Clinical Psychiatry News

A new study provides more evidence that sildenafil (Viagra), which is used to treat erectile dsysfuntion (ED), may help protect against Alzheimer’s disease.

The large real-world analysis of patient data from two databases showed a 30%-54% reduced prevalence in Alzheimer’s disease among patients who took sildenafil (Viagra) than those who did not, after adjusting for potential confounding factors.

This observation was further supported by mechanistic studies showing decreased neurotoxic protein levels in brain cells exposed to the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i).

“Our findings provide further weight to repurposing this existing FDA-approved drug as a novel treatment for Alzheimer’s, which is in great need of new therapies,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, who led the research, said in a news release. 

“We used artificial intelligence to integrate data across multiple domains which all indicated sildenafil’s potential against this devastating neurological disease,” Dr. Cheng noted. 

The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Neuroprotective?

Using real-world patient data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database (2012-2017) and the Clinformatics database (2007-2020), the researchers conducted propensity score-stratified analyses after adjusting for gender, age, race, and comorbidities. 

They searched for all individuals with pharmacy claims for sildenafil or four comparator drugs — bumetanide, furosemide, spironolactone, and nifedipine. Results showed that sildenafil use was associated with reduced likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the control drugs. 

For example, sildenafil use was associated with a 54% reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in MarketScan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66) and a 30% reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in Clinformatics (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00) compared with spironolactone.

The findings support a study published earlier this year that found a potential protective effect of PDE5i treatment on Alzheimer’s disease risk.

However, this research and the current study are contradicted by another paper published in Brain Communications in late 2022 which showed no such link between ED meds and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk.

The investigators also found that sildenafil reduces tau hyperphosphorylation (pTau181 and pTau205) in a dose-dependent manner in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patient induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons. 

They further demonstrated through RNA-sequencing data analysis that sildenafil specifically targets Alzheimer’s disease related genes and pathobiological pathways, mechanistically supporting the beneficial effect of sildenafil in Alzheimer’s disease.

“We believe our findings provide the evidence needed for clinical trials to further examine the potential effectiveness of sildenafil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Cheng said. 

The study was primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Dr. Cheng had no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study provides more evidence that sildenafil (Viagra), which is used to treat erectile dsysfuntion (ED), may help protect against Alzheimer’s disease.

The large real-world analysis of patient data from two databases showed a 30%-54% reduced prevalence in Alzheimer’s disease among patients who took sildenafil (Viagra) than those who did not, after adjusting for potential confounding factors.

This observation was further supported by mechanistic studies showing decreased neurotoxic protein levels in brain cells exposed to the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i).

“Our findings provide further weight to repurposing this existing FDA-approved drug as a novel treatment for Alzheimer’s, which is in great need of new therapies,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, who led the research, said in a news release. 

“We used artificial intelligence to integrate data across multiple domains which all indicated sildenafil’s potential against this devastating neurological disease,” Dr. Cheng noted. 

The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Neuroprotective?

Using real-world patient data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database (2012-2017) and the Clinformatics database (2007-2020), the researchers conducted propensity score-stratified analyses after adjusting for gender, age, race, and comorbidities. 

They searched for all individuals with pharmacy claims for sildenafil or four comparator drugs — bumetanide, furosemide, spironolactone, and nifedipine. Results showed that sildenafil use was associated with reduced likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the control drugs. 

For example, sildenafil use was associated with a 54% reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in MarketScan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66) and a 30% reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in Clinformatics (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00) compared with spironolactone.

The findings support a study published earlier this year that found a potential protective effect of PDE5i treatment on Alzheimer’s disease risk.

However, this research and the current study are contradicted by another paper published in Brain Communications in late 2022 which showed no such link between ED meds and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk.

The investigators also found that sildenafil reduces tau hyperphosphorylation (pTau181 and pTau205) in a dose-dependent manner in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patient induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons. 

They further demonstrated through RNA-sequencing data analysis that sildenafil specifically targets Alzheimer’s disease related genes and pathobiological pathways, mechanistically supporting the beneficial effect of sildenafil in Alzheimer’s disease.

“We believe our findings provide the evidence needed for clinical trials to further examine the potential effectiveness of sildenafil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Cheng said. 

The study was primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Dr. Cheng had no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study provides more evidence that sildenafil (Viagra), which is used to treat erectile dsysfuntion (ED), may help protect against Alzheimer’s disease.

The large real-world analysis of patient data from two databases showed a 30%-54% reduced prevalence in Alzheimer’s disease among patients who took sildenafil (Viagra) than those who did not, after adjusting for potential confounding factors.

This observation was further supported by mechanistic studies showing decreased neurotoxic protein levels in brain cells exposed to the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i).

“Our findings provide further weight to repurposing this existing FDA-approved drug as a novel treatment for Alzheimer’s, which is in great need of new therapies,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, who led the research, said in a news release. 

“We used artificial intelligence to integrate data across multiple domains which all indicated sildenafil’s potential against this devastating neurological disease,” Dr. Cheng noted. 

The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Neuroprotective?

Using real-world patient data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database (2012-2017) and the Clinformatics database (2007-2020), the researchers conducted propensity score-stratified analyses after adjusting for gender, age, race, and comorbidities. 

They searched for all individuals with pharmacy claims for sildenafil or four comparator drugs — bumetanide, furosemide, spironolactone, and nifedipine. Results showed that sildenafil use was associated with reduced likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the control drugs. 

For example, sildenafil use was associated with a 54% reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in MarketScan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66) and a 30% reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in Clinformatics (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00) compared with spironolactone.

The findings support a study published earlier this year that found a potential protective effect of PDE5i treatment on Alzheimer’s disease risk.

However, this research and the current study are contradicted by another paper published in Brain Communications in late 2022 which showed no such link between ED meds and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk.

The investigators also found that sildenafil reduces tau hyperphosphorylation (pTau181 and pTau205) in a dose-dependent manner in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patient induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons. 

They further demonstrated through RNA-sequencing data analysis that sildenafil specifically targets Alzheimer’s disease related genes and pathobiological pathways, mechanistically supporting the beneficial effect of sildenafil in Alzheimer’s disease.

“We believe our findings provide the evidence needed for clinical trials to further examine the potential effectiveness of sildenafil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Cheng said. 

The study was primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Dr. Cheng had no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough designation to an LSD-based treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on promising topline data from a phase 2b clinical trial. Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc is developing the treatment — MM120 (lysergide d-tartrate).

In a news release, the company reports that a single oral dose of MM120 met its key secondary endpoint, maintaining “clinically and statistically significant” reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks with a 65% clinical response rate and 48% clinical remission rate.

The company previously announced statistically significant improvements on the HAM-A compared with placebo at 4 weeks, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

“I’ve conducted clinical research studies in psychiatry for over two decades and have seen studies of many drugs under development for the treatment of anxiety. That MM120 exhibited rapid and robust efficacy, solidly sustained for 12 weeks after a single dose, is truly remarkable,” study investigator David Feifel, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Kadima Neuropsychiatry Institute in La Jolla, California, said in the news release.

“These results suggest the potential MM120 has in the treatment of anxiety, and those of us who struggle every day to alleviate anxiety in our patients look forward to seeing results from future phase 3 trials,” Dr. Feifel added.

MM120 was administered as a single dose in a monitored clinical setting with no additional therapeutic intervention. Prior to treatment with MM120, study participants were clinically tapered and then washed out from any anxiolytic or antidepressant treatments and did not receive any form of study-related psychotherapy for the duration of their participation in the study.

MM120 100 µg — the dose that demonstrated optimal clinical activity — produced a 7.7-point improvement over placebo at week 12 (P < .003; Cohen’s d = 0.81), with a 65% clinical response rate and a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12.

Also at week 12, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scores on average improved from 4.8 to 2.2 in the 100-µg dose group, representing a two-category shift from ‘markedly ill’ to ‘borderline ill’ at week 12 (P < .004), the company reported.

Improvement was noted as early as study day 2, and durable with further improvements observed in mean HAM-A or CGI-S scores between 4 and 12 weeks.

MM120 was generally well-tolerated with most adverse events rated as mild to moderate and transient and occurred on the day of administration day, in line with the expected acute effects of the study drug.

The most common adverse events on dosing day included illusion, hallucinations, euphoric mood, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headache, paresthesia, dizziness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, feeling abnormal, mydriasis, and hyperhidrosis.

The company plans to hold an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first half of 2024 and start phase 3 testing in the second half of 2024.

“The FDA’s decision to designate MM120 as a breakthrough therapy for GAD and the durability data from our phase 2b study provide further validation of the important potential role this treatment can play in addressing the huge unmet need among individuals living with GAD,” Robert Barrow, director and CEO of MindMed said in the release.

The primary data analyses from the trial will be presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in May.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough designation to an LSD-based treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on promising topline data from a phase 2b clinical trial. Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc is developing the treatment — MM120 (lysergide d-tartrate).

In a news release, the company reports that a single oral dose of MM120 met its key secondary endpoint, maintaining “clinically and statistically significant” reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks with a 65% clinical response rate and 48% clinical remission rate.

The company previously announced statistically significant improvements on the HAM-A compared with placebo at 4 weeks, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

“I’ve conducted clinical research studies in psychiatry for over two decades and have seen studies of many drugs under development for the treatment of anxiety. That MM120 exhibited rapid and robust efficacy, solidly sustained for 12 weeks after a single dose, is truly remarkable,” study investigator David Feifel, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Kadima Neuropsychiatry Institute in La Jolla, California, said in the news release.

“These results suggest the potential MM120 has in the treatment of anxiety, and those of us who struggle every day to alleviate anxiety in our patients look forward to seeing results from future phase 3 trials,” Dr. Feifel added.

MM120 was administered as a single dose in a monitored clinical setting with no additional therapeutic intervention. Prior to treatment with MM120, study participants were clinically tapered and then washed out from any anxiolytic or antidepressant treatments and did not receive any form of study-related psychotherapy for the duration of their participation in the study.

MM120 100 µg — the dose that demonstrated optimal clinical activity — produced a 7.7-point improvement over placebo at week 12 (P < .003; Cohen’s d = 0.81), with a 65% clinical response rate and a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12.

Also at week 12, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scores on average improved from 4.8 to 2.2 in the 100-µg dose group, representing a two-category shift from ‘markedly ill’ to ‘borderline ill’ at week 12 (P < .004), the company reported.

Improvement was noted as early as study day 2, and durable with further improvements observed in mean HAM-A or CGI-S scores between 4 and 12 weeks.

MM120 was generally well-tolerated with most adverse events rated as mild to moderate and transient and occurred on the day of administration day, in line with the expected acute effects of the study drug.

The most common adverse events on dosing day included illusion, hallucinations, euphoric mood, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headache, paresthesia, dizziness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, feeling abnormal, mydriasis, and hyperhidrosis.

The company plans to hold an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first half of 2024 and start phase 3 testing in the second half of 2024.

“The FDA’s decision to designate MM120 as a breakthrough therapy for GAD and the durability data from our phase 2b study provide further validation of the important potential role this treatment can play in addressing the huge unmet need among individuals living with GAD,” Robert Barrow, director and CEO of MindMed said in the release.

The primary data analyses from the trial will be presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in May.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough designation to an LSD-based treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on promising topline data from a phase 2b clinical trial. Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc is developing the treatment — MM120 (lysergide d-tartrate).

In a news release, the company reports that a single oral dose of MM120 met its key secondary endpoint, maintaining “clinically and statistically significant” reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks with a 65% clinical response rate and 48% clinical remission rate.

The company previously announced statistically significant improvements on the HAM-A compared with placebo at 4 weeks, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

“I’ve conducted clinical research studies in psychiatry for over two decades and have seen studies of many drugs under development for the treatment of anxiety. That MM120 exhibited rapid and robust efficacy, solidly sustained for 12 weeks after a single dose, is truly remarkable,” study investigator David Feifel, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Kadima Neuropsychiatry Institute in La Jolla, California, said in the news release.

“These results suggest the potential MM120 has in the treatment of anxiety, and those of us who struggle every day to alleviate anxiety in our patients look forward to seeing results from future phase 3 trials,” Dr. Feifel added.

MM120 was administered as a single dose in a monitored clinical setting with no additional therapeutic intervention. Prior to treatment with MM120, study participants were clinically tapered and then washed out from any anxiolytic or antidepressant treatments and did not receive any form of study-related psychotherapy for the duration of their participation in the study.

MM120 100 µg — the dose that demonstrated optimal clinical activity — produced a 7.7-point improvement over placebo at week 12 (P < .003; Cohen’s d = 0.81), with a 65% clinical response rate and a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12.

Also at week 12, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scores on average improved from 4.8 to 2.2 in the 100-µg dose group, representing a two-category shift from ‘markedly ill’ to ‘borderline ill’ at week 12 (P < .004), the company reported.

Improvement was noted as early as study day 2, and durable with further improvements observed in mean HAM-A or CGI-S scores between 4 and 12 weeks.

MM120 was generally well-tolerated with most adverse events rated as mild to moderate and transient and occurred on the day of administration day, in line with the expected acute effects of the study drug.

The most common adverse events on dosing day included illusion, hallucinations, euphoric mood, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headache, paresthesia, dizziness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, feeling abnormal, mydriasis, and hyperhidrosis.

The company plans to hold an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first half of 2024 and start phase 3 testing in the second half of 2024.

“The FDA’s decision to designate MM120 as a breakthrough therapy for GAD and the durability data from our phase 2b study provide further validation of the important potential role this treatment can play in addressing the huge unmet need among individuals living with GAD,” Robert Barrow, director and CEO of MindMed said in the release.

The primary data analyses from the trial will be presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in May.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognition and memory, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues vs their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, department of neurology, Boston Medical Center, told this news organization.

The findings will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2024 Annual Meeting on April 17.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase told this news organization.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in their latest statement on the topic, reported by this news organization, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognition and memory, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues vs their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, department of neurology, Boston Medical Center, told this news organization.

The findings will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2024 Annual Meeting on April 17.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase told this news organization.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in their latest statement on the topic, reported by this news organization, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognition and memory, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues vs their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, department of neurology, Boston Medical Center, told this news organization.

The findings will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2024 Annual Meeting on April 17.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase told this news organization.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in their latest statement on the topic, reported by this news organization, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While TikTok overflows with images of influencers making “adrenal cocktails” to combat what they call adrenal fatigue, the Endocrine Society says “no scientific proof exists to support adrenal fatigue as a true medical condition.”

Even before influencers began touting it on social media, a 2016 systematic review concluded that there is “no substantiation that adrenal fatigue” is an actual medical condition. Therefore, adrenal fatigue is still a myth.

Lynette Nieman, MD, Senior Investigator and Chief of the Endocrinology Consultation Service at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, concurs.

“There is no scientific evidence that adrenal fatigue exists or causes [general] fatigue, depression, or the many common symptoms that are said to result from this condition,” she told this news organization via email.

Still, the term has gained currency among not only social media influencers who blame it for everything from cortisol surges to estrogen imbalances but also functional and integrative medical practitioners as an explanation for chronic dysfunction related to stress. 
 

Adrenal Fatigue, Burnout, or Adrenal Insufficiency?

Rather than “adrenal fatigue,” Marcelo Campos, MD, a primary care doctor at Atrius Health, said he prefers the medical term “burnout.”

Use of “burnout” shifts attention to the brain’s role in stress-related chronic dysfunction rather than the adrenal glands, said Dr. Campos, who also teaches at Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

More specifically still, the focuses might shift to the stress-response via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis and its role in reducing levels of these cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate.

He points out that part of the reason for the misuse of the term adrenal fatigue arises from the fact that burnout is often only associated with work stress.

“Recently, the ICD-11 [International Classification of Diseases-11] recognized burnout as a disease but focused only on work stress as a cause. The truth is that people can be burned out for many other reasons,” said Dr. Campos.

The Endocrine Society notes on their webpage dedicated to the topic that “adrenal fatigue” as a term, relates to long-term mental, emotional, or physical stress.

“The problem is not the adrenals — it is the exposure to stress in the brain. The brain — only one organ — is responsible for 40% of energy consumption in the body. As you can imagine, if you are under constant stress, you run out of gas very quickly and cannot function well,” he explained.

Adrenal fatigue theory suggests that, under stress, the adrenal glands produce too many short bursts of cortisol resulting in overall reduced cortisol levels and a feeling of being drained.

“As with many other psychiatric diseases, we do not have a way to measure biomarkers in the brain. The testing for cortisol does not work because it fluctuates too much from time to time. So, it is not reliable or reproducible,” Dr. Campos said. 

This leads to the ongoing question of the best way to test and diagnose adrenal fatigue, whether it should be via blood, urine and/or saliva. And even if that is determined, there are still questions about the best time to test, how often, what the normal ranges are and how reliable the tests are.

While adrenal fatigue is not a recognized condition, adrenal insufficiency is medically recognized, resulting from an inability of the adrenal glands to make the life-essential hormones aldosterone and/or cortisol, with symptoms that include fatigue, belly pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and joint aches.

“Adrenal cocktails are not an effective treatment for adrenal insufficiency because they do not replace the missing hormones,” Dr. Nieman stated, pointing out that anyone with symptoms of adrenal insufficiency needs to see an endocrinologist.

Pratibha Rao, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, and medical director of the Adrenal Center at Cleveland Clinic, agreed, advising that if people continue to feel exhausted beyond their normal exertion, then they should get checked for signs of adrenal insufficiency.

“In primary adrenal insufficiency, you can actually start seeing darkening of the gums and of the skin on the palms of the hands or the soles of your feet. Sometimes people can feel dizzy or experience some loss of consciousness,” she said. “If it’s sudden and severe, you may crave salt or have extreme heat or cold intolerance.”

Recognizing and Managing Patient Frustration

The lack of formal diagnostic criteria and medical evidence, however, doesn’t mean that such symptoms as fatigue and depression don’t present, often causing significant distress for patients. While the symptoms might not be associated with the adrenal glands, they still need addressing — but how that is done is, in essence, a bone of contention.

Dr. Rao empathizes with the situation that many people, often young women, find themselves in.

“Patients are frustrated. They’ve gone to multiple doctors across the country, and they feel convinced they have adrenal fatigue, but no medical doctor has endorsed it. They end up coming to us with a cry that has so often gone unanswered.”

This issue also highlights that there are millions of people experiencing mental, emotional, and physical distress of unknown cause who seek help, many of whom believe it is related to their adrenal gland function.

But rather than turning to a social media cure, Dr. Rao stresses that people would benefit more from paying greater attention to following a healthy lifestyle than regularly consuming sugar-rich drinks claimed to offer a solution. Adrenal cocktails are energy-rich, frothy blends of orange juice, coconut milk, cream of tartar, and Himalayan salt.

“We truly are what we eat, and we are what we think,” she noted.

The body is a miraculous machine, but “we forget that it does need maintenance,” Dr. Rao said. “Up to age 30, the body is so forgiving with drugs, alcohol, or whatever insult we do to it, but after the third decade, slowly every cell starts to degenerate instead of growing. We start to see the ill or beneficial effects of lifestyle habits.” 

“We insult the body, and then we say, ‘oh, I have fatigue’ and seek a quick fix,” she added. “Everyone wants instant gratification.”

Dr. Rao cautioned that adrenal cocktails could be dangerous for someone who has other medical conditions.

“If someone has kidney disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or diabetes, for example, then adrenal cocktails are definitely not safe,” Dr. Rao said. “Loading up with potassium and sodium, which is found in high quantities in adrenal cocktails, will actually worsen any kidney damage, while consuming so much sugar will cause an unregulated rise in blood sugar and further damage in someone with diabetes.”

Dr. Rao also stressed that nonprofessional advice given on social media could take patient people down the wrong path with associated danger.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While TikTok overflows with images of influencers making “adrenal cocktails” to combat what they call adrenal fatigue, the Endocrine Society says “no scientific proof exists to support adrenal fatigue as a true medical condition.”

Even before influencers began touting it on social media, a 2016 systematic review concluded that there is “no substantiation that adrenal fatigue” is an actual medical condition. Therefore, adrenal fatigue is still a myth.

Lynette Nieman, MD, Senior Investigator and Chief of the Endocrinology Consultation Service at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, concurs.

“There is no scientific evidence that adrenal fatigue exists or causes [general] fatigue, depression, or the many common symptoms that are said to result from this condition,” she told this news organization via email.

Still, the term has gained currency among not only social media influencers who blame it for everything from cortisol surges to estrogen imbalances but also functional and integrative medical practitioners as an explanation for chronic dysfunction related to stress. 
 

Adrenal Fatigue, Burnout, or Adrenal Insufficiency?

Rather than “adrenal fatigue,” Marcelo Campos, MD, a primary care doctor at Atrius Health, said he prefers the medical term “burnout.”

Use of “burnout” shifts attention to the brain’s role in stress-related chronic dysfunction rather than the adrenal glands, said Dr. Campos, who also teaches at Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

More specifically still, the focuses might shift to the stress-response via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis and its role in reducing levels of these cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate.

He points out that part of the reason for the misuse of the term adrenal fatigue arises from the fact that burnout is often only associated with work stress.

“Recently, the ICD-11 [International Classification of Diseases-11] recognized burnout as a disease but focused only on work stress as a cause. The truth is that people can be burned out for many other reasons,” said Dr. Campos.

The Endocrine Society notes on their webpage dedicated to the topic that “adrenal fatigue” as a term, relates to long-term mental, emotional, or physical stress.

“The problem is not the adrenals — it is the exposure to stress in the brain. The brain — only one organ — is responsible for 40% of energy consumption in the body. As you can imagine, if you are under constant stress, you run out of gas very quickly and cannot function well,” he explained.

Adrenal fatigue theory suggests that, under stress, the adrenal glands produce too many short bursts of cortisol resulting in overall reduced cortisol levels and a feeling of being drained.

“As with many other psychiatric diseases, we do not have a way to measure biomarkers in the brain. The testing for cortisol does not work because it fluctuates too much from time to time. So, it is not reliable or reproducible,” Dr. Campos said. 

This leads to the ongoing question of the best way to test and diagnose adrenal fatigue, whether it should be via blood, urine and/or saliva. And even if that is determined, there are still questions about the best time to test, how often, what the normal ranges are and how reliable the tests are.

While adrenal fatigue is not a recognized condition, adrenal insufficiency is medically recognized, resulting from an inability of the adrenal glands to make the life-essential hormones aldosterone and/or cortisol, with symptoms that include fatigue, belly pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and joint aches.

“Adrenal cocktails are not an effective treatment for adrenal insufficiency because they do not replace the missing hormones,” Dr. Nieman stated, pointing out that anyone with symptoms of adrenal insufficiency needs to see an endocrinologist.

Pratibha Rao, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, and medical director of the Adrenal Center at Cleveland Clinic, agreed, advising that if people continue to feel exhausted beyond their normal exertion, then they should get checked for signs of adrenal insufficiency.

“In primary adrenal insufficiency, you can actually start seeing darkening of the gums and of the skin on the palms of the hands or the soles of your feet. Sometimes people can feel dizzy or experience some loss of consciousness,” she said. “If it’s sudden and severe, you may crave salt or have extreme heat or cold intolerance.”

Recognizing and Managing Patient Frustration

The lack of formal diagnostic criteria and medical evidence, however, doesn’t mean that such symptoms as fatigue and depression don’t present, often causing significant distress for patients. While the symptoms might not be associated with the adrenal glands, they still need addressing — but how that is done is, in essence, a bone of contention.

Dr. Rao empathizes with the situation that many people, often young women, find themselves in.

“Patients are frustrated. They’ve gone to multiple doctors across the country, and they feel convinced they have adrenal fatigue, but no medical doctor has endorsed it. They end up coming to us with a cry that has so often gone unanswered.”

This issue also highlights that there are millions of people experiencing mental, emotional, and physical distress of unknown cause who seek help, many of whom believe it is related to their adrenal gland function.

But rather than turning to a social media cure, Dr. Rao stresses that people would benefit more from paying greater attention to following a healthy lifestyle than regularly consuming sugar-rich drinks claimed to offer a solution. Adrenal cocktails are energy-rich, frothy blends of orange juice, coconut milk, cream of tartar, and Himalayan salt.

“We truly are what we eat, and we are what we think,” she noted.

The body is a miraculous machine, but “we forget that it does need maintenance,” Dr. Rao said. “Up to age 30, the body is so forgiving with drugs, alcohol, or whatever insult we do to it, but after the third decade, slowly every cell starts to degenerate instead of growing. We start to see the ill or beneficial effects of lifestyle habits.” 

“We insult the body, and then we say, ‘oh, I have fatigue’ and seek a quick fix,” she added. “Everyone wants instant gratification.”

Dr. Rao cautioned that adrenal cocktails could be dangerous for someone who has other medical conditions.

“If someone has kidney disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or diabetes, for example, then adrenal cocktails are definitely not safe,” Dr. Rao said. “Loading up with potassium and sodium, which is found in high quantities in adrenal cocktails, will actually worsen any kidney damage, while consuming so much sugar will cause an unregulated rise in blood sugar and further damage in someone with diabetes.”

Dr. Rao also stressed that nonprofessional advice given on social media could take patient people down the wrong path with associated danger.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While TikTok overflows with images of influencers making “adrenal cocktails” to combat what they call adrenal fatigue, the Endocrine Society says “no scientific proof exists to support adrenal fatigue as a true medical condition.”

Even before influencers began touting it on social media, a 2016 systematic review concluded that there is “no substantiation that adrenal fatigue” is an actual medical condition. Therefore, adrenal fatigue is still a myth.

Lynette Nieman, MD, Senior Investigator and Chief of the Endocrinology Consultation Service at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, concurs.

“There is no scientific evidence that adrenal fatigue exists or causes [general] fatigue, depression, or the many common symptoms that are said to result from this condition,” she told this news organization via email.

Still, the term has gained currency among not only social media influencers who blame it for everything from cortisol surges to estrogen imbalances but also functional and integrative medical practitioners as an explanation for chronic dysfunction related to stress. 
 

Adrenal Fatigue, Burnout, or Adrenal Insufficiency?

Rather than “adrenal fatigue,” Marcelo Campos, MD, a primary care doctor at Atrius Health, said he prefers the medical term “burnout.”

Use of “burnout” shifts attention to the brain’s role in stress-related chronic dysfunction rather than the adrenal glands, said Dr. Campos, who also teaches at Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

More specifically still, the focuses might shift to the stress-response via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis and its role in reducing levels of these cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate.

He points out that part of the reason for the misuse of the term adrenal fatigue arises from the fact that burnout is often only associated with work stress.

“Recently, the ICD-11 [International Classification of Diseases-11] recognized burnout as a disease but focused only on work stress as a cause. The truth is that people can be burned out for many other reasons,” said Dr. Campos.

The Endocrine Society notes on their webpage dedicated to the topic that “adrenal fatigue” as a term, relates to long-term mental, emotional, or physical stress.

“The problem is not the adrenals — it is the exposure to stress in the brain. The brain — only one organ — is responsible for 40% of energy consumption in the body. As you can imagine, if you are under constant stress, you run out of gas very quickly and cannot function well,” he explained.

Adrenal fatigue theory suggests that, under stress, the adrenal glands produce too many short bursts of cortisol resulting in overall reduced cortisol levels and a feeling of being drained.

“As with many other psychiatric diseases, we do not have a way to measure biomarkers in the brain. The testing for cortisol does not work because it fluctuates too much from time to time. So, it is not reliable or reproducible,” Dr. Campos said. 

This leads to the ongoing question of the best way to test and diagnose adrenal fatigue, whether it should be via blood, urine and/or saliva. And even if that is determined, there are still questions about the best time to test, how often, what the normal ranges are and how reliable the tests are.

While adrenal fatigue is not a recognized condition, adrenal insufficiency is medically recognized, resulting from an inability of the adrenal glands to make the life-essential hormones aldosterone and/or cortisol, with symptoms that include fatigue, belly pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and joint aches.

“Adrenal cocktails are not an effective treatment for adrenal insufficiency because they do not replace the missing hormones,” Dr. Nieman stated, pointing out that anyone with symptoms of adrenal insufficiency needs to see an endocrinologist.

Pratibha Rao, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, and medical director of the Adrenal Center at Cleveland Clinic, agreed, advising that if people continue to feel exhausted beyond their normal exertion, then they should get checked for signs of adrenal insufficiency.

“In primary adrenal insufficiency, you can actually start seeing darkening of the gums and of the skin on the palms of the hands or the soles of your feet. Sometimes people can feel dizzy or experience some loss of consciousness,” she said. “If it’s sudden and severe, you may crave salt or have extreme heat or cold intolerance.”

Recognizing and Managing Patient Frustration

The lack of formal diagnostic criteria and medical evidence, however, doesn’t mean that such symptoms as fatigue and depression don’t present, often causing significant distress for patients. While the symptoms might not be associated with the adrenal glands, they still need addressing — but how that is done is, in essence, a bone of contention.

Dr. Rao empathizes with the situation that many people, often young women, find themselves in.

“Patients are frustrated. They’ve gone to multiple doctors across the country, and they feel convinced they have adrenal fatigue, but no medical doctor has endorsed it. They end up coming to us with a cry that has so often gone unanswered.”

This issue also highlights that there are millions of people experiencing mental, emotional, and physical distress of unknown cause who seek help, many of whom believe it is related to their adrenal gland function.

But rather than turning to a social media cure, Dr. Rao stresses that people would benefit more from paying greater attention to following a healthy lifestyle than regularly consuming sugar-rich drinks claimed to offer a solution. Adrenal cocktails are energy-rich, frothy blends of orange juice, coconut milk, cream of tartar, and Himalayan salt.

“We truly are what we eat, and we are what we think,” she noted.

The body is a miraculous machine, but “we forget that it does need maintenance,” Dr. Rao said. “Up to age 30, the body is so forgiving with drugs, alcohol, or whatever insult we do to it, but after the third decade, slowly every cell starts to degenerate instead of growing. We start to see the ill or beneficial effects of lifestyle habits.” 

“We insult the body, and then we say, ‘oh, I have fatigue’ and seek a quick fix,” she added. “Everyone wants instant gratification.”

Dr. Rao cautioned that adrenal cocktails could be dangerous for someone who has other medical conditions.

“If someone has kidney disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or diabetes, for example, then adrenal cocktails are definitely not safe,” Dr. Rao said. “Loading up with potassium and sodium, which is found in high quantities in adrenal cocktails, will actually worsen any kidney damage, while consuming so much sugar will cause an unregulated rise in blood sugar and further damage in someone with diabetes.”

Dr. Rao also stressed that nonprofessional advice given on social media could take patient people down the wrong path with associated danger.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study spanning 20 years helps nail down the timing of biomarker changes that occur in the period between normal cognition and a diagnosis of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, something that hasn’t previously been extensively investigated in longitudinal studies.

By analyzing cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), as well as cognitive and brain imaging assessments conducted every few years for two decades, researchers were able to plot the course of changing levels of amyloid-beta 42 (Abeta42), phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in adults with Alzheimer’s disease and mark when those levels began to deviate from those of adults without Alzheimer’s disease.

Levels of Abeta42 in CSF and the ratio of Abeta42 to Abeta40 in people who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from those of peers who remained cognitively normal at 18 years and 14 years, respectively, before clinical signs of disease appeared.

The level of p-tau181 in CSF increased 11 years before disease onset, and NfL levels, a measure of neurodegeneration, increased 9 years before diagnosis.

These changes were followed by hippocampal atrophy and cognitive decline a few years later.

The results also show “an apparent accelerated change in concentrations of CSF biomarkers followed by a slowing of this change up to the time of diagnosis,” report the authors, led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, with the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Time Course of Biomarker Changes

Dr. Jia and colleagues conducted a nested case-control study within the China Cognition and Aging Study (COAST). They matched 648 adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease to 648 who remained cognitively normal. CSF, cognitive, and brain imaging assessments were performed every 2-3 years for a median of about 20 years.

Within both groups, men slightly outnumbered women. At baseline, CSF biomarker levels, cognitive scores, and hippocampal volumes were similar in the two groups. Adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease were more likely than their matched controls to be carriers of the APOE epsilon-4 allele (37% vs 20%).

In terms of CSF Abeta42, the level of this biomarker in those who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from the level in controls an estimated 18 years before clinical diagnosis. At that time, the level was lower by a mean 59.13 pg/mL in the Alzheimer’s disease group.

A difference in the ratio of CSF Abeta42 to Abeta40 between the two groups appeared an estimated 14 years before the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (difference in mean values, −0.01 pg/mL).

Differences between the two groups in CSF p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were apparent roughly 11 and 10 years before diagnosis, respectively. At those times, the mean differences in p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were 7.10 pg/mL and 87.10 pg/mL, respectively.

In terms of NfL, a difference between the groups was observed 9 years before diagnosis, with its trajectory progressively deviating from the concentrations observed in cognitively normal groups at that time, to a final mean difference in NfL of 228.29 pg/mL. 

Bilateral hippocampal volume decreased with age in both groups. However, the decrease began to differ between the two groups 8 years before Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, at which time volume was lower by 358.94 mm³ in the Alzheimer’s disease group compared with the control group.

Average Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores in the Alzheimer’s disease group began to worsen compared with the control group at about 6 years before diagnosis.

As Alzheimer’s disease progressed, changes in CSF biomarkers increased before reaching a plateau. 
 

Important Contribution 

In a linked editorial, Richard Mayeux, MD, Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, said the importance of this work “cannot be overstated. Knowledge of the timing of these physiological events is critical to provide clinicians with useful starting points for prevention and therapeutic strategies.”

Dr. Mayeux said this “remarkable” longitudinal study spanning 2 decades “not only confirms the hypotheses of previous investigators but extends and validates the sequence of changes” in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Mayeux acknowledged that one might consider the finding in this study to be limited owing to the inclusion of only individuals of Han Chinese ancestry. 

However, longitudinal studies of plasma biomarkers in individuals of Asian, European, African, and Hispanic ancestry have shown similar trends in biomarker changes preceding the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, he noted. 

“Ethnic variation in these biomarkers is known, but that fact does not lessen the effect of the results reported. It merely highlights that similar studies must continue and must be inclusive of other groups,” Dr. Mayeux concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study spanning 20 years helps nail down the timing of biomarker changes that occur in the period between normal cognition and a diagnosis of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, something that hasn’t previously been extensively investigated in longitudinal studies.

By analyzing cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), as well as cognitive and brain imaging assessments conducted every few years for two decades, researchers were able to plot the course of changing levels of amyloid-beta 42 (Abeta42), phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in adults with Alzheimer’s disease and mark when those levels began to deviate from those of adults without Alzheimer’s disease.

Levels of Abeta42 in CSF and the ratio of Abeta42 to Abeta40 in people who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from those of peers who remained cognitively normal at 18 years and 14 years, respectively, before clinical signs of disease appeared.

The level of p-tau181 in CSF increased 11 years before disease onset, and NfL levels, a measure of neurodegeneration, increased 9 years before diagnosis.

These changes were followed by hippocampal atrophy and cognitive decline a few years later.

The results also show “an apparent accelerated change in concentrations of CSF biomarkers followed by a slowing of this change up to the time of diagnosis,” report the authors, led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, with the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Time Course of Biomarker Changes

Dr. Jia and colleagues conducted a nested case-control study within the China Cognition and Aging Study (COAST). They matched 648 adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease to 648 who remained cognitively normal. CSF, cognitive, and brain imaging assessments were performed every 2-3 years for a median of about 20 years.

Within both groups, men slightly outnumbered women. At baseline, CSF biomarker levels, cognitive scores, and hippocampal volumes were similar in the two groups. Adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease were more likely than their matched controls to be carriers of the APOE epsilon-4 allele (37% vs 20%).

In terms of CSF Abeta42, the level of this biomarker in those who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from the level in controls an estimated 18 years before clinical diagnosis. At that time, the level was lower by a mean 59.13 pg/mL in the Alzheimer’s disease group.

A difference in the ratio of CSF Abeta42 to Abeta40 between the two groups appeared an estimated 14 years before the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (difference in mean values, −0.01 pg/mL).

Differences between the two groups in CSF p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were apparent roughly 11 and 10 years before diagnosis, respectively. At those times, the mean differences in p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were 7.10 pg/mL and 87.10 pg/mL, respectively.

In terms of NfL, a difference between the groups was observed 9 years before diagnosis, with its trajectory progressively deviating from the concentrations observed in cognitively normal groups at that time, to a final mean difference in NfL of 228.29 pg/mL. 

Bilateral hippocampal volume decreased with age in both groups. However, the decrease began to differ between the two groups 8 years before Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, at which time volume was lower by 358.94 mm³ in the Alzheimer’s disease group compared with the control group.

Average Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores in the Alzheimer’s disease group began to worsen compared with the control group at about 6 years before diagnosis.

As Alzheimer’s disease progressed, changes in CSF biomarkers increased before reaching a plateau. 
 

Important Contribution 

In a linked editorial, Richard Mayeux, MD, Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, said the importance of this work “cannot be overstated. Knowledge of the timing of these physiological events is critical to provide clinicians with useful starting points for prevention and therapeutic strategies.”

Dr. Mayeux said this “remarkable” longitudinal study spanning 2 decades “not only confirms the hypotheses of previous investigators but extends and validates the sequence of changes” in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Mayeux acknowledged that one might consider the finding in this study to be limited owing to the inclusion of only individuals of Han Chinese ancestry. 

However, longitudinal studies of plasma biomarkers in individuals of Asian, European, African, and Hispanic ancestry have shown similar trends in biomarker changes preceding the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, he noted. 

“Ethnic variation in these biomarkers is known, but that fact does not lessen the effect of the results reported. It merely highlights that similar studies must continue and must be inclusive of other groups,” Dr. Mayeux concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study spanning 20 years helps nail down the timing of biomarker changes that occur in the period between normal cognition and a diagnosis of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, something that hasn’t previously been extensively investigated in longitudinal studies.

By analyzing cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), as well as cognitive and brain imaging assessments conducted every few years for two decades, researchers were able to plot the course of changing levels of amyloid-beta 42 (Abeta42), phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in adults with Alzheimer’s disease and mark when those levels began to deviate from those of adults without Alzheimer’s disease.

Levels of Abeta42 in CSF and the ratio of Abeta42 to Abeta40 in people who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from those of peers who remained cognitively normal at 18 years and 14 years, respectively, before clinical signs of disease appeared.

The level of p-tau181 in CSF increased 11 years before disease onset, and NfL levels, a measure of neurodegeneration, increased 9 years before diagnosis.

These changes were followed by hippocampal atrophy and cognitive decline a few years later.

The results also show “an apparent accelerated change in concentrations of CSF biomarkers followed by a slowing of this change up to the time of diagnosis,” report the authors, led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, with the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Time Course of Biomarker Changes

Dr. Jia and colleagues conducted a nested case-control study within the China Cognition and Aging Study (COAST). They matched 648 adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease to 648 who remained cognitively normal. CSF, cognitive, and brain imaging assessments were performed every 2-3 years for a median of about 20 years.

Within both groups, men slightly outnumbered women. At baseline, CSF biomarker levels, cognitive scores, and hippocampal volumes were similar in the two groups. Adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease were more likely than their matched controls to be carriers of the APOE epsilon-4 allele (37% vs 20%).

In terms of CSF Abeta42, the level of this biomarker in those who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from the level in controls an estimated 18 years before clinical diagnosis. At that time, the level was lower by a mean 59.13 pg/mL in the Alzheimer’s disease group.

A difference in the ratio of CSF Abeta42 to Abeta40 between the two groups appeared an estimated 14 years before the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (difference in mean values, −0.01 pg/mL).

Differences between the two groups in CSF p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were apparent roughly 11 and 10 years before diagnosis, respectively. At those times, the mean differences in p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were 7.10 pg/mL and 87.10 pg/mL, respectively.

In terms of NfL, a difference between the groups was observed 9 years before diagnosis, with its trajectory progressively deviating from the concentrations observed in cognitively normal groups at that time, to a final mean difference in NfL of 228.29 pg/mL. 

Bilateral hippocampal volume decreased with age in both groups. However, the decrease began to differ between the two groups 8 years before Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, at which time volume was lower by 358.94 mm³ in the Alzheimer’s disease group compared with the control group.

Average Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores in the Alzheimer’s disease group began to worsen compared with the control group at about 6 years before diagnosis.

As Alzheimer’s disease progressed, changes in CSF biomarkers increased before reaching a plateau. 
 

Important Contribution 

In a linked editorial, Richard Mayeux, MD, Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, said the importance of this work “cannot be overstated. Knowledge of the timing of these physiological events is critical to provide clinicians with useful starting points for prevention and therapeutic strategies.”

Dr. Mayeux said this “remarkable” longitudinal study spanning 2 decades “not only confirms the hypotheses of previous investigators but extends and validates the sequence of changes” in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Mayeux acknowledged that one might consider the finding in this study to be limited owing to the inclusion of only individuals of Han Chinese ancestry. 

However, longitudinal studies of plasma biomarkers in individuals of Asian, European, African, and Hispanic ancestry have shown similar trends in biomarker changes preceding the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, he noted. 

“Ethnic variation in these biomarkers is known, but that fact does not lessen the effect of the results reported. It merely highlights that similar studies must continue and must be inclusive of other groups,” Dr. Mayeux concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.