engelhard.
The study could lead to the algorithm being used with other tools to diagnose and help children earlier, said study author Geraldine Dawson, PhD, who directs the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development.
“We need to be thinking about autism as not only a behavioral health condition but also a condition that involves physical health,” she said. “This is one way to take advantage of that information: in doing a better job at early detection.”
Autism is a complicated condition that includes communication and behavior challenges involving a range of symptoms and skills. It can be minor or a disability that requires full-time care.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN