Clinician Reviews

It’s a story of promise at a time of urgent need.

Scientists are optimistic about new evidence into what is causing long COVID, a panel of research experts brought together by the New York State Department of Health said.

They proposed many theories on what might be driving long COVID. A role for a virus “cryptic reservoir” that could reactivate at any time, “viral remnants” that trigger chronic inflammation, and action by “autoimmune antibodies” that cause ongoing symptoms are possibilities.

In fact, it’s likely that research will show long COVID is a condition with more than one cause, the experts said during a recent webinar.

People might experience post-infection problems, including organ damage that takes time to heal after initial COVID-19 illness. Or they may be living with post-immune factors, including ongoing immune system responses triggered by autoantibodies.

Determining the cause or causes of long COVID is essential for treatment. For example, if one person’s symptoms persist because of an overactive immune system, “we need to provide immunosuppressant therapies,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, said. “But we don’t want to give that to someone who has a persistent virus reservoir,” meaning remnants of the virus remain in their bodies.

Interestingly, a study preprint, which has not been peer reviewed, found dogs were accurate more than half the time in sniffing out long COVID, said Dr. Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology and developmental biology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The dogs were tasked with identifying 45 people with long COVID versus 188 people without it. The findings suggest the presence of a unique chemical in the sweat of people with long COVID that could someday lead to a diagnostic test.
 

Viral persistence possible

If one of the main theories holds, it could be that the coronavirus somehow remains in the body in some form for some people after COVID-19.

Mady Hornig, MD, agreed this is a possibility that needs to be investigated further.

“A weakened immune response to an infection may mean that you have cryptic reservoirs of virus that are continuing to cause symptoms,” she said during the briefing. Dr. Hornig is a doctor-scientist specializing in epidemiology at Columbia University, New York.

“That may explain why some patients with long COVID feel better after vaccination,” because the vaccine creates a strong antibody response to fight COVID-19, Dr. Iwasaki said.

Researchers are unearthing additional potential factors contributing to long COVID.

Viral persistence could also reactivate other dormant viruses in the body, such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), said Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University. Reactivation of Epstein-Barr is one of four identifying signs of long COVID revealed in a Jan. 25 study published in the journal Cell.
 

Immune overactivation also possible?

For other people with long COVID, it’s not the virus sticking around but the body’s reaction that’s the issue.

Investigators suggest autoimmunity plays a role, and they point to the presence of autoantibodies, for example.

When these autoantibodies persist, they can cause tissue and organ damage over time.

Other investigators are proposing “immune exhaustion” in long COVID because of similarities to chronic fatigue syndrome, Dr. Hornig said.

“It should be ‘all hands on deck’ for research into long COVID,” she said. “The number of disabled individuals who will likely qualify for a diagnosis of [chronic fatigue syndrome] is growing by the second.”
 

Forging ahead on future research

It’s clear there is more work to do. There are investigators working on banking tissue samples from people with long COVID to learn more, for example.

Also, finding a biomarker unique to long COVID could vastly improve the precision of diagnosing long COVID, especially if the dog sniffing option does not pan out.

Of the thousands of biomarker possibilities, Dr. Hornig said, “maybe that’s one or two that ultimately make a real impact on patient care. So it’s going to be critical to find those quickly, translate them, and make them available.”

In the meantime, some answers might come from a large study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is funding the “Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery” project using $470 million from the American Rescue Plan. Investigators at NYU Langone Health are leading the effort and plan to share the wealth by funding more than 100 researchers at more than 30 institutions to create a “metacohort” to study long COVID. More information is available at recovercovid.org.

“Fortunately, through the global research effort, we are now really starting to expand our understanding of how long COVID manifests, how common it is, and what the underlying mechanisms may be,” Dr. Purpura said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

It’s a story of promise at a time of urgent need.

Scientists are optimistic about new evidence into what is causing long COVID, a panel of research experts brought together by the New York State Department of Health said.

They proposed many theories on what might be driving long COVID. A role for a virus “cryptic reservoir” that could reactivate at any time, “viral remnants” that trigger chronic inflammation, and action by “autoimmune antibodies” that cause ongoing symptoms are possibilities.

In fact, it’s likely that research will show long COVID is a condition with more than one cause, the experts said during a recent webinar.

People might experience post-infection problems, including organ damage that takes time to heal after initial COVID-19 illness. Or they may be living with post-immune factors, including ongoing immune system responses triggered by autoantibodies.

Determining the cause or causes of long COVID is essential for treatment. For example, if one person’s symptoms persist because of an overactive immune system, “we need to provide immunosuppressant therapies,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, said. “But we don’t want to give that to someone who has a persistent virus reservoir,” meaning remnants of the virus remain in their bodies.

Interestingly, a study preprint, which has not been peer reviewed, found dogs were accurate more than half the time in sniffing out long COVID, said Dr. Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology and developmental biology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The dogs were tasked with identifying 45 people with long COVID versus 188 people without it. The findings suggest the presence of a unique chemical in the sweat of people with long COVID that could someday lead to a diagnostic test.
 

Viral persistence possible

If one of the main theories holds, it could be that the coronavirus somehow remains in the body in some form for some people after COVID-19.

Mady Hornig, MD, agreed this is a possibility that needs to be investigated further.

“A weakened immune response to an infection may mean that you have cryptic reservoirs of virus that are continuing to cause symptoms,” she said during the briefing. Dr. Hornig is a doctor-scientist specializing in epidemiology at Columbia University, New York.

“That may explain why some patients with long COVID feel better after vaccination,” because the vaccine creates a strong antibody response to fight COVID-19, Dr. Iwasaki said.

Researchers are unearthing additional potential factors contributing to long COVID.

Viral persistence could also reactivate other dormant viruses in the body, such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), said Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University. Reactivation of Epstein-Barr is one of four identifying signs of long COVID revealed in a Jan. 25 study published in the journal Cell.
 

Immune overactivation also possible?

For other people with long COVID, it’s not the virus sticking around but the body’s reaction that’s the issue.

Investigators suggest autoimmunity plays a role, and they point to the presence of autoantibodies, for example.

When these autoantibodies persist, they can cause tissue and organ damage over time.

Other investigators are proposing “immune exhaustion” in long COVID because of similarities to chronic fatigue syndrome, Dr. Hornig said.

“It should be ‘all hands on deck’ for research into long COVID,” she said. “The number of disabled individuals who will likely qualify for a diagnosis of [chronic fatigue syndrome] is growing by the second.”
 

Forging ahead on future research

It’s clear there is more work to do. There are investigators working on banking tissue samples from people with long COVID to learn more, for example.

Also, finding a biomarker unique to long COVID could vastly improve the precision of diagnosing long COVID, especially if the dog sniffing option does not pan out.

Of the thousands of biomarker possibilities, Dr. Hornig said, “maybe that’s one or two that ultimately make a real impact on patient care. So it’s going to be critical to find those quickly, translate them, and make them available.”

In the meantime, some answers might come from a large study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is funding the “Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery” project using $470 million from the American Rescue Plan. Investigators at NYU Langone Health are leading the effort and plan to share the wealth by funding more than 100 researchers at more than 30 institutions to create a “metacohort” to study long COVID. More information is available at recovercovid.org.

“Fortunately, through the global research effort, we are now really starting to expand our understanding of how long COVID manifests, how common it is, and what the underlying mechanisms may be,” Dr. Purpura said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

It’s a story of promise at a time of urgent need.

Scientists are optimistic about new evidence into what is causing long COVID, a panel of research experts brought together by the New York State Department of Health said.

They proposed many theories on what might be driving long COVID. A role for a virus “cryptic reservoir” that could reactivate at any time, “viral remnants” that trigger chronic inflammation, and action by “autoimmune antibodies” that cause ongoing symptoms are possibilities.

In fact, it’s likely that research will show long COVID is a condition with more than one cause, the experts said during a recent webinar.

People might experience post-infection problems, including organ damage that takes time to heal after initial COVID-19 illness. Or they may be living with post-immune factors, including ongoing immune system responses triggered by autoantibodies.

Determining the cause or causes of long COVID is essential for treatment. For example, if one person’s symptoms persist because of an overactive immune system, “we need to provide immunosuppressant therapies,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, said. “But we don’t want to give that to someone who has a persistent virus reservoir,” meaning remnants of the virus remain in their bodies.

Interestingly, a study preprint, which has not been peer reviewed, found dogs were accurate more than half the time in sniffing out long COVID, said Dr. Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology and developmental biology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The dogs were tasked with identifying 45 people with long COVID versus 188 people without it. The findings suggest the presence of a unique chemical in the sweat of people with long COVID that could someday lead to a diagnostic test.
 

Viral persistence possible

If one of the main theories holds, it could be that the coronavirus somehow remains in the body in some form for some people after COVID-19.

Mady Hornig, MD, agreed this is a possibility that needs to be investigated further.

“A weakened immune response to an infection may mean that you have cryptic reservoirs of virus that are continuing to cause symptoms,” she said during the briefing. Dr. Hornig is a doctor-scientist specializing in epidemiology at Columbia University, New York.

“That may explain why some patients with long COVID feel better after vaccination,” because the vaccine creates a strong antibody response to fight COVID-19, Dr. Iwasaki said.

Researchers are unearthing additional potential factors contributing to long COVID.

Viral persistence could also reactivate other dormant viruses in the body, such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), said Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University. Reactivation of Epstein-Barr is one of four identifying signs of long COVID revealed in a Jan. 25 study published in the journal Cell.
 

Immune overactivation also possible?

For other people with long COVID, it’s not the virus sticking around but the body’s reaction that’s the issue.

Investigators suggest autoimmunity plays a role, and they point to the presence of autoantibodies, for example.

When these autoantibodies persist, they can cause tissue and organ damage over time.

Other investigators are proposing “immune exhaustion” in long COVID because of similarities to chronic fatigue syndrome, Dr. Hornig said.

“It should be ‘all hands on deck’ for research into long COVID,” she said. “The number of disabled individuals who will likely qualify for a diagnosis of [chronic fatigue syndrome] is growing by the second.”
 

Forging ahead on future research

It’s clear there is more work to do. There are investigators working on banking tissue samples from people with long COVID to learn more, for example.

Also, finding a biomarker unique to long COVID could vastly improve the precision of diagnosing long COVID, especially if the dog sniffing option does not pan out.

Of the thousands of biomarker possibilities, Dr. Hornig said, “maybe that’s one or two that ultimately make a real impact on patient care. So it’s going to be critical to find those quickly, translate them, and make them available.”

In the meantime, some answers might come from a large study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is funding the “Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery” project using $470 million from the American Rescue Plan. Investigators at NYU Langone Health are leading the effort and plan to share the wealth by funding more than 100 researchers at more than 30 institutions to create a “metacohort” to study long COVID. More information is available at recovercovid.org.

“Fortunately, through the global research effort, we are now really starting to expand our understanding of how long COVID manifests, how common it is, and what the underlying mechanisms may be,” Dr. Purpura said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced new changes to school nutrition standards for the next 2 school years, which will reinstate health goals that were rolled back during the Trump administration.

The Biden administration is also tightening rules for fat and salt content in foods after restrictions were eased during the pandemic, according to the Washington Post.

“Nutritious school meals give America’s children the foundation for successful, healthy lives,” Tom Vilsack, the U.S. agriculture secretary, said in a statement on Feb. 4.

“We applaud schools’ heroic efforts throughout the challenges of this pandemic to continue serving kids the most nutritious meals possible,” he said. “The standards we’re putting in place of the next 2 school years will help schools transition to a future that builds on the tremendous strides they’ve made improving school meal nutrition over the past decade.”

For the 2022-2023 school year, schools and childcare providers will be required to offer low-fat or nonfat unflavored milks and limit the fat in sweet flavored milks. In addition, at least 80% of the grains served during school breakfasts and lunches each week must be considered rich in whole grains.

For the 2023-2024 school year, the weekly sodium limit for school lunches will be decreased by 10%.

The changes mark a shift from the Trump administration, which eased policies on whole grains, nonfat milk, and sodium, the newspaper reported. Then the pandemic forced additional changes as school districts scrambled to package meals for students. The USDA granted extra flexibility and eased some guidelines to ensure that children could be fed while schools were closed or focused on remote learning.

Now the USDA is updating the nutrition standards to “give schools clear expectations for gradual transition from current pandemic operations to more nutritious meals,” Stacy Dean, the USDA’s deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services, told reporters.

The Biden administration’s changes represent a shift back to Obama-era nutrition standards from 2012, according to the Post. But some nutrition advocates have said the new changes don’t address enough issues, such as added sugars. Fruit and vegetable requirements, for instance, will remain the same as the 2012 standards.

That said, some advocates have said the transition could be tough as schools move out of pandemic-era protocols. The School Nutrition Association, which represents school food service manufacturers and professionals, has urged Congress to provide additional support and waiver extensions for the next school year.

“School nutrition professionals are frantic just trying to get enough food on the tray for our students amid relentless supply chain disruptions and labor shortages,” Beth Wallace, the association’s president, told the Washington Post.

The shift will likely require a balancing act and slow transition. The USDA has been consulting with stakeholders for months to determine how to move toward stricter school nutrition standards while also acknowledging the pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages.

“This approach is really going to help move forward the nutrition of the meals and allows the schools to continue to function effectively,” Geri Henchy, director of nutrition policy at the Food Research and Action Center, told the Post.

“Schools can’t make big changes at this point because of the supply chain and staffing,” she said. “They have a lot of waivers at this point that are helping them, and this balances the needs of all the different sectors.”

The USDA plans to issue a proposed rule in fall 2022 to update nutrition standards for the future, the department said in its announcement, which would be finalized for the 2024-2025 school year.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced new changes to school nutrition standards for the next 2 school years, which will reinstate health goals that were rolled back during the Trump administration.

The Biden administration is also tightening rules for fat and salt content in foods after restrictions were eased during the pandemic, according to the Washington Post.

“Nutritious school meals give America’s children the foundation for successful, healthy lives,” Tom Vilsack, the U.S. agriculture secretary, said in a statement on Feb. 4.

“We applaud schools’ heroic efforts throughout the challenges of this pandemic to continue serving kids the most nutritious meals possible,” he said. “The standards we’re putting in place of the next 2 school years will help schools transition to a future that builds on the tremendous strides they’ve made improving school meal nutrition over the past decade.”

For the 2022-2023 school year, schools and childcare providers will be required to offer low-fat or nonfat unflavored milks and limit the fat in sweet flavored milks. In addition, at least 80% of the grains served during school breakfasts and lunches each week must be considered rich in whole grains.

For the 2023-2024 school year, the weekly sodium limit for school lunches will be decreased by 10%.

The changes mark a shift from the Trump administration, which eased policies on whole grains, nonfat milk, and sodium, the newspaper reported. Then the pandemic forced additional changes as school districts scrambled to package meals for students. The USDA granted extra flexibility and eased some guidelines to ensure that children could be fed while schools were closed or focused on remote learning.

Now the USDA is updating the nutrition standards to “give schools clear expectations for gradual transition from current pandemic operations to more nutritious meals,” Stacy Dean, the USDA’s deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services, told reporters.

The Biden administration’s changes represent a shift back to Obama-era nutrition standards from 2012, according to the Post. But some nutrition advocates have said the new changes don’t address enough issues, such as added sugars. Fruit and vegetable requirements, for instance, will remain the same as the 2012 standards.

That said, some advocates have said the transition could be tough as schools move out of pandemic-era protocols. The School Nutrition Association, which represents school food service manufacturers and professionals, has urged Congress to provide additional support and waiver extensions for the next school year.

“School nutrition professionals are frantic just trying to get enough food on the tray for our students amid relentless supply chain disruptions and labor shortages,” Beth Wallace, the association’s president, told the Washington Post.

The shift will likely require a balancing act and slow transition. The USDA has been consulting with stakeholders for months to determine how to move toward stricter school nutrition standards while also acknowledging the pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages.

“This approach is really going to help move forward the nutrition of the meals and allows the schools to continue to function effectively,” Geri Henchy, director of nutrition policy at the Food Research and Action Center, told the Post.

“Schools can’t make big changes at this point because of the supply chain and staffing,” she said. “They have a lot of waivers at this point that are helping them, and this balances the needs of all the different sectors.”

The USDA plans to issue a proposed rule in fall 2022 to update nutrition standards for the future, the department said in its announcement, which would be finalized for the 2024-2025 school year.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced new changes to school nutrition standards for the next 2 school years, which will reinstate health goals that were rolled back during the Trump administration.

The Biden administration is also tightening rules for fat and salt content in foods after restrictions were eased during the pandemic, according to the Washington Post.

“Nutritious school meals give America’s children the foundation for successful, healthy lives,” Tom Vilsack, the U.S. agriculture secretary, said in a statement on Feb. 4.

“We applaud schools’ heroic efforts throughout the challenges of this pandemic to continue serving kids the most nutritious meals possible,” he said. “The standards we’re putting in place of the next 2 school years will help schools transition to a future that builds on the tremendous strides they’ve made improving school meal nutrition over the past decade.”

For the 2022-2023 school year, schools and childcare providers will be required to offer low-fat or nonfat unflavored milks and limit the fat in sweet flavored milks. In addition, at least 80% of the grains served during school breakfasts and lunches each week must be considered rich in whole grains.

For the 2023-2024 school year, the weekly sodium limit for school lunches will be decreased by 10%.

The changes mark a shift from the Trump administration, which eased policies on whole grains, nonfat milk, and sodium, the newspaper reported. Then the pandemic forced additional changes as school districts scrambled to package meals for students. The USDA granted extra flexibility and eased some guidelines to ensure that children could be fed while schools were closed or focused on remote learning.

Now the USDA is updating the nutrition standards to “give schools clear expectations for gradual transition from current pandemic operations to more nutritious meals,” Stacy Dean, the USDA’s deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services, told reporters.

The Biden administration’s changes represent a shift back to Obama-era nutrition standards from 2012, according to the Post. But some nutrition advocates have said the new changes don’t address enough issues, such as added sugars. Fruit and vegetable requirements, for instance, will remain the same as the 2012 standards.

That said, some advocates have said the transition could be tough as schools move out of pandemic-era protocols. The School Nutrition Association, which represents school food service manufacturers and professionals, has urged Congress to provide additional support and waiver extensions for the next school year.

“School nutrition professionals are frantic just trying to get enough food on the tray for our students amid relentless supply chain disruptions and labor shortages,” Beth Wallace, the association’s president, told the Washington Post.

The shift will likely require a balancing act and slow transition. The USDA has been consulting with stakeholders for months to determine how to move toward stricter school nutrition standards while also acknowledging the pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages.

“This approach is really going to help move forward the nutrition of the meals and allows the schools to continue to function effectively,” Geri Henchy, director of nutrition policy at the Food Research and Action Center, told the Post.

“Schools can’t make big changes at this point because of the supply chain and staffing,” she said. “They have a lot of waivers at this point that are helping them, and this balances the needs of all the different sectors.”

The USDA plans to issue a proposed rule in fall 2022 to update nutrition standards for the future, the department said in its announcement, which would be finalized for the 2024-2025 school year.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The indication of an Omicron decline has become a trend: New cases of COVID-19 in children were down for a second consecutive week in the United States, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total for the week of Jan. 28 to Feb. 3 was still “extremely high, over double the peak level of the Delta surge in 2021,” the AAP noted, but the nearly 632,000 cases reported were down by 22% from the previous week and by 45% from what appears to be the peak of the Omicron surge during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP/CHA data show.

To put the effect of the Delta and Omicron variants into some sort of perspective, the total number of COVID-19 cases among children passed 5 million at the beginning of September 2021, about a year and a half into the pandemic. In the last 5 months, the cumulative count has more than doubled and now stands at 12 million, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Hospital admissions and emergency department visits followed the same downward trend over the last week. The rate of new hospitalizations fell to 0.81 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years as of Feb. 2 (down from a peak of 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15), and ED visits with diagnosed COVID-19 dropped to 1.8% (peak was 14.1%), 1.9% (peak was 14.3%), and 3.4% (peak was 14%) of all visits for children aged 16-17, 12-15, and 0-11 years, respectively, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The vaccination response

The surge of infections brought about by the Omicron variant, however, did not translate into increased vaccination, at least for the youngest eligible children. Vaccine initiation rose slightly among children aged 5-11 in early and mid-January but, by early February, new vaccinations had declined to their lowest point since approval in early November of 2021, the AAP said in its weekly COVID vaccination report.

As a result, the 5- to 11-year-olds are well behind the pace set by those aged 12-15 for the first 3 months of their vaccination experience. Through the first 13 weeks after the COVID vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in early May, 44.5% had received at least one dose and 32.3% were fully vaccinated. Among children aged 5-11, the corresponding figures through 13 weeks were 31% and 22.5%, according to CDC data.

The vaccination reaction to Omicron was somewhat more robust for children aged 12-17, compared with the younger group, but initiations dropped at the same time that new cases began to decline. In terms of total volume, the response among 12- to 17-year-olds was much smaller than that seen in July and August of 2021 as the Delta surge was hitting the United States, the AAP vaccination report shows.

All those vaccinations add up to this: Over 16.8 million children aged 12-17 and almost 9 million aged 5-11 had received at least one dose of vaccine as of Feb. 7, which works out to 66.6% of the older group and 31.2% of the younger cohort. Almost 14.3 million (56.4%) of those aged 12-17 are fully vaccinated, as are 6.6 million (22.9%) of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The indication of an Omicron decline has become a trend: New cases of COVID-19 in children were down for a second consecutive week in the United States, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total for the week of Jan. 28 to Feb. 3 was still “extremely high, over double the peak level of the Delta surge in 2021,” the AAP noted, but the nearly 632,000 cases reported were down by 22% from the previous week and by 45% from what appears to be the peak of the Omicron surge during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP/CHA data show.

To put the effect of the Delta and Omicron variants into some sort of perspective, the total number of COVID-19 cases among children passed 5 million at the beginning of September 2021, about a year and a half into the pandemic. In the last 5 months, the cumulative count has more than doubled and now stands at 12 million, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Hospital admissions and emergency department visits followed the same downward trend over the last week. The rate of new hospitalizations fell to 0.81 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years as of Feb. 2 (down from a peak of 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15), and ED visits with diagnosed COVID-19 dropped to 1.8% (peak was 14.1%), 1.9% (peak was 14.3%), and 3.4% (peak was 14%) of all visits for children aged 16-17, 12-15, and 0-11 years, respectively, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The vaccination response

The surge of infections brought about by the Omicron variant, however, did not translate into increased vaccination, at least for the youngest eligible children. Vaccine initiation rose slightly among children aged 5-11 in early and mid-January but, by early February, new vaccinations had declined to their lowest point since approval in early November of 2021, the AAP said in its weekly COVID vaccination report.

As a result, the 5- to 11-year-olds are well behind the pace set by those aged 12-15 for the first 3 months of their vaccination experience. Through the first 13 weeks after the COVID vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in early May, 44.5% had received at least one dose and 32.3% were fully vaccinated. Among children aged 5-11, the corresponding figures through 13 weeks were 31% and 22.5%, according to CDC data.

The vaccination reaction to Omicron was somewhat more robust for children aged 12-17, compared with the younger group, but initiations dropped at the same time that new cases began to decline. In terms of total volume, the response among 12- to 17-year-olds was much smaller than that seen in July and August of 2021 as the Delta surge was hitting the United States, the AAP vaccination report shows.

All those vaccinations add up to this: Over 16.8 million children aged 12-17 and almost 9 million aged 5-11 had received at least one dose of vaccine as of Feb. 7, which works out to 66.6% of the older group and 31.2% of the younger cohort. Almost 14.3 million (56.4%) of those aged 12-17 are fully vaccinated, as are 6.6 million (22.9%) of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The indication of an Omicron decline has become a trend: New cases of COVID-19 in children were down for a second consecutive week in the United States, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total for the week of Jan. 28 to Feb. 3 was still “extremely high, over double the peak level of the Delta surge in 2021,” the AAP noted, but the nearly 632,000 cases reported were down by 22% from the previous week and by 45% from what appears to be the peak of the Omicron surge during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP/CHA data show.

To put the effect of the Delta and Omicron variants into some sort of perspective, the total number of COVID-19 cases among children passed 5 million at the beginning of September 2021, about a year and a half into the pandemic. In the last 5 months, the cumulative count has more than doubled and now stands at 12 million, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Hospital admissions and emergency department visits followed the same downward trend over the last week. The rate of new hospitalizations fell to 0.81 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years as of Feb. 2 (down from a peak of 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15), and ED visits with diagnosed COVID-19 dropped to 1.8% (peak was 14.1%), 1.9% (peak was 14.3%), and 3.4% (peak was 14%) of all visits for children aged 16-17, 12-15, and 0-11 years, respectively, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The vaccination response

The surge of infections brought about by the Omicron variant, however, did not translate into increased vaccination, at least for the youngest eligible children. Vaccine initiation rose slightly among children aged 5-11 in early and mid-January but, by early February, new vaccinations had declined to their lowest point since approval in early November of 2021, the AAP said in its weekly COVID vaccination report.

As a result, the 5- to 11-year-olds are well behind the pace set by those aged 12-15 for the first 3 months of their vaccination experience. Through the first 13 weeks after the COVID vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in early May, 44.5% had received at least one dose and 32.3% were fully vaccinated. Among children aged 5-11, the corresponding figures through 13 weeks were 31% and 22.5%, according to CDC data.

The vaccination reaction to Omicron was somewhat more robust for children aged 12-17, compared with the younger group, but initiations dropped at the same time that new cases began to decline. In terms of total volume, the response among 12- to 17-year-olds was much smaller than that seen in July and August of 2021 as the Delta surge was hitting the United States, the AAP vaccination report shows.

All those vaccinations add up to this: Over 16.8 million children aged 12-17 and almost 9 million aged 5-11 had received at least one dose of vaccine as of Feb. 7, which works out to 66.6% of the older group and 31.2% of the younger cohort. Almost 14.3 million (56.4%) of those aged 12-17 are fully vaccinated, as are 6.6 million (22.9%) of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Eating dinner close to bedtime when endogenous melatonin levels are high is associated with decreased insulin secretion and decreased glucose tolerance, which increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

And people who are carriers of the G allele of the MTNR1B gene have greater impairment in glucose tolerance after eating a late dinner.

“In natural late eaters [in Spain], we simulated early and late dinner timing by administering a glucose drink and compared effects on blood sugar control over 2 hours,” said senior author Richa Saxena, PhD, a principal investigator at the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.  

The study also compared outcomes in carriers and noncarriers of the G allele variant of the melatonin receptor gene, Dr. Saxena pointed out in a press release from the hospital.

“We found that late eating disturbed blood sugar control in the whole group,” added lead author Marta Garaulet, PhD.

“This impaired glucose control was predominantly seen in genetic risk variant carriers, representing about half of the cohort,” said Dr. Garaulet, professor of physiology and nutrition, University of Murcia (Spain).

The study results “may be important in the effort toward prevention of type 2 diabetes,” according to co–senior author Frank A.J.L. Scheer, PhD.

“Our findings are applicable to about a third of the population in the industrialized world who consume food close to bedtime, as well as other populations who eat at night, including shift workers, or those experiencing jet lag or night-eating disorders, as well as those who routinely use melatonin supplements close to food intake,” said Dr. Scheer, director of the medical chronobiology program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The results suggest people should not eat within 2 hours of bedtime, said the researchers.

“Notably, our study does not include patients with diabetes, so additional studies are needed to examine the impact of food timing and its link with melatonin and receptor variation in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Scheer said.

The findings, from the MTNR1B SNP*Food Timing Interaction on Glucose Control (ONTIME-MT) randomized crossover study, were recently published in Diabetes Care.

Melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism

Melatonin, a hormone primarily released at night that helps control the sleep-wake cycle, typically rises around 2 hours before bedtime, the researchers explained.

The discovery of MTNR1B as a type 2 diabetes–associated gene “suggests that, beyond sleep and circadian regulation, melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism,” they noted. However, whether melatonin improves or impairs glucose control is controversial, and the effect of MTNR1B genotypes on glucose control is not clear.

“We decided to test if late eating that usually occurs with elevated melatonin levels results in disturbed blood sugar control,” Dr. Saxena explained.

To investigate this, researchers enrolled 845 adults in Spain who were 18-70 years old and did not have diabetes. Participants were a mean age of 38 years and 71% were women. They had a mean body mass index of 25.7 kg/m2 and 18% had obesity.

On average, they typically ate dinner at 21:38 (9:38 p.m.) and went to bed at 24:32 (12:32 a.m.).

DNA analysis from participants’ blood samples determined that 50% had the CC genotype of the MTNR1B gene, 40% had the CG genotype, and 10% had the GG genotype.

Each participant underwent two oral glucose tolerance tests. They fasted for 8 hours and then had a 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test either 1 hour before bedtime (simulating a late dinner) or 4 hours before bedtime (simulating an early dinner). Then they repeated the test at the opposite dinner time on another night.

The average serum melatonin values were 3.5-fold higher after the late dinner than after the early dinner, resulting in 6.7% lower insulin area under the curve and 8.3% higher glucose AUC.

Genotype differences in glucose tolerance were attributed to reductions in beta-cell function.

“Our results confirm that late eating acutely impairs glucose tolerance through a defect in insulin secretion,” the researchers reiterated.

ONTIME-MT was funded by the National Institutes of Health; the Spanish Government of Investigation, Development, and Innovation; and the Seneca Foundation. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eating dinner close to bedtime when endogenous melatonin levels are high is associated with decreased insulin secretion and decreased glucose tolerance, which increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

And people who are carriers of the G allele of the MTNR1B gene have greater impairment in glucose tolerance after eating a late dinner.

“In natural late eaters [in Spain], we simulated early and late dinner timing by administering a glucose drink and compared effects on blood sugar control over 2 hours,” said senior author Richa Saxena, PhD, a principal investigator at the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.  

The study also compared outcomes in carriers and noncarriers of the G allele variant of the melatonin receptor gene, Dr. Saxena pointed out in a press release from the hospital.

“We found that late eating disturbed blood sugar control in the whole group,” added lead author Marta Garaulet, PhD.

“This impaired glucose control was predominantly seen in genetic risk variant carriers, representing about half of the cohort,” said Dr. Garaulet, professor of physiology and nutrition, University of Murcia (Spain).

The study results “may be important in the effort toward prevention of type 2 diabetes,” according to co–senior author Frank A.J.L. Scheer, PhD.

“Our findings are applicable to about a third of the population in the industrialized world who consume food close to bedtime, as well as other populations who eat at night, including shift workers, or those experiencing jet lag or night-eating disorders, as well as those who routinely use melatonin supplements close to food intake,” said Dr. Scheer, director of the medical chronobiology program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The results suggest people should not eat within 2 hours of bedtime, said the researchers.

“Notably, our study does not include patients with diabetes, so additional studies are needed to examine the impact of food timing and its link with melatonin and receptor variation in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Scheer said.

The findings, from the MTNR1B SNP*Food Timing Interaction on Glucose Control (ONTIME-MT) randomized crossover study, were recently published in Diabetes Care.

Melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism

Melatonin, a hormone primarily released at night that helps control the sleep-wake cycle, typically rises around 2 hours before bedtime, the researchers explained.

The discovery of MTNR1B as a type 2 diabetes–associated gene “suggests that, beyond sleep and circadian regulation, melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism,” they noted. However, whether melatonin improves or impairs glucose control is controversial, and the effect of MTNR1B genotypes on glucose control is not clear.

“We decided to test if late eating that usually occurs with elevated melatonin levels results in disturbed blood sugar control,” Dr. Saxena explained.

To investigate this, researchers enrolled 845 adults in Spain who were 18-70 years old and did not have diabetes. Participants were a mean age of 38 years and 71% were women. They had a mean body mass index of 25.7 kg/m2 and 18% had obesity.

On average, they typically ate dinner at 21:38 (9:38 p.m.) and went to bed at 24:32 (12:32 a.m.).

DNA analysis from participants’ blood samples determined that 50% had the CC genotype of the MTNR1B gene, 40% had the CG genotype, and 10% had the GG genotype.

Each participant underwent two oral glucose tolerance tests. They fasted for 8 hours and then had a 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test either 1 hour before bedtime (simulating a late dinner) or 4 hours before bedtime (simulating an early dinner). Then they repeated the test at the opposite dinner time on another night.

The average serum melatonin values were 3.5-fold higher after the late dinner than after the early dinner, resulting in 6.7% lower insulin area under the curve and 8.3% higher glucose AUC.

Genotype differences in glucose tolerance were attributed to reductions in beta-cell function.

“Our results confirm that late eating acutely impairs glucose tolerance through a defect in insulin secretion,” the researchers reiterated.

ONTIME-MT was funded by the National Institutes of Health; the Spanish Government of Investigation, Development, and Innovation; and the Seneca Foundation. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eating dinner close to bedtime when endogenous melatonin levels are high is associated with decreased insulin secretion and decreased glucose tolerance, which increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.

And people who are carriers of the G allele of the MTNR1B gene have greater impairment in glucose tolerance after eating a late dinner.

“In natural late eaters [in Spain], we simulated early and late dinner timing by administering a glucose drink and compared effects on blood sugar control over 2 hours,” said senior author Richa Saxena, PhD, a principal investigator at the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.  

The study also compared outcomes in carriers and noncarriers of the G allele variant of the melatonin receptor gene, Dr. Saxena pointed out in a press release from the hospital.

“We found that late eating disturbed blood sugar control in the whole group,” added lead author Marta Garaulet, PhD.

“This impaired glucose control was predominantly seen in genetic risk variant carriers, representing about half of the cohort,” said Dr. Garaulet, professor of physiology and nutrition, University of Murcia (Spain).

The study results “may be important in the effort toward prevention of type 2 diabetes,” according to co–senior author Frank A.J.L. Scheer, PhD.

“Our findings are applicable to about a third of the population in the industrialized world who consume food close to bedtime, as well as other populations who eat at night, including shift workers, or those experiencing jet lag or night-eating disorders, as well as those who routinely use melatonin supplements close to food intake,” said Dr. Scheer, director of the medical chronobiology program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The results suggest people should not eat within 2 hours of bedtime, said the researchers.

“Notably, our study does not include patients with diabetes, so additional studies are needed to examine the impact of food timing and its link with melatonin and receptor variation in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Scheer said.

The findings, from the MTNR1B SNP*Food Timing Interaction on Glucose Control (ONTIME-MT) randomized crossover study, were recently published in Diabetes Care.

Melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism

Melatonin, a hormone primarily released at night that helps control the sleep-wake cycle, typically rises around 2 hours before bedtime, the researchers explained.

The discovery of MTNR1B as a type 2 diabetes–associated gene “suggests that, beyond sleep and circadian regulation, melatonin plays a key role in glucose metabolism,” they noted. However, whether melatonin improves or impairs glucose control is controversial, and the effect of MTNR1B genotypes on glucose control is not clear.

“We decided to test if late eating that usually occurs with elevated melatonin levels results in disturbed blood sugar control,” Dr. Saxena explained.

To investigate this, researchers enrolled 845 adults in Spain who were 18-70 years old and did not have diabetes. Participants were a mean age of 38 years and 71% were women. They had a mean body mass index of 25.7 kg/m2 and 18% had obesity.

On average, they typically ate dinner at 21:38 (9:38 p.m.) and went to bed at 24:32 (12:32 a.m.).

DNA analysis from participants’ blood samples determined that 50% had the CC genotype of the MTNR1B gene, 40% had the CG genotype, and 10% had the GG genotype.

Each participant underwent two oral glucose tolerance tests. They fasted for 8 hours and then had a 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test either 1 hour before bedtime (simulating a late dinner) or 4 hours before bedtime (simulating an early dinner). Then they repeated the test at the opposite dinner time on another night.

The average serum melatonin values were 3.5-fold higher after the late dinner than after the early dinner, resulting in 6.7% lower insulin area under the curve and 8.3% higher glucose AUC.

Genotype differences in glucose tolerance were attributed to reductions in beta-cell function.

“Our results confirm that late eating acutely impairs glucose tolerance through a defect in insulin secretion,” the researchers reiterated.

ONTIME-MT was funded by the National Institutes of Health; the Spanish Government of Investigation, Development, and Innovation; and the Seneca Foundation. The researchers reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Updated guidelines for the management and treatment of endometriosis reflect changes in clinical practice to guide clinician and patient decision-making, according to a statement from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, which issued the guidelines in February 2022.

Although the exact prevalence of endometriosis remains unclear, estimates suggest that approximately 190 million women and adolescent girls are affected by endometriosis during their reproductive years, and women continue to suffer beyond menopause, according to the authors. Endometriosis has a significant impact on society through both direct and indirect health care costs comparable to those of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, they noted.

The guidelines are the first update on the topic of endometriosis since 2014, and include more than 100 recommendations, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The target audience, according to the authors, is secondary and tertiary health care providers who treat women with endometriosis. The recommendations were based on research papers published up to Dec. 1, 2020.

Although most of the recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, several topics reflect significant changes in clinical practice.

Notably, laparoscopy is no longer recommended as the diagnostic gold standard, and should be used only in patients with negative imaging for whom empirical treatment was unsuccessful.

For pain management, studies support the use of GnRH antagonists as a second-line treatment, while laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are no longer included in the recommendations.

The guidelines include new information on pregnancy and fertility preservation for women with endometriosis. The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was added to support joint decision-making for women seeking pregnancy after surgery. However, the extended use of GnRH antagonist prior to assisted reproductive technology treatments to improve live birth rate is not recommended.

Endometriosis in adolescent patients is included in the guidelines for the first time, and strong recommendations include taking a careful history and using ultrasound if appropriate, but the use of serum biomarkers is not recommended for diagnosis. Strong recommendations for treatment strategies for adolescents include hormonal contraceptives or progestins as a first-line therapy.

Recommendations for managing endometriosis in menopause are more extensive than in previous guidelines and the strongest update is against the use of estrogen-only treatment in these patients. However, the guidelines continue to recommend treating women with a history of endometriosis after surgical menopause with combined estrogen-progestogen therapy “at least up to the age of natural menopause.”

Expanded recommendations related to endometriosis and cancer begin with a strong recommendation for clinicians to advise women that endometriosis is not associated with a significantly higher risk of cancer overall. “Although endometriosis is associated with a higher risk of ovarian, breast, and thyroid cancers in particular, the increase in absolute risk compared with women in the general population is low,” the authors wrote. Other strong recommendations include reassuring women with endometriosis of the low risk of malignancy associated with hormonal contraceptive use, and performing cancer screening according to the existing population-based guidelines without additional screening. Epidemiologic data show that complete excision of visible endometriosis may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery, including morbidity, pain, and ovarian reserve, the authors said.

The guidelines include recommendations related to asymptomatic endometriosis, extrapelvic endometriosis, and primary prevention of endometriosis, but without major changes to the 2014 guidelines.
 

Guidelines expand strategies, but research gaps remain

In 2021, an international working group of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the European Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, ESHRE, and the World Endometriosis Society defined endometriosis as “a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of The IVF Center, Orlando, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, said in an interview.

Although the current guidelines represent the second update since 2005, many unanswered questions remain, Dr. Trolice said. “There is a large diagnostic void between the onset of symptoms and the time to a reliable diagnosis averaging between 8 and 12 years,” he emphasized.

Dr. Trolice noted the change of the addition of an oral GnRH antagonist, “now FDA approved for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis,” he said. However, “Extended GnRH agonist prior to ART is not recommended due to the lack of any clear benefit,” he noted.

Dr. Trolice noted the inclusion of the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010, “as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and IUI [intrauterine insemination]) based on patient characteristics, revised ASRM staging, and ‘least function score of the adnexa.’ ” He agreed with the need for expanded information on the topics of endometriosis and adolescence and endometriosis and cancer.

The most important changes for clinical practice include reducing unnecessary laparoscopy and procedures without benefit, such as laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy, and GnRH suppression using an oral antagonist, said Dr. Trolice. Other especially practical guidance includes the recommendation to discontinue advising patients that pregnancy will reduce symptoms of endometriosis, and to avoid prescribing estrogen-only treatment in menopause given the risk of malignant transformation of endometriosis, he said.

Another clinically useful recommendation, though not a significant update, is the need to identify extrapelvic endometriosis symptoms, such as cyclical shoulder pain, cyclical spontaneous pneumothorax, cyclical cough, or nodules that enlarge during menses, Dr. Trolice added.

Barriers to implementing the updated guidelines include lack of education of clinicians, including primary care providers, and the lack of definitive evidence for many areas, he noted.

As for additional research, more data are needed to explore the genetic, mutational, and epigenetic profile of endometriosis, and to identify biomarkers to noninvasively detect and provide a prognosis for endometriosis, and optimal methods for prevention and management, said Dr. Trolice. Other research gaps include “definitive medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis for improvement of fertility, quality of life, and reduction of pain,” he noted. From a fertility standpoint, more studies are needed on “the use of ovarian tissue or oocytes cryopreservation in adolescents and adults who undergo ovarian surgery for endometriomas, and the role of the EFI as a presurgical triage tool and to predict IUI outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Overall, society recommendations such as these from ESHRE “serve as guides for physicians by providing evidence-based medicine and dispelling prior unproven practices so patients may receive the most effective care of endometriosis, throughout a woman’s life,” Dr. Trolice emphasized.

The current guideline will be considered for revision in 2025, and the full version is available on the ESHRE website.

Members of the ESHRE guideline development group received no payment for participating in the development process, although they were reimbursed for travel expenses related to guideline meetings.

Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Updated guidelines for the management and treatment of endometriosis reflect changes in clinical practice to guide clinician and patient decision-making, according to a statement from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, which issued the guidelines in February 2022.

Although the exact prevalence of endometriosis remains unclear, estimates suggest that approximately 190 million women and adolescent girls are affected by endometriosis during their reproductive years, and women continue to suffer beyond menopause, according to the authors. Endometriosis has a significant impact on society through both direct and indirect health care costs comparable to those of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, they noted.

The guidelines are the first update on the topic of endometriosis since 2014, and include more than 100 recommendations, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The target audience, according to the authors, is secondary and tertiary health care providers who treat women with endometriosis. The recommendations were based on research papers published up to Dec. 1, 2020.

Although most of the recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, several topics reflect significant changes in clinical practice.

Notably, laparoscopy is no longer recommended as the diagnostic gold standard, and should be used only in patients with negative imaging for whom empirical treatment was unsuccessful.

For pain management, studies support the use of GnRH antagonists as a second-line treatment, while laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are no longer included in the recommendations.

The guidelines include new information on pregnancy and fertility preservation for women with endometriosis. The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was added to support joint decision-making for women seeking pregnancy after surgery. However, the extended use of GnRH antagonist prior to assisted reproductive technology treatments to improve live birth rate is not recommended.

Endometriosis in adolescent patients is included in the guidelines for the first time, and strong recommendations include taking a careful history and using ultrasound if appropriate, but the use of serum biomarkers is not recommended for diagnosis. Strong recommendations for treatment strategies for adolescents include hormonal contraceptives or progestins as a first-line therapy.

Recommendations for managing endometriosis in menopause are more extensive than in previous guidelines and the strongest update is against the use of estrogen-only treatment in these patients. However, the guidelines continue to recommend treating women with a history of endometriosis after surgical menopause with combined estrogen-progestogen therapy “at least up to the age of natural menopause.”

Expanded recommendations related to endometriosis and cancer begin with a strong recommendation for clinicians to advise women that endometriosis is not associated with a significantly higher risk of cancer overall. “Although endometriosis is associated with a higher risk of ovarian, breast, and thyroid cancers in particular, the increase in absolute risk compared with women in the general population is low,” the authors wrote. Other strong recommendations include reassuring women with endometriosis of the low risk of malignancy associated with hormonal contraceptive use, and performing cancer screening according to the existing population-based guidelines without additional screening. Epidemiologic data show that complete excision of visible endometriosis may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery, including morbidity, pain, and ovarian reserve, the authors said.

The guidelines include recommendations related to asymptomatic endometriosis, extrapelvic endometriosis, and primary prevention of endometriosis, but without major changes to the 2014 guidelines.
 

Guidelines expand strategies, but research gaps remain

In 2021, an international working group of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the European Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, ESHRE, and the World Endometriosis Society defined endometriosis as “a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of The IVF Center, Orlando, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, said in an interview.

Although the current guidelines represent the second update since 2005, many unanswered questions remain, Dr. Trolice said. “There is a large diagnostic void between the onset of symptoms and the time to a reliable diagnosis averaging between 8 and 12 years,” he emphasized.

Dr. Trolice noted the change of the addition of an oral GnRH antagonist, “now FDA approved for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis,” he said. However, “Extended GnRH agonist prior to ART is not recommended due to the lack of any clear benefit,” he noted.

Dr. Trolice noted the inclusion of the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010, “as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and IUI [intrauterine insemination]) based on patient characteristics, revised ASRM staging, and ‘least function score of the adnexa.’ ” He agreed with the need for expanded information on the topics of endometriosis and adolescence and endometriosis and cancer.

The most important changes for clinical practice include reducing unnecessary laparoscopy and procedures without benefit, such as laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy, and GnRH suppression using an oral antagonist, said Dr. Trolice. Other especially practical guidance includes the recommendation to discontinue advising patients that pregnancy will reduce symptoms of endometriosis, and to avoid prescribing estrogen-only treatment in menopause given the risk of malignant transformation of endometriosis, he said.

Another clinically useful recommendation, though not a significant update, is the need to identify extrapelvic endometriosis symptoms, such as cyclical shoulder pain, cyclical spontaneous pneumothorax, cyclical cough, or nodules that enlarge during menses, Dr. Trolice added.

Barriers to implementing the updated guidelines include lack of education of clinicians, including primary care providers, and the lack of definitive evidence for many areas, he noted.

As for additional research, more data are needed to explore the genetic, mutational, and epigenetic profile of endometriosis, and to identify biomarkers to noninvasively detect and provide a prognosis for endometriosis, and optimal methods for prevention and management, said Dr. Trolice. Other research gaps include “definitive medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis for improvement of fertility, quality of life, and reduction of pain,” he noted. From a fertility standpoint, more studies are needed on “the use of ovarian tissue or oocytes cryopreservation in adolescents and adults who undergo ovarian surgery for endometriomas, and the role of the EFI as a presurgical triage tool and to predict IUI outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Overall, society recommendations such as these from ESHRE “serve as guides for physicians by providing evidence-based medicine and dispelling prior unproven practices so patients may receive the most effective care of endometriosis, throughout a woman’s life,” Dr. Trolice emphasized.

The current guideline will be considered for revision in 2025, and the full version is available on the ESHRE website.

Members of the ESHRE guideline development group received no payment for participating in the development process, although they were reimbursed for travel expenses related to guideline meetings.

Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Updated guidelines for the management and treatment of endometriosis reflect changes in clinical practice to guide clinician and patient decision-making, according to a statement from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, which issued the guidelines in February 2022.

Although the exact prevalence of endometriosis remains unclear, estimates suggest that approximately 190 million women and adolescent girls are affected by endometriosis during their reproductive years, and women continue to suffer beyond menopause, according to the authors. Endometriosis has a significant impact on society through both direct and indirect health care costs comparable to those of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, they noted.

The guidelines are the first update on the topic of endometriosis since 2014, and include more than 100 recommendations, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The target audience, according to the authors, is secondary and tertiary health care providers who treat women with endometriosis. The recommendations were based on research papers published up to Dec. 1, 2020.

Although most of the recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, several topics reflect significant changes in clinical practice.

Notably, laparoscopy is no longer recommended as the diagnostic gold standard, and should be used only in patients with negative imaging for whom empirical treatment was unsuccessful.

For pain management, studies support the use of GnRH antagonists as a second-line treatment, while laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are no longer included in the recommendations.

The guidelines include new information on pregnancy and fertility preservation for women with endometriosis. The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was added to support joint decision-making for women seeking pregnancy after surgery. However, the extended use of GnRH antagonist prior to assisted reproductive technology treatments to improve live birth rate is not recommended.

Endometriosis in adolescent patients is included in the guidelines for the first time, and strong recommendations include taking a careful history and using ultrasound if appropriate, but the use of serum biomarkers is not recommended for diagnosis. Strong recommendations for treatment strategies for adolescents include hormonal contraceptives or progestins as a first-line therapy.

Recommendations for managing endometriosis in menopause are more extensive than in previous guidelines and the strongest update is against the use of estrogen-only treatment in these patients. However, the guidelines continue to recommend treating women with a history of endometriosis after surgical menopause with combined estrogen-progestogen therapy “at least up to the age of natural menopause.”

Expanded recommendations related to endometriosis and cancer begin with a strong recommendation for clinicians to advise women that endometriosis is not associated with a significantly higher risk of cancer overall. “Although endometriosis is associated with a higher risk of ovarian, breast, and thyroid cancers in particular, the increase in absolute risk compared with women in the general population is low,” the authors wrote. Other strong recommendations include reassuring women with endometriosis of the low risk of malignancy associated with hormonal contraceptive use, and performing cancer screening according to the existing population-based guidelines without additional screening. Epidemiologic data show that complete excision of visible endometriosis may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery, including morbidity, pain, and ovarian reserve, the authors said.

The guidelines include recommendations related to asymptomatic endometriosis, extrapelvic endometriosis, and primary prevention of endometriosis, but without major changes to the 2014 guidelines.
 

Guidelines expand strategies, but research gaps remain

In 2021, an international working group of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the European Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, ESHRE, and the World Endometriosis Society defined endometriosis as “a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of The IVF Center, Orlando, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, said in an interview.

Although the current guidelines represent the second update since 2005, many unanswered questions remain, Dr. Trolice said. “There is a large diagnostic void between the onset of symptoms and the time to a reliable diagnosis averaging between 8 and 12 years,” he emphasized.

Dr. Trolice noted the change of the addition of an oral GnRH antagonist, “now FDA approved for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis,” he said. However, “Extended GnRH agonist prior to ART is not recommended due to the lack of any clear benefit,” he noted.

Dr. Trolice noted the inclusion of the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010, “as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and IUI [intrauterine insemination]) based on patient characteristics, revised ASRM staging, and ‘least function score of the adnexa.’ ” He agreed with the need for expanded information on the topics of endometriosis and adolescence and endometriosis and cancer.

The most important changes for clinical practice include reducing unnecessary laparoscopy and procedures without benefit, such as laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy, and GnRH suppression using an oral antagonist, said Dr. Trolice. Other especially practical guidance includes the recommendation to discontinue advising patients that pregnancy will reduce symptoms of endometriosis, and to avoid prescribing estrogen-only treatment in menopause given the risk of malignant transformation of endometriosis, he said.

Another clinically useful recommendation, though not a significant update, is the need to identify extrapelvic endometriosis symptoms, such as cyclical shoulder pain, cyclical spontaneous pneumothorax, cyclical cough, or nodules that enlarge during menses, Dr. Trolice added.

Barriers to implementing the updated guidelines include lack of education of clinicians, including primary care providers, and the lack of definitive evidence for many areas, he noted.

As for additional research, more data are needed to explore the genetic, mutational, and epigenetic profile of endometriosis, and to identify biomarkers to noninvasively detect and provide a prognosis for endometriosis, and optimal methods for prevention and management, said Dr. Trolice. Other research gaps include “definitive medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis for improvement of fertility, quality of life, and reduction of pain,” he noted. From a fertility standpoint, more studies are needed on “the use of ovarian tissue or oocytes cryopreservation in adolescents and adults who undergo ovarian surgery for endometriomas, and the role of the EFI as a presurgical triage tool and to predict IUI outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Overall, society recommendations such as these from ESHRE “serve as guides for physicians by providing evidence-based medicine and dispelling prior unproven practices so patients may receive the most effective care of endometriosis, throughout a woman’s life,” Dr. Trolice emphasized.

The current guideline will be considered for revision in 2025, and the full version is available on the ESHRE website.

Members of the ESHRE guideline development group received no payment for participating in the development process, although they were reimbursed for travel expenses related to guideline meetings.

Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sugary beverages – juice, soda, decadent lattes, sports drinks, and more – are the leading source of both calories and added sugar in the American diet, according to the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. But new research published in PLoS Medicine has found that picture warnings on soda containers or juice boxes could discourage parents from buying those unhealthful products.

The new study, from researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that parents were 17% less likely to buy sugary drinks for their children when the beverages had the graphical – and graphic – warnings on the products.

Dreamstime

The researchers turned a laboratory setting into a “minimart,” and parents were told to choose one drink and snack for their children, along with one household item (to disguise the purpose of the study).

Some parents were presented with sweetened drinks with images on the products reflecting type 2 diabetes and heart damage. Others were shown sugary drinks with a barcode label and no picture warning.

Forty-five percent of parents chose sugary drinks for their children when the products had no picture warning, but only 28% of parents chose sugary beverages with the cautionary images.

“When people make choices about what food to buy, they are juggling dozens of factors, like taste, cost, and advertising, and are looking at many products at once,” said Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, a nutrition researcher and the senior author of the paper.

“Showing that warnings can cut through the noise of everything else that’s happening in a food store is powerful evidence that they would help reduce sugary drink purchases in the real world.”

Children are particularly prone to overindulging on sugar, largely due to companies’ frequent marketing displays of pleasurable-looking and seemingly “thirst-quenching” sweet beverages.

Drink packaging also can be misleading.

Fruits and vegetables displayed on the front of many beverages often lead parents to buy what they believe are “healthy” options, when these drinks could be packed with sugar, according to a study published online Jan. 22 in the journal Appetite.

Parents are often “doing the best with what information they have,” so more education about nutrition, through picture warning labels, for example, would make a difference, said Caroline Fausel, a paleo food blogger, podcaster, and author of “Prep, Cook, Freeze: A Paleo Meal Planning Cookbook.”
 

Healthier choices on the rise

The American Beverage Association, an industry trade group, shared the current steps that major companies are taking to help lower Americans’ sugar intake.

Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Keurig Dr Pepper joined forces in 2014 to create the Balance Calories Initiative, which aims to reduce beverage calories in the national diet.

Coca-Cola now offers 250 beverages with zero to low calories, and Keurig Dr Pepper has 158 products with 40 calories or less. Pepsi sells 7.5-ounce mini-cans, along with various other sizes, to encourage portion control.

“Beverage companies are fully transparent about the calories and sugar in our products, and we are offering more choices with less sugar than ever before,” William Dermody, vice president of media and public affairs for the American Beverage Association, said in a statement. “We agree that too much sugar is not good for anyone, and clear information about beverages is most helpful to consumers.”

Other big companies also are taking strides to lower sugar content in their products.

Kraft Heinz, which owns the popular line of Capri Sun drinks, has publicly shared its efforts to ramp up the nutritional value of its products.

The company has a goal to slash 60 million pounds of total sugar in Kraft Heinz products globally by 2025.

“As more people become aware of the harm that excessive sugar can cause in the body, my hope is that they continue to choose healthier alternatives,” Ms. Fausel said.
 

Creating new patterns

For children who consume sweetened juices and sodas regularly, the transition to healthier options might be challenging at first.

“Change can involve tantrums and unhappiness, and right now parents are at their max living pandemic parenting life,” said Jennifer Anderson, a registered dietitian and CEO of Kids Eat in Color, LLC, a resource for improving child nutrition and health through innovative education, meal plans, and tools. “Kids can get used to having sugary drinks, and they don’t want to give them up.”

One way to help make the switch is by having only water and milk as options while children are up and about, a technique that works particularly well for younger children, she said.

“This sort of ‘quiet restriction’ helps kids learn to love the healthier option without feeling deprived,” Ms. Anderson said. “They will eventually learn about juice, soda, chocolate milk, sports drinks, and more, but you can let them learn about those foods at a slower pace when you rarely or don’t serve them at home.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sugary beverages – juice, soda, decadent lattes, sports drinks, and more – are the leading source of both calories and added sugar in the American diet, according to the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. But new research published in PLoS Medicine has found that picture warnings on soda containers or juice boxes could discourage parents from buying those unhealthful products.

The new study, from researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that parents were 17% less likely to buy sugary drinks for their children when the beverages had the graphical – and graphic – warnings on the products.

Dreamstime

The researchers turned a laboratory setting into a “minimart,” and parents were told to choose one drink and snack for their children, along with one household item (to disguise the purpose of the study).

Some parents were presented with sweetened drinks with images on the products reflecting type 2 diabetes and heart damage. Others were shown sugary drinks with a barcode label and no picture warning.

Forty-five percent of parents chose sugary drinks for their children when the products had no picture warning, but only 28% of parents chose sugary beverages with the cautionary images.

“When people make choices about what food to buy, they are juggling dozens of factors, like taste, cost, and advertising, and are looking at many products at once,” said Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, a nutrition researcher and the senior author of the paper.

“Showing that warnings can cut through the noise of everything else that’s happening in a food store is powerful evidence that they would help reduce sugary drink purchases in the real world.”

Children are particularly prone to overindulging on sugar, largely due to companies’ frequent marketing displays of pleasurable-looking and seemingly “thirst-quenching” sweet beverages.

Drink packaging also can be misleading.

Fruits and vegetables displayed on the front of many beverages often lead parents to buy what they believe are “healthy” options, when these drinks could be packed with sugar, according to a study published online Jan. 22 in the journal Appetite.

Parents are often “doing the best with what information they have,” so more education about nutrition, through picture warning labels, for example, would make a difference, said Caroline Fausel, a paleo food blogger, podcaster, and author of “Prep, Cook, Freeze: A Paleo Meal Planning Cookbook.”
 

Healthier choices on the rise

The American Beverage Association, an industry trade group, shared the current steps that major companies are taking to help lower Americans’ sugar intake.

Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Keurig Dr Pepper joined forces in 2014 to create the Balance Calories Initiative, which aims to reduce beverage calories in the national diet.

Coca-Cola now offers 250 beverages with zero to low calories, and Keurig Dr Pepper has 158 products with 40 calories or less. Pepsi sells 7.5-ounce mini-cans, along with various other sizes, to encourage portion control.

“Beverage companies are fully transparent about the calories and sugar in our products, and we are offering more choices with less sugar than ever before,” William Dermody, vice president of media and public affairs for the American Beverage Association, said in a statement. “We agree that too much sugar is not good for anyone, and clear information about beverages is most helpful to consumers.”

Other big companies also are taking strides to lower sugar content in their products.

Kraft Heinz, which owns the popular line of Capri Sun drinks, has publicly shared its efforts to ramp up the nutritional value of its products.

The company has a goal to slash 60 million pounds of total sugar in Kraft Heinz products globally by 2025.

“As more people become aware of the harm that excessive sugar can cause in the body, my hope is that they continue to choose healthier alternatives,” Ms. Fausel said.
 

Creating new patterns

For children who consume sweetened juices and sodas regularly, the transition to healthier options might be challenging at first.

“Change can involve tantrums and unhappiness, and right now parents are at their max living pandemic parenting life,” said Jennifer Anderson, a registered dietitian and CEO of Kids Eat in Color, LLC, a resource for improving child nutrition and health through innovative education, meal plans, and tools. “Kids can get used to having sugary drinks, and they don’t want to give them up.”

One way to help make the switch is by having only water and milk as options while children are up and about, a technique that works particularly well for younger children, she said.

“This sort of ‘quiet restriction’ helps kids learn to love the healthier option without feeling deprived,” Ms. Anderson said. “They will eventually learn about juice, soda, chocolate milk, sports drinks, and more, but you can let them learn about those foods at a slower pace when you rarely or don’t serve them at home.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sugary beverages – juice, soda, decadent lattes, sports drinks, and more – are the leading source of both calories and added sugar in the American diet, according to the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. But new research published in PLoS Medicine has found that picture warnings on soda containers or juice boxes could discourage parents from buying those unhealthful products.

The new study, from researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that parents were 17% less likely to buy sugary drinks for their children when the beverages had the graphical – and graphic – warnings on the products.

Dreamstime

The researchers turned a laboratory setting into a “minimart,” and parents were told to choose one drink and snack for their children, along with one household item (to disguise the purpose of the study).

Some parents were presented with sweetened drinks with images on the products reflecting type 2 diabetes and heart damage. Others were shown sugary drinks with a barcode label and no picture warning.

Forty-five percent of parents chose sugary drinks for their children when the products had no picture warning, but only 28% of parents chose sugary beverages with the cautionary images.

“When people make choices about what food to buy, they are juggling dozens of factors, like taste, cost, and advertising, and are looking at many products at once,” said Lindsey Smith Taillie, PhD, a nutrition researcher and the senior author of the paper.

“Showing that warnings can cut through the noise of everything else that’s happening in a food store is powerful evidence that they would help reduce sugary drink purchases in the real world.”

Children are particularly prone to overindulging on sugar, largely due to companies’ frequent marketing displays of pleasurable-looking and seemingly “thirst-quenching” sweet beverages.

Drink packaging also can be misleading.

Fruits and vegetables displayed on the front of many beverages often lead parents to buy what they believe are “healthy” options, when these drinks could be packed with sugar, according to a study published online Jan. 22 in the journal Appetite.

Parents are often “doing the best with what information they have,” so more education about nutrition, through picture warning labels, for example, would make a difference, said Caroline Fausel, a paleo food blogger, podcaster, and author of “Prep, Cook, Freeze: A Paleo Meal Planning Cookbook.”
 

Healthier choices on the rise

The American Beverage Association, an industry trade group, shared the current steps that major companies are taking to help lower Americans’ sugar intake.

Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Keurig Dr Pepper joined forces in 2014 to create the Balance Calories Initiative, which aims to reduce beverage calories in the national diet.

Coca-Cola now offers 250 beverages with zero to low calories, and Keurig Dr Pepper has 158 products with 40 calories or less. Pepsi sells 7.5-ounce mini-cans, along with various other sizes, to encourage portion control.

“Beverage companies are fully transparent about the calories and sugar in our products, and we are offering more choices with less sugar than ever before,” William Dermody, vice president of media and public affairs for the American Beverage Association, said in a statement. “We agree that too much sugar is not good for anyone, and clear information about beverages is most helpful to consumers.”

Other big companies also are taking strides to lower sugar content in their products.

Kraft Heinz, which owns the popular line of Capri Sun drinks, has publicly shared its efforts to ramp up the nutritional value of its products.

The company has a goal to slash 60 million pounds of total sugar in Kraft Heinz products globally by 2025.

“As more people become aware of the harm that excessive sugar can cause in the body, my hope is that they continue to choose healthier alternatives,” Ms. Fausel said.
 

Creating new patterns

For children who consume sweetened juices and sodas regularly, the transition to healthier options might be challenging at first.

“Change can involve tantrums and unhappiness, and right now parents are at their max living pandemic parenting life,” said Jennifer Anderson, a registered dietitian and CEO of Kids Eat in Color, LLC, a resource for improving child nutrition and health through innovative education, meal plans, and tools. “Kids can get used to having sugary drinks, and they don’t want to give them up.”

One way to help make the switch is by having only water and milk as options while children are up and about, a technique that works particularly well for younger children, she said.

“This sort of ‘quiet restriction’ helps kids learn to love the healthier option without feeling deprived,” Ms. Anderson said. “They will eventually learn about juice, soda, chocolate milk, sports drinks, and more, but you can let them learn about those foods at a slower pace when you rarely or don’t serve them at home.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vasculitis of the coronary arteries is a well-recognized acute complication of Kawasaki disease, but the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) sequelae does not appear to be clinically meaningful for most patients, according to results from an analysis of data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

For patients and parents, these data provide “a message of reassurance,” according to Jennifer J.Y. Lee, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist affiliated with the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The long-term outcomes were characterized as reassuring even though rates of hypertension, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death from CV events were higher in patients with Kawasaki disease relative to controls in a retrospective data-linkage study. In fact, these differences were highly statistically significant, but the absolute differences were extremely small.

For this analysis, the 1,174 patients diagnosed with Kawasaki disease at Dr. Lee’s institution between 1991 and 2008 were compared in a 10:1 ratio to 11,740 controls matched for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic region. The median follow-up period was 20 years, and the maximum was 28 years.
 

Adjusted CV risks are significant

In an adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio model, patients in the Kawasaki group had a more than twofold increase in risk for hypertension (aHR, 2.3; P < .0001) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.5; P = .009). They also had more than a 10-fold increase in risk for MACE (aHR, 10.3; P < .0001).

These statistics belie the clinical relevance, according to Dr. Lee. Because of the very low rates of all the measured events in both groups, there was just one more case of hypertension per 1,250 patient-years of follow-up, one more case of MACE per 833 patient-years of follow-up, and one more death for 3,846 patient years of follow-up.

Moreover, when these outcomes were graphed over time, most events occurred during the acute period or in the initial years of follow-up.

“There was not a constant increase in risk of these outcomes over time for patients with Kawasaki disease relative to the controls,” Dr. Lee reported. “The long-term prognosis for Kawasaki patients remains favorable.”

European group reports similar results

Similar results from a single-center experience were published 3 years ago. In that study, 207 Kawasaki patients treated at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) were followed for 30 years. Complications after the acute phase were characterized as “rare.”

For example, only three patients (1.4%) had a subsequent episode of myocardial ischemia. All three had developed a coronary aneurysm during the acute phase of Kawasaki disease. The authors of that study reported that children who had not received immunoglobulins during the acute phase or who developed Kawasaki disease outside of the usual age range were more likely to have subsequent events, such as disease recurrence.

Other studies of long-term CV outcomes in patients with Kawasaki disease generally show similar data, according to James T. Gaensbauer, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“I generally agree with the premise that major complications are rare when you compare a cohort of patients with Kawasaki disease with the general population,” Dr. Gaensbauer said. However, he added, “I do not think you can say no one needs to worry.”
 

Severity of acute disease might matter

During the acute phase of Kawasaki disease, the arterial damage varies. As suggested in the University of Lausanne follow-up, patients with significant coronary aneurysms do appear to be at greater risk of long-term complications. Dr. Gaensbauer cited a statement from the American Heart Association that noted a higher risk of CV sequelae from Kawasaki disease with a greater or more severe coronary aneurysm or in the face of other evidence of damage to the arterial tree.

“The clinical course within the first 2 years of Kawasaki disease appears to be important for risk of CV complications after this time,” Dr. Gaensbauer said.

The absolute risk of CV events in patients with a more complicated acute course of Kawasaki disease remains incompletely understood, but Dr. Gaensbauer said that there are several sets of data, including these new data from the Hospital for Sick Children, that suggest that the overall prognosis is good. However, he cautioned that this reassurance does not necessarily apply to children with a difficult acute course.

According to the 2017 AHA statement on Kawasaki disease, risk stratification based on echocardiography and other measures after the acute phase of Kawasaki disease are reasonable to determine if long-term follow-up is needed. In those without abnormalities, it is reasonable to forgo further cardiology assessment.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Gaensbauer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Vasculitis of the coronary arteries is a well-recognized acute complication of Kawasaki disease, but the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) sequelae does not appear to be clinically meaningful for most patients, according to results from an analysis of data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

For patients and parents, these data provide “a message of reassurance,” according to Jennifer J.Y. Lee, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist affiliated with the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The long-term outcomes were characterized as reassuring even though rates of hypertension, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death from CV events were higher in patients with Kawasaki disease relative to controls in a retrospective data-linkage study. In fact, these differences were highly statistically significant, but the absolute differences were extremely small.

For this analysis, the 1,174 patients diagnosed with Kawasaki disease at Dr. Lee’s institution between 1991 and 2008 were compared in a 10:1 ratio to 11,740 controls matched for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic region. The median follow-up period was 20 years, and the maximum was 28 years.
 

Adjusted CV risks are significant

In an adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio model, patients in the Kawasaki group had a more than twofold increase in risk for hypertension (aHR, 2.3; P < .0001) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.5; P = .009). They also had more than a 10-fold increase in risk for MACE (aHR, 10.3; P < .0001).

These statistics belie the clinical relevance, according to Dr. Lee. Because of the very low rates of all the measured events in both groups, there was just one more case of hypertension per 1,250 patient-years of follow-up, one more case of MACE per 833 patient-years of follow-up, and one more death for 3,846 patient years of follow-up.

Moreover, when these outcomes were graphed over time, most events occurred during the acute period or in the initial years of follow-up.

“There was not a constant increase in risk of these outcomes over time for patients with Kawasaki disease relative to the controls,” Dr. Lee reported. “The long-term prognosis for Kawasaki patients remains favorable.”

European group reports similar results

Similar results from a single-center experience were published 3 years ago. In that study, 207 Kawasaki patients treated at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) were followed for 30 years. Complications after the acute phase were characterized as “rare.”

For example, only three patients (1.4%) had a subsequent episode of myocardial ischemia. All three had developed a coronary aneurysm during the acute phase of Kawasaki disease. The authors of that study reported that children who had not received immunoglobulins during the acute phase or who developed Kawasaki disease outside of the usual age range were more likely to have subsequent events, such as disease recurrence.

Other studies of long-term CV outcomes in patients with Kawasaki disease generally show similar data, according to James T. Gaensbauer, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“I generally agree with the premise that major complications are rare when you compare a cohort of patients with Kawasaki disease with the general population,” Dr. Gaensbauer said. However, he added, “I do not think you can say no one needs to worry.”
 

Severity of acute disease might matter

During the acute phase of Kawasaki disease, the arterial damage varies. As suggested in the University of Lausanne follow-up, patients with significant coronary aneurysms do appear to be at greater risk of long-term complications. Dr. Gaensbauer cited a statement from the American Heart Association that noted a higher risk of CV sequelae from Kawasaki disease with a greater or more severe coronary aneurysm or in the face of other evidence of damage to the arterial tree.

“The clinical course within the first 2 years of Kawasaki disease appears to be important for risk of CV complications after this time,” Dr. Gaensbauer said.

The absolute risk of CV events in patients with a more complicated acute course of Kawasaki disease remains incompletely understood, but Dr. Gaensbauer said that there are several sets of data, including these new data from the Hospital for Sick Children, that suggest that the overall prognosis is good. However, he cautioned that this reassurance does not necessarily apply to children with a difficult acute course.

According to the 2017 AHA statement on Kawasaki disease, risk stratification based on echocardiography and other measures after the acute phase of Kawasaki disease are reasonable to determine if long-term follow-up is needed. In those without abnormalities, it is reasonable to forgo further cardiology assessment.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Gaensbauer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Vasculitis of the coronary arteries is a well-recognized acute complication of Kawasaki disease, but the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) sequelae does not appear to be clinically meaningful for most patients, according to results from an analysis of data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

For patients and parents, these data provide “a message of reassurance,” according to Jennifer J.Y. Lee, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist affiliated with the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The long-term outcomes were characterized as reassuring even though rates of hypertension, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death from CV events were higher in patients with Kawasaki disease relative to controls in a retrospective data-linkage study. In fact, these differences were highly statistically significant, but the absolute differences were extremely small.

For this analysis, the 1,174 patients diagnosed with Kawasaki disease at Dr. Lee’s institution between 1991 and 2008 were compared in a 10:1 ratio to 11,740 controls matched for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic region. The median follow-up period was 20 years, and the maximum was 28 years.
 

Adjusted CV risks are significant

In an adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio model, patients in the Kawasaki group had a more than twofold increase in risk for hypertension (aHR, 2.3; P < .0001) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.5; P = .009). They also had more than a 10-fold increase in risk for MACE (aHR, 10.3; P < .0001).

These statistics belie the clinical relevance, according to Dr. Lee. Because of the very low rates of all the measured events in both groups, there was just one more case of hypertension per 1,250 patient-years of follow-up, one more case of MACE per 833 patient-years of follow-up, and one more death for 3,846 patient years of follow-up.

Moreover, when these outcomes were graphed over time, most events occurred during the acute period or in the initial years of follow-up.

“There was not a constant increase in risk of these outcomes over time for patients with Kawasaki disease relative to the controls,” Dr. Lee reported. “The long-term prognosis for Kawasaki patients remains favorable.”

European group reports similar results

Similar results from a single-center experience were published 3 years ago. In that study, 207 Kawasaki patients treated at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) were followed for 30 years. Complications after the acute phase were characterized as “rare.”

For example, only three patients (1.4%) had a subsequent episode of myocardial ischemia. All three had developed a coronary aneurysm during the acute phase of Kawasaki disease. The authors of that study reported that children who had not received immunoglobulins during the acute phase or who developed Kawasaki disease outside of the usual age range were more likely to have subsequent events, such as disease recurrence.

Other studies of long-term CV outcomes in patients with Kawasaki disease generally show similar data, according to James T. Gaensbauer, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“I generally agree with the premise that major complications are rare when you compare a cohort of patients with Kawasaki disease with the general population,” Dr. Gaensbauer said. However, he added, “I do not think you can say no one needs to worry.”
 

Severity of acute disease might matter

During the acute phase of Kawasaki disease, the arterial damage varies. As suggested in the University of Lausanne follow-up, patients with significant coronary aneurysms do appear to be at greater risk of long-term complications. Dr. Gaensbauer cited a statement from the American Heart Association that noted a higher risk of CV sequelae from Kawasaki disease with a greater or more severe coronary aneurysm or in the face of other evidence of damage to the arterial tree.

“The clinical course within the first 2 years of Kawasaki disease appears to be important for risk of CV complications after this time,” Dr. Gaensbauer said.

The absolute risk of CV events in patients with a more complicated acute course of Kawasaki disease remains incompletely understood, but Dr. Gaensbauer said that there are several sets of data, including these new data from the Hospital for Sick Children, that suggest that the overall prognosis is good. However, he cautioned that this reassurance does not necessarily apply to children with a difficult acute course.

According to the 2017 AHA statement on Kawasaki disease, risk stratification based on echocardiography and other measures after the acute phase of Kawasaki disease are reasonable to determine if long-term follow-up is needed. In those without abnormalities, it is reasonable to forgo further cardiology assessment.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Gaensbauer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Long COVID continues to be a moving target – continuously evolving and still surprising doctors and patients who have sometimes incapacitating long-term symptoms.

Little about the disorder seems predictable at this point. People can have long COVID after asymptomatic, mild, or severe COVID-19, for example. And when a person gets long COVID – also known as long-haul COVID – symptoms can vary widely.

To address all the uncertainty, the New York State Department of Health gathered experts in primary care, pediatrics, physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pulmonology to answer some pressing questions.

New York in 2020 was the first epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, making it also the center of the long COVID epidemic, says Emily Lutterloh, MD, director of the Division of Epidemiology at the New York State Department of Health.
 

What do you do when you’re seeing a patient with long COVID for the first time?

The first exam varies because there are so many different ways long COVID presents itself, says Benjamin Abramoff, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia.

I’ve now been seriously ill with #LongCovid for 11 months. I was never hospitalized. I didn’t even have a “mild” covid case. Instead, I developed Long Covid from an asymptomatic infection.

I’m far from unique. Up to 1/5 of asymptomatic patients go on to have long-term symptoms.

— Ravi Veriah Jacques (@RaviHVJ) February 3, 2022

Assessing their previous and current care also helps to direct their ongoing management, says Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Health System in New York.
 

Can vaccination help people with long COVID?

Anything that we can do to help prevent people from being critically ill or being hospitalized with COVID-19 is helpful to prevent long COVID, says Dr. Abramoff, who is also director of the long COVID clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“So that’s something I always discuss with patients. In some research, sometimes patients do feel better after the vaccine,” he says.
 

What kind of therapies do you find helpful for your patients?

Rehabilitation is a key part of recovery from long COVID, Dr. Abramoff says. “It is very important to make this very patient-specific.”

“We have patients that are working. They’re already going to the gym in some cases but don’t feel like they have the same endurance,” he says. “And then we have patients who are so crippled by their fatigue that they can’t get out of bed.”
 

1/ What is #LongCOVID?!

A disabling malady from ongoing inflammation, autoimmunity, & potential viral reservoirs (GI, brain?)

NEW DATA: The Lungs “light up” on special MRI Scans 3 to 9 months later in patients never hospitalized for COVID.https://t.co/I2kyZ4cK5F pic.twitter.com/dL1P67L2DK

— WesElyMD (@WesElyMD) February 2, 2022

An exercise program can help people who have long COVID.

“There’s a big role for therapy services in the recovery of these patients,” says John Baratta, MD, of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

But the limited number of long COVID clinics can mean some people are unable to get to therapists trained on the needs of patients with lingering COVID symptoms. Educating community physical and occupational therapists is one solution.
 

How long does it take for people with long COVID to recover and get back to 100% if they can?

Specific numbers aren’t really available, Dr. Baratta says.

“But I can tell you the general trend that I see is that a lot of patients have a gradual improvement of symptoms. The slow but steady improvement with time may be the body’s natural healing process, a result of medical interventions, or both.”

It can help to reassure people with long COVID that they will not be discharged from care until they feel they’ve maximized their health, says Sharagim Kemp, DO, medical director of the COVID Recovery Program for Nuvance Health, a health system in New York and Connecticut.

It’s essential to set realistic recovery expectations and tell patients that not everyone will return to 100% of their pre-COVID functioning, she says.

“Once we are able to help them reset their expectations, there’s almost an accelerated recovery because they are not putting that pressure on themselves anymore,” Dr. Kemp says.
 

What are the most common symptoms you’re seeing in long COVID?

It’s helpful to think of long COVID as a very broad umbrella term, Dr. Abramoff says.

Echoing what many others have observed, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction or “brain fog,“ and shortness of breath or troubled breathing appear to be the most common symptoms, he says.

Some reported vague symptoms, Dr. Kemp says.

People may go to the doctor “not even realizing that they had COVID. That’s one of the important points here – to have a high index of suspicion for patients who come in with multiple symptoms,” she says.

For this reason, patients can report symptoms that don’t necessarily fit into any specialty, says Sarah J. Ryan, MD, an internal medicine doctor at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. People say they are “just not themselves” or they are tired after their COVID-19 recovery.
 

Is there a connection between severe COVID cases and severe long COVID?

“It’s not like that at all. I would say that more than 80% of the patients that we see had mild to moderate illness and they were not hospitalized,” Dr. Baratta says.

Long COVID is a bit different in children and teenagers, says Ixsy Ramirez, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor. Most patients in the long COVID clinic at the University of Michigan were previously healthy, and not children with asthma or other lung conditions as one might expect. In fact, many are student athletes, or were before they had long COVID.

In this population, shortness of breath is most common, followed by chest pain and fatigue. Unfortunately, the symptoms are so serious for many kids that their performance is limited, even if they can return to competitive play.
 

Are there defined criteria you use to diagnose long COVID? How do you give someone a diagnosis?

That’s an ever-evolving question, Dr. Kemp says. The generally accepted definition centers on persistent or new symptoms 4 weeks or more after the original COVID-19 illness, but there are exceptions.

Researchers are working on lab tests to help confirm the diagnosis. But without a definitive blood biomarker, getting to the diagnosis requires “some thorough detective work,” Dr. Ryan says.
 

Do you bring in mental health providers to help with treatment?

“We focus on mental health quite a bit actually,” says, Dr. Chen, cofounder of his institution’s COVID recovery clinic. Mount Sinai offers one-on-one and group mental health services, for example.

“Personally, I’ve seen patients that I did not expect to have such severe mental health changes” with long COVID.
 

One of the most powerful accounts and testimonies I have seen on what most #LongCovid patients experience when interacting with their doctors.

“I did not fit in a box, so they chose not to see me, even worse they made me feel like it was my fault for not fitting in their box” pic.twitter.com/7GQLBucuO5

— charlos (@loscharlos) February 3, 2022

Examples include severe depression, cases of acute psychosis, hallucinations, and other problems “that are really unexpected after a viral illness.”

Stony Brook University Hospital in New York has a long COVID clinic staffed by multiple primary care doctors who do exams and refer patients to services. A bonus of offering psychological services to all post-COVID patients is doctors get a more complete picture of each person and a better understanding of what they are going through, says Abigail Chua, MD, a pulmonologist at Stony Brook.

Some empathy is essential, Dr. Baratta says. “It’s important to recognize that a lot of these patients present with a sense of grief or loss for their prior life.”
 

What does the future hold?

A simple test to diagnose long COVID, combined with an effective treatment that helps people feel better within a week, would be ideal, Dr. Abramoff says.

“That would be lovely. But you know, we’re just not at that point.”

And it would be helpful to start identifying subtypes of long COVID so diagnosis and treatment can be more targeted, Dr. Abramoff says. Otherwise, “It’s going to be a very challenging approach to try to treat all of our patients with long COVID symptoms the same way.”

Good clinical trials likewise are needed to address all the subtleties of long COVID.

A number of long COVID centers are collaborating on research to find out more, Dr. Chen says. Actions include setting up a bank of tissue samples from people with long COVID so researchers can continue to figure out the condition.

One goal, Dr. Chen says, would be the ability to treat long COVID rather than just its symptoms.

Long COVID emphasizes the need to prevent people from getting COVID in the first place, Dr. Ramirez says. This will continue to be important, particularly when some people dismiss the seriousness of COVID, comparing it to a cold if they get it. That attitude discounts the large number of people who unfortunately go on to develop long-term, often debilitating, symptoms.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Long COVID continues to be a moving target – continuously evolving and still surprising doctors and patients who have sometimes incapacitating long-term symptoms.

Little about the disorder seems predictable at this point. People can have long COVID after asymptomatic, mild, or severe COVID-19, for example. And when a person gets long COVID – also known as long-haul COVID – symptoms can vary widely.

To address all the uncertainty, the New York State Department of Health gathered experts in primary care, pediatrics, physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pulmonology to answer some pressing questions.

New York in 2020 was the first epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, making it also the center of the long COVID epidemic, says Emily Lutterloh, MD, director of the Division of Epidemiology at the New York State Department of Health.
 

What do you do when you’re seeing a patient with long COVID for the first time?

The first exam varies because there are so many different ways long COVID presents itself, says Benjamin Abramoff, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia.

I’ve now been seriously ill with #LongCovid for 11 months. I was never hospitalized. I didn’t even have a “mild” covid case. Instead, I developed Long Covid from an asymptomatic infection.

I’m far from unique. Up to 1/5 of asymptomatic patients go on to have long-term symptoms.

— Ravi Veriah Jacques (@RaviHVJ) February 3, 2022

Assessing their previous and current care also helps to direct their ongoing management, says Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Health System in New York.
 

Can vaccination help people with long COVID?

Anything that we can do to help prevent people from being critically ill or being hospitalized with COVID-19 is helpful to prevent long COVID, says Dr. Abramoff, who is also director of the long COVID clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“So that’s something I always discuss with patients. In some research, sometimes patients do feel better after the vaccine,” he says.
 

What kind of therapies do you find helpful for your patients?

Rehabilitation is a key part of recovery from long COVID, Dr. Abramoff says. “It is very important to make this very patient-specific.”

“We have patients that are working. They’re already going to the gym in some cases but don’t feel like they have the same endurance,” he says. “And then we have patients who are so crippled by their fatigue that they can’t get out of bed.”
 

1/ What is #LongCOVID?!

A disabling malady from ongoing inflammation, autoimmunity, & potential viral reservoirs (GI, brain?)

NEW DATA: The Lungs “light up” on special MRI Scans 3 to 9 months later in patients never hospitalized for COVID.https://t.co/I2kyZ4cK5F pic.twitter.com/dL1P67L2DK

— WesElyMD (@WesElyMD) February 2, 2022

An exercise program can help people who have long COVID.

“There’s a big role for therapy services in the recovery of these patients,” says John Baratta, MD, of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

But the limited number of long COVID clinics can mean some people are unable to get to therapists trained on the needs of patients with lingering COVID symptoms. Educating community physical and occupational therapists is one solution.
 

How long does it take for people with long COVID to recover and get back to 100% if they can?

Specific numbers aren’t really available, Dr. Baratta says.

“But I can tell you the general trend that I see is that a lot of patients have a gradual improvement of symptoms. The slow but steady improvement with time may be the body’s natural healing process, a result of medical interventions, or both.”

It can help to reassure people with long COVID that they will not be discharged from care until they feel they’ve maximized their health, says Sharagim Kemp, DO, medical director of the COVID Recovery Program for Nuvance Health, a health system in New York and Connecticut.

It’s essential to set realistic recovery expectations and tell patients that not everyone will return to 100% of their pre-COVID functioning, she says.

“Once we are able to help them reset their expectations, there’s almost an accelerated recovery because they are not putting that pressure on themselves anymore,” Dr. Kemp says.
 

What are the most common symptoms you’re seeing in long COVID?

It’s helpful to think of long COVID as a very broad umbrella term, Dr. Abramoff says.

Echoing what many others have observed, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction or “brain fog,“ and shortness of breath or troubled breathing appear to be the most common symptoms, he says.

Some reported vague symptoms, Dr. Kemp says.

People may go to the doctor “not even realizing that they had COVID. That’s one of the important points here – to have a high index of suspicion for patients who come in with multiple symptoms,” she says.

For this reason, patients can report symptoms that don’t necessarily fit into any specialty, says Sarah J. Ryan, MD, an internal medicine doctor at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. People say they are “just not themselves” or they are tired after their COVID-19 recovery.
 

Is there a connection between severe COVID cases and severe long COVID?

“It’s not like that at all. I would say that more than 80% of the patients that we see had mild to moderate illness and they were not hospitalized,” Dr. Baratta says.

Long COVID is a bit different in children and teenagers, says Ixsy Ramirez, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor. Most patients in the long COVID clinic at the University of Michigan were previously healthy, and not children with asthma or other lung conditions as one might expect. In fact, many are student athletes, or were before they had long COVID.

In this population, shortness of breath is most common, followed by chest pain and fatigue. Unfortunately, the symptoms are so serious for many kids that their performance is limited, even if they can return to competitive play.
 

Are there defined criteria you use to diagnose long COVID? How do you give someone a diagnosis?

That’s an ever-evolving question, Dr. Kemp says. The generally accepted definition centers on persistent or new symptoms 4 weeks or more after the original COVID-19 illness, but there are exceptions.

Researchers are working on lab tests to help confirm the diagnosis. But without a definitive blood biomarker, getting to the diagnosis requires “some thorough detective work,” Dr. Ryan says.
 

Do you bring in mental health providers to help with treatment?

“We focus on mental health quite a bit actually,” says, Dr. Chen, cofounder of his institution’s COVID recovery clinic. Mount Sinai offers one-on-one and group mental health services, for example.

“Personally, I’ve seen patients that I did not expect to have such severe mental health changes” with long COVID.
 

One of the most powerful accounts and testimonies I have seen on what most #LongCovid patients experience when interacting with their doctors.

“I did not fit in a box, so they chose not to see me, even worse they made me feel like it was my fault for not fitting in their box” pic.twitter.com/7GQLBucuO5

— charlos (@loscharlos) February 3, 2022

Examples include severe depression, cases of acute psychosis, hallucinations, and other problems “that are really unexpected after a viral illness.”

Stony Brook University Hospital in New York has a long COVID clinic staffed by multiple primary care doctors who do exams and refer patients to services. A bonus of offering psychological services to all post-COVID patients is doctors get a more complete picture of each person and a better understanding of what they are going through, says Abigail Chua, MD, a pulmonologist at Stony Brook.

Some empathy is essential, Dr. Baratta says. “It’s important to recognize that a lot of these patients present with a sense of grief or loss for their prior life.”
 

What does the future hold?

A simple test to diagnose long COVID, combined with an effective treatment that helps people feel better within a week, would be ideal, Dr. Abramoff says.

“That would be lovely. But you know, we’re just not at that point.”

And it would be helpful to start identifying subtypes of long COVID so diagnosis and treatment can be more targeted, Dr. Abramoff says. Otherwise, “It’s going to be a very challenging approach to try to treat all of our patients with long COVID symptoms the same way.”

Good clinical trials likewise are needed to address all the subtleties of long COVID.

A number of long COVID centers are collaborating on research to find out more, Dr. Chen says. Actions include setting up a bank of tissue samples from people with long COVID so researchers can continue to figure out the condition.

One goal, Dr. Chen says, would be the ability to treat long COVID rather than just its symptoms.

Long COVID emphasizes the need to prevent people from getting COVID in the first place, Dr. Ramirez says. This will continue to be important, particularly when some people dismiss the seriousness of COVID, comparing it to a cold if they get it. That attitude discounts the large number of people who unfortunately go on to develop long-term, often debilitating, symptoms.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Long COVID continues to be a moving target – continuously evolving and still surprising doctors and patients who have sometimes incapacitating long-term symptoms.

Little about the disorder seems predictable at this point. People can have long COVID after asymptomatic, mild, or severe COVID-19, for example. And when a person gets long COVID – also known as long-haul COVID – symptoms can vary widely.

To address all the uncertainty, the New York State Department of Health gathered experts in primary care, pediatrics, physical medicine, rehabilitation, and pulmonology to answer some pressing questions.

New York in 2020 was the first epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, making it also the center of the long COVID epidemic, says Emily Lutterloh, MD, director of the Division of Epidemiology at the New York State Department of Health.
 

What do you do when you’re seeing a patient with long COVID for the first time?

The first exam varies because there are so many different ways long COVID presents itself, says Benjamin Abramoff, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia.

I’ve now been seriously ill with #LongCovid for 11 months. I was never hospitalized. I didn’t even have a “mild” covid case. Instead, I developed Long Covid from an asymptomatic infection.

I’m far from unique. Up to 1/5 of asymptomatic patients go on to have long-term symptoms.

— Ravi Veriah Jacques (@RaviHVJ) February 3, 2022

Assessing their previous and current care also helps to direct their ongoing management, says Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Health System in New York.
 

Can vaccination help people with long COVID?

Anything that we can do to help prevent people from being critically ill or being hospitalized with COVID-19 is helpful to prevent long COVID, says Dr. Abramoff, who is also director of the long COVID clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“So that’s something I always discuss with patients. In some research, sometimes patients do feel better after the vaccine,” he says.
 

What kind of therapies do you find helpful for your patients?

Rehabilitation is a key part of recovery from long COVID, Dr. Abramoff says. “It is very important to make this very patient-specific.”

“We have patients that are working. They’re already going to the gym in some cases but don’t feel like they have the same endurance,” he says. “And then we have patients who are so crippled by their fatigue that they can’t get out of bed.”
 

1/ What is #LongCOVID?!

A disabling malady from ongoing inflammation, autoimmunity, & potential viral reservoirs (GI, brain?)

NEW DATA: The Lungs “light up” on special MRI Scans 3 to 9 months later in patients never hospitalized for COVID.https://t.co/I2kyZ4cK5F pic.twitter.com/dL1P67L2DK

— WesElyMD (@WesElyMD) February 2, 2022

An exercise program can help people who have long COVID.

“There’s a big role for therapy services in the recovery of these patients,” says John Baratta, MD, of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

But the limited number of long COVID clinics can mean some people are unable to get to therapists trained on the needs of patients with lingering COVID symptoms. Educating community physical and occupational therapists is one solution.
 

How long does it take for people with long COVID to recover and get back to 100% if they can?

Specific numbers aren’t really available, Dr. Baratta says.

“But I can tell you the general trend that I see is that a lot of patients have a gradual improvement of symptoms. The slow but steady improvement with time may be the body’s natural healing process, a result of medical interventions, or both.”

It can help to reassure people with long COVID that they will not be discharged from care until they feel they’ve maximized their health, says Sharagim Kemp, DO, medical director of the COVID Recovery Program for Nuvance Health, a health system in New York and Connecticut.

It’s essential to set realistic recovery expectations and tell patients that not everyone will return to 100% of their pre-COVID functioning, she says.

“Once we are able to help them reset their expectations, there’s almost an accelerated recovery because they are not putting that pressure on themselves anymore,” Dr. Kemp says.
 

What are the most common symptoms you’re seeing in long COVID?

It’s helpful to think of long COVID as a very broad umbrella term, Dr. Abramoff says.

Echoing what many others have observed, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction or “brain fog,“ and shortness of breath or troubled breathing appear to be the most common symptoms, he says.

Some reported vague symptoms, Dr. Kemp says.

People may go to the doctor “not even realizing that they had COVID. That’s one of the important points here – to have a high index of suspicion for patients who come in with multiple symptoms,” she says.

For this reason, patients can report symptoms that don’t necessarily fit into any specialty, says Sarah J. Ryan, MD, an internal medicine doctor at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. People say they are “just not themselves” or they are tired after their COVID-19 recovery.
 

Is there a connection between severe COVID cases and severe long COVID?

“It’s not like that at all. I would say that more than 80% of the patients that we see had mild to moderate illness and they were not hospitalized,” Dr. Baratta says.

Long COVID is a bit different in children and teenagers, says Ixsy Ramirez, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor. Most patients in the long COVID clinic at the University of Michigan were previously healthy, and not children with asthma or other lung conditions as one might expect. In fact, many are student athletes, or were before they had long COVID.

In this population, shortness of breath is most common, followed by chest pain and fatigue. Unfortunately, the symptoms are so serious for many kids that their performance is limited, even if they can return to competitive play.
 

Are there defined criteria you use to diagnose long COVID? How do you give someone a diagnosis?

That’s an ever-evolving question, Dr. Kemp says. The generally accepted definition centers on persistent or new symptoms 4 weeks or more after the original COVID-19 illness, but there are exceptions.

Researchers are working on lab tests to help confirm the diagnosis. But without a definitive blood biomarker, getting to the diagnosis requires “some thorough detective work,” Dr. Ryan says.
 

Do you bring in mental health providers to help with treatment?

“We focus on mental health quite a bit actually,” says, Dr. Chen, cofounder of his institution’s COVID recovery clinic. Mount Sinai offers one-on-one and group mental health services, for example.

“Personally, I’ve seen patients that I did not expect to have such severe mental health changes” with long COVID.
 

One of the most powerful accounts and testimonies I have seen on what most #LongCovid patients experience when interacting with their doctors.

“I did not fit in a box, so they chose not to see me, even worse they made me feel like it was my fault for not fitting in their box” pic.twitter.com/7GQLBucuO5

— charlos (@loscharlos) February 3, 2022

Examples include severe depression, cases of acute psychosis, hallucinations, and other problems “that are really unexpected after a viral illness.”

Stony Brook University Hospital in New York has a long COVID clinic staffed by multiple primary care doctors who do exams and refer patients to services. A bonus of offering psychological services to all post-COVID patients is doctors get a more complete picture of each person and a better understanding of what they are going through, says Abigail Chua, MD, a pulmonologist at Stony Brook.

Some empathy is essential, Dr. Baratta says. “It’s important to recognize that a lot of these patients present with a sense of grief or loss for their prior life.”
 

What does the future hold?

A simple test to diagnose long COVID, combined with an effective treatment that helps people feel better within a week, would be ideal, Dr. Abramoff says.

“That would be lovely. But you know, we’re just not at that point.”

And it would be helpful to start identifying subtypes of long COVID so diagnosis and treatment can be more targeted, Dr. Abramoff says. Otherwise, “It’s going to be a very challenging approach to try to treat all of our patients with long COVID symptoms the same way.”

Good clinical trials likewise are needed to address all the subtleties of long COVID.

A number of long COVID centers are collaborating on research to find out more, Dr. Chen says. Actions include setting up a bank of tissue samples from people with long COVID so researchers can continue to figure out the condition.

One goal, Dr. Chen says, would be the ability to treat long COVID rather than just its symptoms.

Long COVID emphasizes the need to prevent people from getting COVID in the first place, Dr. Ramirez says. This will continue to be important, particularly when some people dismiss the seriousness of COVID, comparing it to a cold if they get it. That attitude discounts the large number of people who unfortunately go on to develop long-term, often debilitating, symptoms.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A breakthrough neuromodulation system rapidly restores motor function in patients with a severe spinal cord injury (SCI), new research shows.

The study demonstrated that an epidural electrical stimulation (EES) system developed specifically for spinal cord injuries enabled three men with complete paralysis to stand, walk, cycle, swim, and move their torso within 1 day.

“Thanks to this technology, we have been able to target individuals with the most serious spinal cord injury, meaning those with clinically complete spinal cord injury, with no sensation and no movement in the legs,” Grégoire Courtine, PhD, professor of neuroscience and neurotechnology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, University Hospital Lausanne (Switzerland), and the University of Lausanne, told reporters attending a press briefing.

The study was published online Feb. 7, 2022, in Nature Medicine.
 

More rapid, precise, effective

SCIs involve severed connections between the brain and extremities. To compensate for these lost connections, researchers have investigated stem cell therapy, brain-machine interfaces, and powered exoskeletons.

However, these approaches aren’t yet ready for prime time.

In the meantime, researchers discovered even patients with a “complete” injury may have low-functioning connections and started investigating epidural stimulators designed to treat chronic pain. Recent studies – including three published in 2018 – showed promise for these pain-related stimulators in patients with incomplete SCI.

But using such “repurposed” technology meant the electrode array was relatively narrow and short, “so we could not target all the regions of the spinal cord involving control of leg and trunk movements,” said Dr. Courtine. With the newer technology “we are much more precise, effective, and more rapid in delivering therapy.”

To develop this new approach, the researchers designed a paddle lead with an arrangement of electrodes that targets sacral, lumbar, and low-thoracic dorsal roots involved in leg and trunk movements. They also established a personalized computational framework that allows for optimal surgical placement of this paddle lead.

In addition, they developed software that renders the configuration of individualized activity–dependent stimulation programs rapid, simple, and predictable.

They tested these neurotechnologies in three men with complete sensorimotor paralysis as part of an ongoing clinical trial. The participants, aged 29, 32, and 41 years, suffered an SCI from a motor bike accident 3, 9, and 1 year before enrollment.

All three patients exhibited complete sensorimotor paralysis. They were unable to take any step, and muscles remained quiescent during these attempts.

A neurosurgeon implanted electrodes along the spinal cord of study subjects. Wires from these electrodes were connected to a neurostimulator implanted under the skin in the abdomen.

The men can select different activity-based programs from a tablet that sends signals to the implanted device.
 

Personalized approach

Within a single day of the surgery, the participants were able to stand, walk, cycle, swim, and control trunk movements.

“It was not perfect at the very beginning, but they could train very early on to have a more fluid gait,” said study investigator neurosurgeon Joceylyne Bloch, MD, associate professor, University of Lausanne and University Hospital Lausanne.

At this stage, not all paralyzed patients are eligible for the procedure. Dr. Bloch explained that at least 6 cm of healthy spinal cord under the lesion is needed to implant the electrodes.

“There’s a huge variability of spinal cord anatomy between individuals. That’s why it’s important to study each person individually and to have individual models in order to be precise.”

Researchers envision having “a library of electrode arrays,” added Dr. Courtine. With preoperative imaging of the individual’s spinal cord, “the neurosurgeon can select the more appropriate electrode array for that specific patient.”

Dr. Courtine noted recovery of sensation with the system differs from one individual to another. One study participant, Michel Roccati, now 30, told the briefing he feels a contraction in his muscle during the stimulation.

Currently, only individuals whose injury is more than a year old are included in the study to ensure patients have “a stable lesion” and reached “a plateau of recovery,” said Dr. Bloch. However, animal models show intervening earlier might boost the benefits.

A patient’s age can influence the outcome, as younger patients are likely in better condition and more motivated than older patients, said Dr. Bloch. However, she noted patients closing in on 50 years have responded well to the therapy.

Such stimulation systems may prove useful in treating conditions typically associated with SCI, such as hypertension and bladder control, and perhaps also in patients with Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Courtine.

The researchers plan to conduct another study that will include a next-generation pulse generator with features that make the stimulation even more effective and user friendly. A voice recognition system could eventually be connected to the system.

“The next step is a minicomputer that you implant in the body that communicates in real time with an external iPhone,” said Dr. Courtine.

ONWARD Medical, which developed the technology, has received a breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration. The company is in discussions with the FDA to carry out a clinical trial of the device in the United States.
 

A ‘huge step forward’

Peter J. Grahn, PhD, assistant professor, department of physical medicine and rehabilitation and department of neurologic surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., an author of one of the 2018 studies, said this technology “is a huge step forward” and “really pushes the field.”

Compared with the device used in his study that’s designed to treat neuropathic pain, this new system “is much more capable of dynamic stimulation,” said Dr. Grahn. “You can tailor the stimulation based on which area of the spinal cord you want to target during a specific function.”

There has been “a lot of hope and hype” recently around stem cells and biological molecules that were supposed to be “magic pills” to cure spinal cord dysfunction, said Dr. Grahn. “I don’t think this is one of those.”

However, he questioned the researchers’ use of the word “walking.”

“They say independent stepping or walking is restored on day 1, but the graphs show day 1 function is having over 60% of their body weight supported when they’re taking these steps,” he said.

In addition, the “big question” is how this technology can “be distilled down” into an approach “applicable across rehabilitation centers,” said Dr. Grahn.

The study was supported by numerous organizations, including ONWARD Medical. Dr. Courtine and Dr. Bloch hold various patents in relation with the present work. Dr. Courtine is a consultant with ONWARD Medical, and he and Dr. Bloch are shareholders of ONWARD Medical, a company with direct relationships with the presented work. Dr. Grahn reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A breakthrough neuromodulation system rapidly restores motor function in patients with a severe spinal cord injury (SCI), new research shows.

The study demonstrated that an epidural electrical stimulation (EES) system developed specifically for spinal cord injuries enabled three men with complete paralysis to stand, walk, cycle, swim, and move their torso within 1 day.

“Thanks to this technology, we have been able to target individuals with the most serious spinal cord injury, meaning those with clinically complete spinal cord injury, with no sensation and no movement in the legs,” Grégoire Courtine, PhD, professor of neuroscience and neurotechnology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, University Hospital Lausanne (Switzerland), and the University of Lausanne, told reporters attending a press briefing.

The study was published online Feb. 7, 2022, in Nature Medicine.
 

More rapid, precise, effective

SCIs involve severed connections between the brain and extremities. To compensate for these lost connections, researchers have investigated stem cell therapy, brain-machine interfaces, and powered exoskeletons.

However, these approaches aren’t yet ready for prime time.

In the meantime, researchers discovered even patients with a “complete” injury may have low-functioning connections and started investigating epidural stimulators designed to treat chronic pain. Recent studies – including three published in 2018 – showed promise for these pain-related stimulators in patients with incomplete SCI.

But using such “repurposed” technology meant the electrode array was relatively narrow and short, “so we could not target all the regions of the spinal cord involving control of leg and trunk movements,” said Dr. Courtine. With the newer technology “we are much more precise, effective, and more rapid in delivering therapy.”

To develop this new approach, the researchers designed a paddle lead with an arrangement of electrodes that targets sacral, lumbar, and low-thoracic dorsal roots involved in leg and trunk movements. They also established a personalized computational framework that allows for optimal surgical placement of this paddle lead.

In addition, they developed software that renders the configuration of individualized activity–dependent stimulation programs rapid, simple, and predictable.

They tested these neurotechnologies in three men with complete sensorimotor paralysis as part of an ongoing clinical trial. The participants, aged 29, 32, and 41 years, suffered an SCI from a motor bike accident 3, 9, and 1 year before enrollment.

All three patients exhibited complete sensorimotor paralysis. They were unable to take any step, and muscles remained quiescent during these attempts.

A neurosurgeon implanted electrodes along the spinal cord of study subjects. Wires from these electrodes were connected to a neurostimulator implanted under the skin in the abdomen.

The men can select different activity-based programs from a tablet that sends signals to the implanted device.
 

Personalized approach

Within a single day of the surgery, the participants were able to stand, walk, cycle, swim, and control trunk movements.

“It was not perfect at the very beginning, but they could train very early on to have a more fluid gait,” said study investigator neurosurgeon Joceylyne Bloch, MD, associate professor, University of Lausanne and University Hospital Lausanne.

At this stage, not all paralyzed patients are eligible for the procedure. Dr. Bloch explained that at least 6 cm of healthy spinal cord under the lesion is needed to implant the electrodes.

“There’s a huge variability of spinal cord anatomy between individuals. That’s why it’s important to study each person individually and to have individual models in order to be precise.”

Researchers envision having “a library of electrode arrays,” added Dr. Courtine. With preoperative imaging of the individual’s spinal cord, “the neurosurgeon can select the more appropriate electrode array for that specific patient.”

Dr. Courtine noted recovery of sensation with the system differs from one individual to another. One study participant, Michel Roccati, now 30, told the briefing he feels a contraction in his muscle during the stimulation.

Currently, only individuals whose injury is more than a year old are included in the study to ensure patients have “a stable lesion” and reached “a plateau of recovery,” said Dr. Bloch. However, animal models show intervening earlier might boost the benefits.

A patient’s age can influence the outcome, as younger patients are likely in better condition and more motivated than older patients, said Dr. Bloch. However, she noted patients closing in on 50 years have responded well to the therapy.

Such stimulation systems may prove useful in treating conditions typically associated with SCI, such as hypertension and bladder control, and perhaps also in patients with Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Courtine.

The researchers plan to conduct another study that will include a next-generation pulse generator with features that make the stimulation even more effective and user friendly. A voice recognition system could eventually be connected to the system.

“The next step is a minicomputer that you implant in the body that communicates in real time with an external iPhone,” said Dr. Courtine.

ONWARD Medical, which developed the technology, has received a breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration. The company is in discussions with the FDA to carry out a clinical trial of the device in the United States.
 

A ‘huge step forward’

Peter J. Grahn, PhD, assistant professor, department of physical medicine and rehabilitation and department of neurologic surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., an author of one of the 2018 studies, said this technology “is a huge step forward” and “really pushes the field.”

Compared with the device used in his study that’s designed to treat neuropathic pain, this new system “is much more capable of dynamic stimulation,” said Dr. Grahn. “You can tailor the stimulation based on which area of the spinal cord you want to target during a specific function.”

There has been “a lot of hope and hype” recently around stem cells and biological molecules that were supposed to be “magic pills” to cure spinal cord dysfunction, said Dr. Grahn. “I don’t think this is one of those.”

However, he questioned the researchers’ use of the word “walking.”

“They say independent stepping or walking is restored on day 1, but the graphs show day 1 function is having over 60% of their body weight supported when they’re taking these steps,” he said.

In addition, the “big question” is how this technology can “be distilled down” into an approach “applicable across rehabilitation centers,” said Dr. Grahn.

The study was supported by numerous organizations, including ONWARD Medical. Dr. Courtine and Dr. Bloch hold various patents in relation with the present work. Dr. Courtine is a consultant with ONWARD Medical, and he and Dr. Bloch are shareholders of ONWARD Medical, a company with direct relationships with the presented work. Dr. Grahn reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A breakthrough neuromodulation system rapidly restores motor function in patients with a severe spinal cord injury (SCI), new research shows.

The study demonstrated that an epidural electrical stimulation (EES) system developed specifically for spinal cord injuries enabled three men with complete paralysis to stand, walk, cycle, swim, and move their torso within 1 day.

“Thanks to this technology, we have been able to target individuals with the most serious spinal cord injury, meaning those with clinically complete spinal cord injury, with no sensation and no movement in the legs,” Grégoire Courtine, PhD, professor of neuroscience and neurotechnology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, University Hospital Lausanne (Switzerland), and the University of Lausanne, told reporters attending a press briefing.

The study was published online Feb. 7, 2022, in Nature Medicine.
 

More rapid, precise, effective

SCIs involve severed connections between the brain and extremities. To compensate for these lost connections, researchers have investigated stem cell therapy, brain-machine interfaces, and powered exoskeletons.

However, these approaches aren’t yet ready for prime time.

In the meantime, researchers discovered even patients with a “complete” injury may have low-functioning connections and started investigating epidural stimulators designed to treat chronic pain. Recent studies – including three published in 2018 – showed promise for these pain-related stimulators in patients with incomplete SCI.

But using such “repurposed” technology meant the electrode array was relatively narrow and short, “so we could not target all the regions of the spinal cord involving control of leg and trunk movements,” said Dr. Courtine. With the newer technology “we are much more precise, effective, and more rapid in delivering therapy.”

To develop this new approach, the researchers designed a paddle lead with an arrangement of electrodes that targets sacral, lumbar, and low-thoracic dorsal roots involved in leg and trunk movements. They also established a personalized computational framework that allows for optimal surgical placement of this paddle lead.

In addition, they developed software that renders the configuration of individualized activity–dependent stimulation programs rapid, simple, and predictable.

They tested these neurotechnologies in three men with complete sensorimotor paralysis as part of an ongoing clinical trial. The participants, aged 29, 32, and 41 years, suffered an SCI from a motor bike accident 3, 9, and 1 year before enrollment.

All three patients exhibited complete sensorimotor paralysis. They were unable to take any step, and muscles remained quiescent during these attempts.

A neurosurgeon implanted electrodes along the spinal cord of study subjects. Wires from these electrodes were connected to a neurostimulator implanted under the skin in the abdomen.

The men can select different activity-based programs from a tablet that sends signals to the implanted device.
 

Personalized approach

Within a single day of the surgery, the participants were able to stand, walk, cycle, swim, and control trunk movements.

“It was not perfect at the very beginning, but they could train very early on to have a more fluid gait,” said study investigator neurosurgeon Joceylyne Bloch, MD, associate professor, University of Lausanne and University Hospital Lausanne.

At this stage, not all paralyzed patients are eligible for the procedure. Dr. Bloch explained that at least 6 cm of healthy spinal cord under the lesion is needed to implant the electrodes.

“There’s a huge variability of spinal cord anatomy between individuals. That’s why it’s important to study each person individually and to have individual models in order to be precise.”

Researchers envision having “a library of electrode arrays,” added Dr. Courtine. With preoperative imaging of the individual’s spinal cord, “the neurosurgeon can select the more appropriate electrode array for that specific patient.”

Dr. Courtine noted recovery of sensation with the system differs from one individual to another. One study participant, Michel Roccati, now 30, told the briefing he feels a contraction in his muscle during the stimulation.

Currently, only individuals whose injury is more than a year old are included in the study to ensure patients have “a stable lesion” and reached “a plateau of recovery,” said Dr. Bloch. However, animal models show intervening earlier might boost the benefits.

A patient’s age can influence the outcome, as younger patients are likely in better condition and more motivated than older patients, said Dr. Bloch. However, she noted patients closing in on 50 years have responded well to the therapy.

Such stimulation systems may prove useful in treating conditions typically associated with SCI, such as hypertension and bladder control, and perhaps also in patients with Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Courtine.

The researchers plan to conduct another study that will include a next-generation pulse generator with features that make the stimulation even more effective and user friendly. A voice recognition system could eventually be connected to the system.

“The next step is a minicomputer that you implant in the body that communicates in real time with an external iPhone,” said Dr. Courtine.

ONWARD Medical, which developed the technology, has received a breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration. The company is in discussions with the FDA to carry out a clinical trial of the device in the United States.
 

A ‘huge step forward’

Peter J. Grahn, PhD, assistant professor, department of physical medicine and rehabilitation and department of neurologic surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., an author of one of the 2018 studies, said this technology “is a huge step forward” and “really pushes the field.”

Compared with the device used in his study that’s designed to treat neuropathic pain, this new system “is much more capable of dynamic stimulation,” said Dr. Grahn. “You can tailor the stimulation based on which area of the spinal cord you want to target during a specific function.”

There has been “a lot of hope and hype” recently around stem cells and biological molecules that were supposed to be “magic pills” to cure spinal cord dysfunction, said Dr. Grahn. “I don’t think this is one of those.”

However, he questioned the researchers’ use of the word “walking.”

“They say independent stepping or walking is restored on day 1, but the graphs show day 1 function is having over 60% of their body weight supported when they’re taking these steps,” he said.

In addition, the “big question” is how this technology can “be distilled down” into an approach “applicable across rehabilitation centers,” said Dr. Grahn.

The study was supported by numerous organizations, including ONWARD Medical. Dr. Courtine and Dr. Bloch hold various patents in relation with the present work. Dr. Courtine is a consultant with ONWARD Medical, and he and Dr. Bloch are shareholders of ONWARD Medical, a company with direct relationships with the presented work. Dr. Grahn reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.