Neurology Reviews

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have long been at odds with doctor groups over scope of practice issues. But in a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election in late September. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD.

The Allina health care providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

Although doctors and APPs have said that they generally work well together, the relationship has been strained in recent years as APPs argue for greater scope of practice. Meanwhile, physician groups, such as the American Medical Association, believe that APPs need more oversight.

An Allina union organizer, Britta V. Kasmarik, CNP, acknowledges the tension between physicians and APPs. But she said in an interview that the union effort helped bond this group of health care providers. “We share common goals of providing high-quality care for patients in a safe way, and we see the same things day in and day out with our patients.”

Matt Hoffman, MD, a primary care physician at Allina, told this news organization that APPs in his specialty perform the same job as doctors “and the working conditions are really identical. In our view, that means we should be unionizing together.”

The decision to hold a union vote follows similar action by nearly 150 Allina Mercy Hospital physicians in March. Allina Health appealed the vote.

In response to a New York Times investigation, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office began reviewing reports of aggressive billing practices and denied care at Allina Health.

The Allina Health system, which reports $4 billion in annual revenue, cut off nonemergency services to patients, including children, if their medical debt exceeded $4,500, according to the New York Times article. For Allina’s physicians and APPs, that meant leaving patients’ illnesses untreated.

Less than a week after the attorney general announced its investigation, the health system ended this practice.

In a prepared statement to this news organization, Allina Health said that its providers are “critical members of our teams. … We deeply value and share their commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients.”

The health system said it planned to make operational improvements, implement new communication tools, and provide additional well-being resources and enhanced employee benefits “to improve the provider experience.” In addition, it hoped to continue to “foster a culture of collaboration with all our employees.”

Having a union will allow health care providers to advocate for their patients and give health care providers more decision-making power instead of corporate leaders maintaining full authority, Ms. Kasmarik told this news organization.

Union organizers are also concerned with changes to the daily practice of medicine. “We don’t want to be spending our time doing paperwork and calling insurance companies and filling out forms,” said Dr. Hoffman. “We want to be in the exam room with a patient.”

The Allina providers organized after multiple requests to corporate managers failed to address their concerns. Their demands include increased staffing and help with nonclinical work so that clinicians can spend more time with their patients.

“What I’m really excited about is that we will be able to work with the other unionized groups to make change ... by being involved in health care policy at a state or national level,” Dr. Hoffman said. For example, that involvement might include challenging insurance company decisions.

Doctors Council bills itself as the largest union for attending physicians in the country, with 3,500 members, according to Joe Crane, national organizing director.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, health care workers – particularly doctors – have been slow to join unions. Mr. Crane estimated that only about 3% of U.S. physicians are currently union members. He cited union campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC. For comparison, a minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape’s APRN compensation report last year.

Dr. Hoffman is confident the Allina health care providers will have enough votes to win the election to join the union. “We should have done this years ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have long been at odds with doctor groups over scope of practice issues. But in a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election in late September. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD.

The Allina health care providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

Although doctors and APPs have said that they generally work well together, the relationship has been strained in recent years as APPs argue for greater scope of practice. Meanwhile, physician groups, such as the American Medical Association, believe that APPs need more oversight.

An Allina union organizer, Britta V. Kasmarik, CNP, acknowledges the tension between physicians and APPs. But she said in an interview that the union effort helped bond this group of health care providers. “We share common goals of providing high-quality care for patients in a safe way, and we see the same things day in and day out with our patients.”

Matt Hoffman, MD, a primary care physician at Allina, told this news organization that APPs in his specialty perform the same job as doctors “and the working conditions are really identical. In our view, that means we should be unionizing together.”

The decision to hold a union vote follows similar action by nearly 150 Allina Mercy Hospital physicians in March. Allina Health appealed the vote.

In response to a New York Times investigation, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office began reviewing reports of aggressive billing practices and denied care at Allina Health.

The Allina Health system, which reports $4 billion in annual revenue, cut off nonemergency services to patients, including children, if their medical debt exceeded $4,500, according to the New York Times article. For Allina’s physicians and APPs, that meant leaving patients’ illnesses untreated.

Less than a week after the attorney general announced its investigation, the health system ended this practice.

In a prepared statement to this news organization, Allina Health said that its providers are “critical members of our teams. … We deeply value and share their commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients.”

The health system said it planned to make operational improvements, implement new communication tools, and provide additional well-being resources and enhanced employee benefits “to improve the provider experience.” In addition, it hoped to continue to “foster a culture of collaboration with all our employees.”

Having a union will allow health care providers to advocate for their patients and give health care providers more decision-making power instead of corporate leaders maintaining full authority, Ms. Kasmarik told this news organization.

Union organizers are also concerned with changes to the daily practice of medicine. “We don’t want to be spending our time doing paperwork and calling insurance companies and filling out forms,” said Dr. Hoffman. “We want to be in the exam room with a patient.”

The Allina providers organized after multiple requests to corporate managers failed to address their concerns. Their demands include increased staffing and help with nonclinical work so that clinicians can spend more time with their patients.

“What I’m really excited about is that we will be able to work with the other unionized groups to make change ... by being involved in health care policy at a state or national level,” Dr. Hoffman said. For example, that involvement might include challenging insurance company decisions.

Doctors Council bills itself as the largest union for attending physicians in the country, with 3,500 members, according to Joe Crane, national organizing director.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, health care workers – particularly doctors – have been slow to join unions. Mr. Crane estimated that only about 3% of U.S. physicians are currently union members. He cited union campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC. For comparison, a minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape’s APRN compensation report last year.

Dr. Hoffman is confident the Allina health care providers will have enough votes to win the election to join the union. “We should have done this years ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have long been at odds with doctor groups over scope of practice issues. But in a rare alliance, more than 500 physicians, NPs, and PAs at Allina Health primary care and urgent care clinics in Minneapolis recently filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election in late September. If successful, the Allina group will join the Doctors Council SEIU, Local 10MD.

The Allina health care providers share concerns about their working conditions, such as understaffing and inadequate resources, limited decision-making authority, and health systems valuing productivity and profit over patient care.

Although doctors and APPs have said that they generally work well together, the relationship has been strained in recent years as APPs argue for greater scope of practice. Meanwhile, physician groups, such as the American Medical Association, believe that APPs need more oversight.

An Allina union organizer, Britta V. Kasmarik, CNP, acknowledges the tension between physicians and APPs. But she said in an interview that the union effort helped bond this group of health care providers. “We share common goals of providing high-quality care for patients in a safe way, and we see the same things day in and day out with our patients.”

Matt Hoffman, MD, a primary care physician at Allina, told this news organization that APPs in his specialty perform the same job as doctors “and the working conditions are really identical. In our view, that means we should be unionizing together.”

The decision to hold a union vote follows similar action by nearly 150 Allina Mercy Hospital physicians in March. Allina Health appealed the vote.

In response to a New York Times investigation, the Minnesota Attorney General’s office began reviewing reports of aggressive billing practices and denied care at Allina Health.

The Allina Health system, which reports $4 billion in annual revenue, cut off nonemergency services to patients, including children, if their medical debt exceeded $4,500, according to the New York Times article. For Allina’s physicians and APPs, that meant leaving patients’ illnesses untreated.

Less than a week after the attorney general announced its investigation, the health system ended this practice.

In a prepared statement to this news organization, Allina Health said that its providers are “critical members of our teams. … We deeply value and share their commitment to providing high-quality care to our patients.”

The health system said it planned to make operational improvements, implement new communication tools, and provide additional well-being resources and enhanced employee benefits “to improve the provider experience.” In addition, it hoped to continue to “foster a culture of collaboration with all our employees.”

Having a union will allow health care providers to advocate for their patients and give health care providers more decision-making power instead of corporate leaders maintaining full authority, Ms. Kasmarik told this news organization.

Union organizers are also concerned with changes to the daily practice of medicine. “We don’t want to be spending our time doing paperwork and calling insurance companies and filling out forms,” said Dr. Hoffman. “We want to be in the exam room with a patient.”

The Allina providers organized after multiple requests to corporate managers failed to address their concerns. Their demands include increased staffing and help with nonclinical work so that clinicians can spend more time with their patients.

“What I’m really excited about is that we will be able to work with the other unionized groups to make change ... by being involved in health care policy at a state or national level,” Dr. Hoffman said. For example, that involvement might include challenging insurance company decisions.

Doctors Council bills itself as the largest union for attending physicians in the country, with 3,500 members, according to Joe Crane, national organizing director.

Despite an increase in union efforts since the pandemic, health care workers – particularly doctors – have been slow to join unions. Mr. Crane estimated that only about 3% of U.S. physicians are currently union members. He cited union campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC. For comparison, a minority of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) (9%) report union membership, according to Medscape’s APRN compensation report last year.

Dr. Hoffman is confident the Allina health care providers will have enough votes to win the election to join the union. “We should have done this years ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dysphagia, gastroparesis, constipation, and irritable bowel syndrome without diarrhea specifically predicted Parkinson’s disease (PD) in a new study.

Early detection of these conditions might help identify patients at risk for PD, potentially prompting preventive strategies, the researchers suggest.

The results of previous experimental studies by the team supported the Braak hypothesis, which states that idiopathic PD originates in the gut in a subset of patients. However, no previous study had investigated a broad range of gastrointestinal symptoms and syndromes that might occur prior to a PD diagnosis.

Given their preclinical work, the authors were not surprised to find that certain GI syndromes were specifically associated with PD, even when compared with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD), principal author Pankaj Jay Pasricha, MBBS, MD, of Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, said in an interview. However, they were “impressed by the strength of the associations.”

“Experts have known for a very long time that constipation is a potential risk factor for PD, so this study adds to the list of GI conditions that could potentially be risk factors,” he said.

The study was published online in Gut.
 

Studies converge

To determine the incidence of GI syndromes and interventions preceding PD, the investigators performed a combined case-control and cohort study using a U.S.-based nationwide medical record network.

First, they compared 24,624 individuals with new-onset idiopathic PD with the same number of matched negative controls (NCs), as well as 19,046 people with AD and 23,942 with CVD to investigate the presence of preexisting GI conditions, which the researchers referred to as “exposures.” Overall, the mean age was about 70, and about half of those studied were women.

Eighteen conditions covering the entire GI tract were investigated. These included achalasia, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, paralytic ileus, diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with and without diarrhea, intestinal pseudo-obstruction, fecal incontinence, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and microscopic colitis, as well as appendectomy and vagotomy.

All GI syndromes were significantly increased in the PD group, compared with NCs (odds ratio > 1). However, only preexisting dysphagia (OR, 3.58), gastroparesis (OR, 4.64), functional dyspepsia (OR, 3.39), intestinal pseudo-obstruction (OR, 3.01), diarrhea (OR, 2.85), constipation (OR, 3.32), IBS with constipation (OR, 4.11), IBS with diarrhea (OR, 4.31), IBS without diarrhea (OR, 3.53), and fecal incontinence (OR, 3.76) produced ORs that were numerically greater than the upper limit of the negative exposures.

In addition, only gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS with constipation, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation were specific for PD, compared with the AD and CVD groups (OR > 1). After correction for false discovery rate, though, gastroparesis and constipation did not remain significantly different, compared with the AD and CVD groups.

Other preexisting GI conditions not only were significantly associated with PD but also showed strong associations with the AD and CVD groups.

To validate the case-control analyses, the team set up a complementary cohort study. Eighteen cohorts – each diagnosed with one of the GI conditions in the case-control analysis – were compared with their respective NC cohorts for the prospective risk of developing PD, AD, or CVD within 5 years.

Gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation showed specific associations with PD versus NCs, AD, and CVD in the cohort analysis. Their relative risks versus NCs were 2.43, 2.27, 1.17, and 2.38, respectively.

Functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not PD specific, but IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed PD specificity in both the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort analyses (RR, 1.84).

Appendectomy decreased the risk for PD in the cohort analysis (RR, 0.48), but neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with PD.

“This study is the first to establish substantial observational evidence that the clinical diagnosis of not only constipation but also dysphagia, gastroparesis, and IBS without diarrhea might specifically predict the development of PD, whereas other exposures were less specific,” the researchers wrote.

However, Dr. Pasricha said, “there is no need for alarm.” Clinicians should reassure patients that “the overall risk for developing PD is low. The overwhelming majority of patients with these GI conditions will never develop PD.”

His team will be doing experimental work on the biological mechanisms that might explain the current study’s findings. “In addition, the U.S. National Institutes of Health has issued a call for proposals to perform research in patients that could help understand these associations better,” he said.
 

Body or brain?

The Parkinson’s Foundation’s National Medical Advisor, Michael S. Okun, MD, called the study “fascinating.”

The findings “confirm many other studies showing that GI symptoms can precede a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” he said in an interview.

Although the study was designed to test the Braak hypothesis, “the dataset really cannot confirm or refute Braak pathology, which can only be accomplished with comparison to postmortem samples,” he added.

“The raging debate in the field of body-first versus brain-first Parkinson’s may be somewhat artificial, especially if we consider that Parkinson’s is not one disease,” Dr. Okun noted. “It will take clinical data, pathology, and the collaboration of many researchers to solve the puzzle.”

“The Foundation continues to monitor all the advancements in the ‘gut’ Parkinson field,” he said. “We do not recommend at this time changing the approach to clinical care based on this data.”

No funding or competing interests were declared. Dr. Okun declared no relevant disclosures.

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

Dysphagia, gastroparesis, constipation, and irritable bowel syndrome without diarrhea specifically predicted Parkinson’s disease (PD) in a new study.

Early detection of these conditions might help identify patients at risk for PD, potentially prompting preventive strategies, the researchers suggest.

The results of previous experimental studies by the team supported the Braak hypothesis, which states that idiopathic PD originates in the gut in a subset of patients. However, no previous study had investigated a broad range of gastrointestinal symptoms and syndromes that might occur prior to a PD diagnosis.

Given their preclinical work, the authors were not surprised to find that certain GI syndromes were specifically associated with PD, even when compared with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD), principal author Pankaj Jay Pasricha, MBBS, MD, of Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, said in an interview. However, they were “impressed by the strength of the associations.”

“Experts have known for a very long time that constipation is a potential risk factor for PD, so this study adds to the list of GI conditions that could potentially be risk factors,” he said.

The study was published online in Gut.
 

Studies converge

To determine the incidence of GI syndromes and interventions preceding PD, the investigators performed a combined case-control and cohort study using a U.S.-based nationwide medical record network.

First, they compared 24,624 individuals with new-onset idiopathic PD with the same number of matched negative controls (NCs), as well as 19,046 people with AD and 23,942 with CVD to investigate the presence of preexisting GI conditions, which the researchers referred to as “exposures.” Overall, the mean age was about 70, and about half of those studied were women.

Eighteen conditions covering the entire GI tract were investigated. These included achalasia, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, paralytic ileus, diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with and without diarrhea, intestinal pseudo-obstruction, fecal incontinence, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and microscopic colitis, as well as appendectomy and vagotomy.

All GI syndromes were significantly increased in the PD group, compared with NCs (odds ratio > 1). However, only preexisting dysphagia (OR, 3.58), gastroparesis (OR, 4.64), functional dyspepsia (OR, 3.39), intestinal pseudo-obstruction (OR, 3.01), diarrhea (OR, 2.85), constipation (OR, 3.32), IBS with constipation (OR, 4.11), IBS with diarrhea (OR, 4.31), IBS without diarrhea (OR, 3.53), and fecal incontinence (OR, 3.76) produced ORs that were numerically greater than the upper limit of the negative exposures.

In addition, only gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS with constipation, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation were specific for PD, compared with the AD and CVD groups (OR > 1). After correction for false discovery rate, though, gastroparesis and constipation did not remain significantly different, compared with the AD and CVD groups.

Other preexisting GI conditions not only were significantly associated with PD but also showed strong associations with the AD and CVD groups.

To validate the case-control analyses, the team set up a complementary cohort study. Eighteen cohorts – each diagnosed with one of the GI conditions in the case-control analysis – were compared with their respective NC cohorts for the prospective risk of developing PD, AD, or CVD within 5 years.

Gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation showed specific associations with PD versus NCs, AD, and CVD in the cohort analysis. Their relative risks versus NCs were 2.43, 2.27, 1.17, and 2.38, respectively.

Functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not PD specific, but IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed PD specificity in both the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort analyses (RR, 1.84).

Appendectomy decreased the risk for PD in the cohort analysis (RR, 0.48), but neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with PD.

“This study is the first to establish substantial observational evidence that the clinical diagnosis of not only constipation but also dysphagia, gastroparesis, and IBS without diarrhea might specifically predict the development of PD, whereas other exposures were less specific,” the researchers wrote.

However, Dr. Pasricha said, “there is no need for alarm.” Clinicians should reassure patients that “the overall risk for developing PD is low. The overwhelming majority of patients with these GI conditions will never develop PD.”

His team will be doing experimental work on the biological mechanisms that might explain the current study’s findings. “In addition, the U.S. National Institutes of Health has issued a call for proposals to perform research in patients that could help understand these associations better,” he said.
 

Body or brain?

The Parkinson’s Foundation’s National Medical Advisor, Michael S. Okun, MD, called the study “fascinating.”

The findings “confirm many other studies showing that GI symptoms can precede a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” he said in an interview.

Although the study was designed to test the Braak hypothesis, “the dataset really cannot confirm or refute Braak pathology, which can only be accomplished with comparison to postmortem samples,” he added.

“The raging debate in the field of body-first versus brain-first Parkinson’s may be somewhat artificial, especially if we consider that Parkinson’s is not one disease,” Dr. Okun noted. “It will take clinical data, pathology, and the collaboration of many researchers to solve the puzzle.”

“The Foundation continues to monitor all the advancements in the ‘gut’ Parkinson field,” he said. “We do not recommend at this time changing the approach to clinical care based on this data.”

No funding or competing interests were declared. Dr. Okun declared no relevant disclosures.

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

Dysphagia, gastroparesis, constipation, and irritable bowel syndrome without diarrhea specifically predicted Parkinson’s disease (PD) in a new study.

Early detection of these conditions might help identify patients at risk for PD, potentially prompting preventive strategies, the researchers suggest.

The results of previous experimental studies by the team supported the Braak hypothesis, which states that idiopathic PD originates in the gut in a subset of patients. However, no previous study had investigated a broad range of gastrointestinal symptoms and syndromes that might occur prior to a PD diagnosis.

Given their preclinical work, the authors were not surprised to find that certain GI syndromes were specifically associated with PD, even when compared with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD), principal author Pankaj Jay Pasricha, MBBS, MD, of Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, said in an interview. However, they were “impressed by the strength of the associations.”

“Experts have known for a very long time that constipation is a potential risk factor for PD, so this study adds to the list of GI conditions that could potentially be risk factors,” he said.

The study was published online in Gut.
 

Studies converge

To determine the incidence of GI syndromes and interventions preceding PD, the investigators performed a combined case-control and cohort study using a U.S.-based nationwide medical record network.

First, they compared 24,624 individuals with new-onset idiopathic PD with the same number of matched negative controls (NCs), as well as 19,046 people with AD and 23,942 with CVD to investigate the presence of preexisting GI conditions, which the researchers referred to as “exposures.” Overall, the mean age was about 70, and about half of those studied were women.

Eighteen conditions covering the entire GI tract were investigated. These included achalasia, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, paralytic ileus, diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with and without diarrhea, intestinal pseudo-obstruction, fecal incontinence, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and microscopic colitis, as well as appendectomy and vagotomy.

All GI syndromes were significantly increased in the PD group, compared with NCs (odds ratio > 1). However, only preexisting dysphagia (OR, 3.58), gastroparesis (OR, 4.64), functional dyspepsia (OR, 3.39), intestinal pseudo-obstruction (OR, 3.01), diarrhea (OR, 2.85), constipation (OR, 3.32), IBS with constipation (OR, 4.11), IBS with diarrhea (OR, 4.31), IBS without diarrhea (OR, 3.53), and fecal incontinence (OR, 3.76) produced ORs that were numerically greater than the upper limit of the negative exposures.

In addition, only gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS with constipation, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation were specific for PD, compared with the AD and CVD groups (OR > 1). After correction for false discovery rate, though, gastroparesis and constipation did not remain significantly different, compared with the AD and CVD groups.

Other preexisting GI conditions not only were significantly associated with PD but also showed strong associations with the AD and CVD groups.

To validate the case-control analyses, the team set up a complementary cohort study. Eighteen cohorts – each diagnosed with one of the GI conditions in the case-control analysis – were compared with their respective NC cohorts for the prospective risk of developing PD, AD, or CVD within 5 years.

Gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation showed specific associations with PD versus NCs, AD, and CVD in the cohort analysis. Their relative risks versus NCs were 2.43, 2.27, 1.17, and 2.38, respectively.

Functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not PD specific, but IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed PD specificity in both the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort analyses (RR, 1.84).

Appendectomy decreased the risk for PD in the cohort analysis (RR, 0.48), but neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with PD.

“This study is the first to establish substantial observational evidence that the clinical diagnosis of not only constipation but also dysphagia, gastroparesis, and IBS without diarrhea might specifically predict the development of PD, whereas other exposures were less specific,” the researchers wrote.

However, Dr. Pasricha said, “there is no need for alarm.” Clinicians should reassure patients that “the overall risk for developing PD is low. The overwhelming majority of patients with these GI conditions will never develop PD.”

His team will be doing experimental work on the biological mechanisms that might explain the current study’s findings. “In addition, the U.S. National Institutes of Health has issued a call for proposals to perform research in patients that could help understand these associations better,” he said.
 

Body or brain?

The Parkinson’s Foundation’s National Medical Advisor, Michael S. Okun, MD, called the study “fascinating.”

The findings “confirm many other studies showing that GI symptoms can precede a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” he said in an interview.

Although the study was designed to test the Braak hypothesis, “the dataset really cannot confirm or refute Braak pathology, which can only be accomplished with comparison to postmortem samples,” he added.

“The raging debate in the field of body-first versus brain-first Parkinson’s may be somewhat artificial, especially if we consider that Parkinson’s is not one disease,” Dr. Okun noted. “It will take clinical data, pathology, and the collaboration of many researchers to solve the puzzle.”

“The Foundation continues to monitor all the advancements in the ‘gut’ Parkinson field,” he said. “We do not recommend at this time changing the approach to clinical care based on this data.”

No funding or competing interests were declared. Dr. Okun declared no relevant disclosures.

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

COPENHAGEN – Giving patients with Parkinson’s disease and constipation a probiotic for 3 months improved not only their gut microbiome but also nonmotor symptoms such as sleep, fatigue, and constipation, results of a new randomized trial show.

Participants taking the probiotic also saw a reduced delay in “time to on” of treatment with levodopa, thus reducing the delay until effectiveness of the treatment, said study presenter Valentina Leta, MD, PhD, department of neurosciences, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.

Dr. Leta presented the findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

“Virtually every person with Parkinson’s might have some degree of gastrointestinal dysfunction, and virtually the entire tract might be affected, from the mouth to the rectum,” Dr. Leta told attendees of the congress.

A number of different mechanisms have been associated with this gastrointestinal dysfunction, she noted, including proinflammatory changes in the gut microbiota, so a modulatory intervention “could be a therapeutic strategy for Parkinson’s disease.”

However, “despite numerous preclinical studies showing potential beneficial effects on a variety of pathological mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease, the clinical evidence is limited ... to the treatment of constipation,” she explained.

The team therefore conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which patients with both Parkinson’s disease and constipation, based on the Rome IV criteria, were randomly assigned to receive a probiotic or placebo for 3 months.

The probiotic used was a liquid formulation (Symprove) and contained four strains: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.

A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to the two study arms. The two groups were well matched for sociodemographics, Parkinson’s disease, and constipation-related characteristics, Dr. Leta reported, and only 3 patients in each arm discontinued the study. The probiotic intervention had a “good tolerability and safety profile, with a similar number of adverse events between the two groups, and no serious adverse events.”
 

Increase in healthy bacteria

The study met its primary outcome of changes in gut microbiome at the end of the 12-week intervention, as measured on shallow shotgun sequencing.

The probiotic was associated with a “statistically significant increase of the abundance of bacteria which are known to have beneficial health related properties, such as Odoribacteraceae,” Dr. Leta said.

This bacterium is “known to be reduced in people with Parkinson’s disease,” she explained, “and is involved in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are known to have beneficial health-related properties.”

The secondary endpoint of the study included changes in motor and nonmotor symptoms, and the probiotic was associated with a significant improvement in the “time to on” with levodopa treatment, shortening this period from an average of 31.43 minutes at baseline to 23.95 minutes at the postintervention assessment (P < .027).

There was also a significant improvement in the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score between baseline and the postintervention assessment in patients given the probiotic, from 70.71 to 61.34 (P = .005).

This, Dr. Leta observed, was “driven by improvements in the sleep, fatigue, and gastrointestinal domains.”

No such significant improvements were observed in the placebo arm.
 

Probiotics ‘hot topic’ among patients

Claudia Trenkwalder, MD, full professor of neurology at University Medical Center Goettingen (Germany), said in an interview that the use of probiotics is a “hot topic in Parkinson’s disease research, especially among patients.”

Dr. Trenkwalder, who was not involved in the study, noted that Lactobacillus strains “are established in Parkinson’s disease constipation treatment, with randomized controlled trials showing a significant improvement in constipation.

“Therefore, this is a useful treatment. The question here is: Do we have additional effects that can be measured in the microbiome and in clinical symptomatology?”

The trial showed that the probiotic studied “did alter the microbiome and did improve the constipation,” said Dr. Trenkwalder; however, the current data cannot prove whether the probiotic influenced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease because the improvement in NMSS scores “is driven by the improvement in constipation.”

This, she argued, could have resulted in better absorption of levodopa.

A dietitian in the audience agreed. She asked whether the probiotic was doing anything “besides improving constipation,” adding that the resulting increased ability to absorb levodopa is also “going to help your sleep.”
 

Beyond constipation?

Dr. Leta replied that “we can assume that there is a link between the reduction in the ‘time to on’ and the improvement in constipation. We are doing some analyses in terms of levodopa pharmacokinetics to really understand the mechanisms behind this result.”

Although the improvement in constipation is “one of the possible hypotheses for the improvement in ‘time to on,’” she continued, “there is a more speculative one” in which the probiotics are modulating inflammatory parameters that could contribute to the improvement in sleep.

Veronica Bruno, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.), commented in a press release that there has been “increasing interest” in examining the relationship between gut dysbiosis and the “gut-brain axis” in Parkinson’s disease.

The current study “stands out as a significant contribution to this area of study,” she said.

“While the implications of the observed changes in gut microbiota remain a captivating realm for further investigation, a particularly noteworthy finding revolves around the reduction in the ‘time to on’ observed within the active treatment group.”

Dr. Bruno said that shortening of the time to on “holds promise for substantial enhancements in patients’ lives” by reducing “difficult ‘off’ intervals and enhancing overall well-being.”

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

COPENHAGEN – Giving patients with Parkinson’s disease and constipation a probiotic for 3 months improved not only their gut microbiome but also nonmotor symptoms such as sleep, fatigue, and constipation, results of a new randomized trial show.

Participants taking the probiotic also saw a reduced delay in “time to on” of treatment with levodopa, thus reducing the delay until effectiveness of the treatment, said study presenter Valentina Leta, MD, PhD, department of neurosciences, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.

Dr. Leta presented the findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

“Virtually every person with Parkinson’s might have some degree of gastrointestinal dysfunction, and virtually the entire tract might be affected, from the mouth to the rectum,” Dr. Leta told attendees of the congress.

A number of different mechanisms have been associated with this gastrointestinal dysfunction, she noted, including proinflammatory changes in the gut microbiota, so a modulatory intervention “could be a therapeutic strategy for Parkinson’s disease.”

However, “despite numerous preclinical studies showing potential beneficial effects on a variety of pathological mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease, the clinical evidence is limited ... to the treatment of constipation,” she explained.

The team therefore conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which patients with both Parkinson’s disease and constipation, based on the Rome IV criteria, were randomly assigned to receive a probiotic or placebo for 3 months.

The probiotic used was a liquid formulation (Symprove) and contained four strains: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.

A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to the two study arms. The two groups were well matched for sociodemographics, Parkinson’s disease, and constipation-related characteristics, Dr. Leta reported, and only 3 patients in each arm discontinued the study. The probiotic intervention had a “good tolerability and safety profile, with a similar number of adverse events between the two groups, and no serious adverse events.”
 

Increase in healthy bacteria

The study met its primary outcome of changes in gut microbiome at the end of the 12-week intervention, as measured on shallow shotgun sequencing.

The probiotic was associated with a “statistically significant increase of the abundance of bacteria which are known to have beneficial health related properties, such as Odoribacteraceae,” Dr. Leta said.

This bacterium is “known to be reduced in people with Parkinson’s disease,” she explained, “and is involved in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are known to have beneficial health-related properties.”

The secondary endpoint of the study included changes in motor and nonmotor symptoms, and the probiotic was associated with a significant improvement in the “time to on” with levodopa treatment, shortening this period from an average of 31.43 minutes at baseline to 23.95 minutes at the postintervention assessment (P < .027).

There was also a significant improvement in the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score between baseline and the postintervention assessment in patients given the probiotic, from 70.71 to 61.34 (P = .005).

This, Dr. Leta observed, was “driven by improvements in the sleep, fatigue, and gastrointestinal domains.”

No such significant improvements were observed in the placebo arm.
 

Probiotics ‘hot topic’ among patients

Claudia Trenkwalder, MD, full professor of neurology at University Medical Center Goettingen (Germany), said in an interview that the use of probiotics is a “hot topic in Parkinson’s disease research, especially among patients.”

Dr. Trenkwalder, who was not involved in the study, noted that Lactobacillus strains “are established in Parkinson’s disease constipation treatment, with randomized controlled trials showing a significant improvement in constipation.

“Therefore, this is a useful treatment. The question here is: Do we have additional effects that can be measured in the microbiome and in clinical symptomatology?”

The trial showed that the probiotic studied “did alter the microbiome and did improve the constipation,” said Dr. Trenkwalder; however, the current data cannot prove whether the probiotic influenced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease because the improvement in NMSS scores “is driven by the improvement in constipation.”

This, she argued, could have resulted in better absorption of levodopa.

A dietitian in the audience agreed. She asked whether the probiotic was doing anything “besides improving constipation,” adding that the resulting increased ability to absorb levodopa is also “going to help your sleep.”
 

Beyond constipation?

Dr. Leta replied that “we can assume that there is a link between the reduction in the ‘time to on’ and the improvement in constipation. We are doing some analyses in terms of levodopa pharmacokinetics to really understand the mechanisms behind this result.”

Although the improvement in constipation is “one of the possible hypotheses for the improvement in ‘time to on,’” she continued, “there is a more speculative one” in which the probiotics are modulating inflammatory parameters that could contribute to the improvement in sleep.

Veronica Bruno, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.), commented in a press release that there has been “increasing interest” in examining the relationship between gut dysbiosis and the “gut-brain axis” in Parkinson’s disease.

The current study “stands out as a significant contribution to this area of study,” she said.

“While the implications of the observed changes in gut microbiota remain a captivating realm for further investigation, a particularly noteworthy finding revolves around the reduction in the ‘time to on’ observed within the active treatment group.”

Dr. Bruno said that shortening of the time to on “holds promise for substantial enhancements in patients’ lives” by reducing “difficult ‘off’ intervals and enhancing overall well-being.”

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

COPENHAGEN – Giving patients with Parkinson’s disease and constipation a probiotic for 3 months improved not only their gut microbiome but also nonmotor symptoms such as sleep, fatigue, and constipation, results of a new randomized trial show.

Participants taking the probiotic also saw a reduced delay in “time to on” of treatment with levodopa, thus reducing the delay until effectiveness of the treatment, said study presenter Valentina Leta, MD, PhD, department of neurosciences, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.

Dr. Leta presented the findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

“Virtually every person with Parkinson’s might have some degree of gastrointestinal dysfunction, and virtually the entire tract might be affected, from the mouth to the rectum,” Dr. Leta told attendees of the congress.

A number of different mechanisms have been associated with this gastrointestinal dysfunction, she noted, including proinflammatory changes in the gut microbiota, so a modulatory intervention “could be a therapeutic strategy for Parkinson’s disease.”

However, “despite numerous preclinical studies showing potential beneficial effects on a variety of pathological mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease, the clinical evidence is limited ... to the treatment of constipation,” she explained.

The team therefore conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which patients with both Parkinson’s disease and constipation, based on the Rome IV criteria, were randomly assigned to receive a probiotic or placebo for 3 months.

The probiotic used was a liquid formulation (Symprove) and contained four strains: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.

A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to the two study arms. The two groups were well matched for sociodemographics, Parkinson’s disease, and constipation-related characteristics, Dr. Leta reported, and only 3 patients in each arm discontinued the study. The probiotic intervention had a “good tolerability and safety profile, with a similar number of adverse events between the two groups, and no serious adverse events.”
 

Increase in healthy bacteria

The study met its primary outcome of changes in gut microbiome at the end of the 12-week intervention, as measured on shallow shotgun sequencing.

The probiotic was associated with a “statistically significant increase of the abundance of bacteria which are known to have beneficial health related properties, such as Odoribacteraceae,” Dr. Leta said.

This bacterium is “known to be reduced in people with Parkinson’s disease,” she explained, “and is involved in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are known to have beneficial health-related properties.”

The secondary endpoint of the study included changes in motor and nonmotor symptoms, and the probiotic was associated with a significant improvement in the “time to on” with levodopa treatment, shortening this period from an average of 31.43 minutes at baseline to 23.95 minutes at the postintervention assessment (P < .027).

There was also a significant improvement in the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score between baseline and the postintervention assessment in patients given the probiotic, from 70.71 to 61.34 (P = .005).

This, Dr. Leta observed, was “driven by improvements in the sleep, fatigue, and gastrointestinal domains.”

No such significant improvements were observed in the placebo arm.
 

Probiotics ‘hot topic’ among patients

Claudia Trenkwalder, MD, full professor of neurology at University Medical Center Goettingen (Germany), said in an interview that the use of probiotics is a “hot topic in Parkinson’s disease research, especially among patients.”

Dr. Trenkwalder, who was not involved in the study, noted that Lactobacillus strains “are established in Parkinson’s disease constipation treatment, with randomized controlled trials showing a significant improvement in constipation.

“Therefore, this is a useful treatment. The question here is: Do we have additional effects that can be measured in the microbiome and in clinical symptomatology?”

The trial showed that the probiotic studied “did alter the microbiome and did improve the constipation,” said Dr. Trenkwalder; however, the current data cannot prove whether the probiotic influenced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease because the improvement in NMSS scores “is driven by the improvement in constipation.”

This, she argued, could have resulted in better absorption of levodopa.

A dietitian in the audience agreed. She asked whether the probiotic was doing anything “besides improving constipation,” adding that the resulting increased ability to absorb levodopa is also “going to help your sleep.”
 

Beyond constipation?

Dr. Leta replied that “we can assume that there is a link between the reduction in the ‘time to on’ and the improvement in constipation. We are doing some analyses in terms of levodopa pharmacokinetics to really understand the mechanisms behind this result.”

Although the improvement in constipation is “one of the possible hypotheses for the improvement in ‘time to on,’” she continued, “there is a more speculative one” in which the probiotics are modulating inflammatory parameters that could contribute to the improvement in sleep.

Veronica Bruno, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.), commented in a press release that there has been “increasing interest” in examining the relationship between gut dysbiosis and the “gut-brain axis” in Parkinson’s disease.

The current study “stands out as a significant contribution to this area of study,” she said.

“While the implications of the observed changes in gut microbiota remain a captivating realm for further investigation, a particularly noteworthy finding revolves around the reduction in the ‘time to on’ observed within the active treatment group.”

Dr. Bruno said that shortening of the time to on “holds promise for substantial enhancements in patients’ lives” by reducing “difficult ‘off’ intervals and enhancing overall well-being.”

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

The largest study to date of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in young athletes shows that 41% had the neurodegenerative disease, caused by repetitive head impacts (RHIs).

Analysis of brain tissue from athletes who were exposed to RHIs and died before the age of 30 revealed neuropathological evidence of shrinkage of the brain and microscopic changes that indicate a breach of the blood-brain barrier. The case series also identified the first known American female athlete with CTE.

Nearly all of those with CTE had a mild form of the disease and 71% played only at the amateur level in youth, high school, or college sports.

“A lot of people think CTE is a result of high-level, professional play such as football, ice hockey, and boxing, but it can affect amateur athletes and can affect people at a young age,” lead author Ann McKee, MD, professor of neurology and pathology and director of the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Center at Boston University, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

A rare look

Brain donation at younger ages is rare, so most of what is known about CTE comes from studies in older athletes.

“We’ve always known that young people could develop this disease early after just amateur high school, youth, and college exposure, but this is the largest study of donor brains at this age,” Dr. McKee said.

The case series included 152 brains of athletes who played contact sports, experienced RHIs, and died before age 30. The tissues are part of the Understanding Neurologic Injury and Traumatic Encephalopathy (UNITE) Brain Bank and were donated between February 2008 and September 2022.

Researchers reviewed the donors’ medical records and conducted retrospective interviews with the donors’ next of kin to assess cognitive symptoms, mood disturbances, and neurobehavioral issues.

Donors died between the ages of 13 and 29 years, 92.8% were male and 73% were White. In 57.2% of the cases, suicide was the cause of death, with no difference between those with or without CTE.

CTE was neuropathologically diagnosed in 41.4% of athletes, using diagnostic criteria developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. 

More than 95% had mild CTE. Diagnosis was associated with older age (mean difference, 3.92 years; P < .001) and significantly more years of exposure to contact sports (11.6 vs. 8.8 years).

Among those with CTE, 71.4% played amateur sports, including football (60.9%), soccer (17.2%), hockey (7.8%), and wrestling (7%).

The cohort includes the first known American female athlete with CTE. Recruiting female brain donors has always been a challenge, Dr. McKee said. In this study, females comprised about 7% of the entire cohort and tended to be younger and play fewer years of a sport, compared with their male counterparts. All of that could lower their risk for CTE, Dr. McKee said.

“We don’t have enough brain donations to make any comments about differences between the genders, but we’ve always known that women can develop CTE,” she said. “It’s been reported after domestic violence and in an autistic woman who was a headbanger, so it was just a matter of time before we found our first case.”
 

Early stage of CTE?

Neuropathological analysis revealed neuronal p-tau aggregates in all CTE cases, a hallmark of the disease.

Young athletes with CTE had significantly more ventricular dilatation, suggesting atrophy or shrinkage of the brain, and more cavum septum pellucidum.

“I was surprised that even at this very young age group we could see structural changes to the gross pathology,” Dr. McKee said.

Investigators also found evidence of perivascular macrophages in the deep white matter, a microscopic change that correlated with CTE and years of play and indicates a breach of the blood-brain barrier that could allow pro-inflammatory molecules to enter the brain, setting up a neuroinflammatory response.

“Neuroinflammation is a very early change after repetitive head impacts, as well as in CTE,” Dr. McKee said. “This may be one of the mechanisms by which the inflammation starts, meaning microvascular injury might be an integral part of the pathogenesis of CTE.”
 

A message for clinicians

All athletes had symptoms of mood and neurobehavioral dysfunction common in people with RHIs. There were no significant differences in those clinical symptoms based on CTE diagnosis, which is likely related to the retrospective nature of the clinical evaluations, Dr. McKee said.

While the study leaves many questions about CTE in younger athletes unanswered, there is a message for clinicians and for patients in the findings, she said.

For clinicians, it’s important to note that “this young population of amateur athletes can be very symptomatic, and in all likelihood, a lot of these symptoms are reversible with proper care and management,” Dr. McKee said.

“For individual athletes, it’s important to note that 58% of this cohort did not have CTE, so just because you have these symptoms is not an indication that you have a neurodegenerative disease,” she added.

The study was funded by Andlinger Foundation, the National Football League, Mac Parkman Foundation, National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, and the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, World Wrestling Entertainment, Alzheimer’s Association, National Institutes of Health, Concussion Legacy Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McKee is a member of the Mackey-White Health and Safety Committee of the National Football League Players Association and reported receiving grants from the NIH and Department of Veteran Affairs and other funding from the Buoniconti Foundation and Mac Parkman Foundation during the conduct of the study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest study to date of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in young athletes shows that 41% had the neurodegenerative disease, caused by repetitive head impacts (RHIs).

Analysis of brain tissue from athletes who were exposed to RHIs and died before the age of 30 revealed neuropathological evidence of shrinkage of the brain and microscopic changes that indicate a breach of the blood-brain barrier. The case series also identified the first known American female athlete with CTE.

Nearly all of those with CTE had a mild form of the disease and 71% played only at the amateur level in youth, high school, or college sports.

“A lot of people think CTE is a result of high-level, professional play such as football, ice hockey, and boxing, but it can affect amateur athletes and can affect people at a young age,” lead author Ann McKee, MD, professor of neurology and pathology and director of the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Center at Boston University, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

A rare look

Brain donation at younger ages is rare, so most of what is known about CTE comes from studies in older athletes.

“We’ve always known that young people could develop this disease early after just amateur high school, youth, and college exposure, but this is the largest study of donor brains at this age,” Dr. McKee said.

The case series included 152 brains of athletes who played contact sports, experienced RHIs, and died before age 30. The tissues are part of the Understanding Neurologic Injury and Traumatic Encephalopathy (UNITE) Brain Bank and were donated between February 2008 and September 2022.

Researchers reviewed the donors’ medical records and conducted retrospective interviews with the donors’ next of kin to assess cognitive symptoms, mood disturbances, and neurobehavioral issues.

Donors died between the ages of 13 and 29 years, 92.8% were male and 73% were White. In 57.2% of the cases, suicide was the cause of death, with no difference between those with or without CTE.

CTE was neuropathologically diagnosed in 41.4% of athletes, using diagnostic criteria developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. 

More than 95% had mild CTE. Diagnosis was associated with older age (mean difference, 3.92 years; P < .001) and significantly more years of exposure to contact sports (11.6 vs. 8.8 years).

Among those with CTE, 71.4% played amateur sports, including football (60.9%), soccer (17.2%), hockey (7.8%), and wrestling (7%).

The cohort includes the first known American female athlete with CTE. Recruiting female brain donors has always been a challenge, Dr. McKee said. In this study, females comprised about 7% of the entire cohort and tended to be younger and play fewer years of a sport, compared with their male counterparts. All of that could lower their risk for CTE, Dr. McKee said.

“We don’t have enough brain donations to make any comments about differences between the genders, but we’ve always known that women can develop CTE,” she said. “It’s been reported after domestic violence and in an autistic woman who was a headbanger, so it was just a matter of time before we found our first case.”
 

Early stage of CTE?

Neuropathological analysis revealed neuronal p-tau aggregates in all CTE cases, a hallmark of the disease.

Young athletes with CTE had significantly more ventricular dilatation, suggesting atrophy or shrinkage of the brain, and more cavum septum pellucidum.

“I was surprised that even at this very young age group we could see structural changes to the gross pathology,” Dr. McKee said.

Investigators also found evidence of perivascular macrophages in the deep white matter, a microscopic change that correlated with CTE and years of play and indicates a breach of the blood-brain barrier that could allow pro-inflammatory molecules to enter the brain, setting up a neuroinflammatory response.

“Neuroinflammation is a very early change after repetitive head impacts, as well as in CTE,” Dr. McKee said. “This may be one of the mechanisms by which the inflammation starts, meaning microvascular injury might be an integral part of the pathogenesis of CTE.”
 

A message for clinicians

All athletes had symptoms of mood and neurobehavioral dysfunction common in people with RHIs. There were no significant differences in those clinical symptoms based on CTE diagnosis, which is likely related to the retrospective nature of the clinical evaluations, Dr. McKee said.

While the study leaves many questions about CTE in younger athletes unanswered, there is a message for clinicians and for patients in the findings, she said.

For clinicians, it’s important to note that “this young population of amateur athletes can be very symptomatic, and in all likelihood, a lot of these symptoms are reversible with proper care and management,” Dr. McKee said.

“For individual athletes, it’s important to note that 58% of this cohort did not have CTE, so just because you have these symptoms is not an indication that you have a neurodegenerative disease,” she added.

The study was funded by Andlinger Foundation, the National Football League, Mac Parkman Foundation, National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, and the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, World Wrestling Entertainment, Alzheimer’s Association, National Institutes of Health, Concussion Legacy Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McKee is a member of the Mackey-White Health and Safety Committee of the National Football League Players Association and reported receiving grants from the NIH and Department of Veteran Affairs and other funding from the Buoniconti Foundation and Mac Parkman Foundation during the conduct of the study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest study to date of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in young athletes shows that 41% had the neurodegenerative disease, caused by repetitive head impacts (RHIs).

Analysis of brain tissue from athletes who were exposed to RHIs and died before the age of 30 revealed neuropathological evidence of shrinkage of the brain and microscopic changes that indicate a breach of the blood-brain barrier. The case series also identified the first known American female athlete with CTE.

Nearly all of those with CTE had a mild form of the disease and 71% played only at the amateur level in youth, high school, or college sports.

“A lot of people think CTE is a result of high-level, professional play such as football, ice hockey, and boxing, but it can affect amateur athletes and can affect people at a young age,” lead author Ann McKee, MD, professor of neurology and pathology and director of the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Center at Boston University, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

A rare look

Brain donation at younger ages is rare, so most of what is known about CTE comes from studies in older athletes.

“We’ve always known that young people could develop this disease early after just amateur high school, youth, and college exposure, but this is the largest study of donor brains at this age,” Dr. McKee said.

The case series included 152 brains of athletes who played contact sports, experienced RHIs, and died before age 30. The tissues are part of the Understanding Neurologic Injury and Traumatic Encephalopathy (UNITE) Brain Bank and were donated between February 2008 and September 2022.

Researchers reviewed the donors’ medical records and conducted retrospective interviews with the donors’ next of kin to assess cognitive symptoms, mood disturbances, and neurobehavioral issues.

Donors died between the ages of 13 and 29 years, 92.8% were male and 73% were White. In 57.2% of the cases, suicide was the cause of death, with no difference between those with or without CTE.

CTE was neuropathologically diagnosed in 41.4% of athletes, using diagnostic criteria developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. 

More than 95% had mild CTE. Diagnosis was associated with older age (mean difference, 3.92 years; P < .001) and significantly more years of exposure to contact sports (11.6 vs. 8.8 years).

Among those with CTE, 71.4% played amateur sports, including football (60.9%), soccer (17.2%), hockey (7.8%), and wrestling (7%).

The cohort includes the first known American female athlete with CTE. Recruiting female brain donors has always been a challenge, Dr. McKee said. In this study, females comprised about 7% of the entire cohort and tended to be younger and play fewer years of a sport, compared with their male counterparts. All of that could lower their risk for CTE, Dr. McKee said.

“We don’t have enough brain donations to make any comments about differences between the genders, but we’ve always known that women can develop CTE,” she said. “It’s been reported after domestic violence and in an autistic woman who was a headbanger, so it was just a matter of time before we found our first case.”
 

Early stage of CTE?

Neuropathological analysis revealed neuronal p-tau aggregates in all CTE cases, a hallmark of the disease.

Young athletes with CTE had significantly more ventricular dilatation, suggesting atrophy or shrinkage of the brain, and more cavum septum pellucidum.

“I was surprised that even at this very young age group we could see structural changes to the gross pathology,” Dr. McKee said.

Investigators also found evidence of perivascular macrophages in the deep white matter, a microscopic change that correlated with CTE and years of play and indicates a breach of the blood-brain barrier that could allow pro-inflammatory molecules to enter the brain, setting up a neuroinflammatory response.

“Neuroinflammation is a very early change after repetitive head impacts, as well as in CTE,” Dr. McKee said. “This may be one of the mechanisms by which the inflammation starts, meaning microvascular injury might be an integral part of the pathogenesis of CTE.”
 

A message for clinicians

All athletes had symptoms of mood and neurobehavioral dysfunction common in people with RHIs. There were no significant differences in those clinical symptoms based on CTE diagnosis, which is likely related to the retrospective nature of the clinical evaluations, Dr. McKee said.

While the study leaves many questions about CTE in younger athletes unanswered, there is a message for clinicians and for patients in the findings, she said.

For clinicians, it’s important to note that “this young population of amateur athletes can be very symptomatic, and in all likelihood, a lot of these symptoms are reversible with proper care and management,” Dr. McKee said.

“For individual athletes, it’s important to note that 58% of this cohort did not have CTE, so just because you have these symptoms is not an indication that you have a neurodegenerative disease,” she added.

The study was funded by Andlinger Foundation, the National Football League, Mac Parkman Foundation, National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, and the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, World Wrestling Entertainment, Alzheimer’s Association, National Institutes of Health, Concussion Legacy Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McKee is a member of the Mackey-White Health and Safety Committee of the National Football League Players Association and reported receiving grants from the NIH and Department of Veteran Affairs and other funding from the Buoniconti Foundation and Mac Parkman Foundation during the conduct of the study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Both short and long sleep durations appear to increase the risk for type 2 diabetes, independent of lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors, suggests an analysis of a Dutch study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data on 5,561 participants aged 40–75 years from The Maastricht Study who completed the baseline survey between November 2010 and January 2018 and had full data available were included.
• Sleep duration was assessed as the in-bed time in minutes, using a median of 7 nights’ data from an activPAL3 (PAL Technologies) accelerometer, which is worn on the thigh.
• Glucose metabolism was determined via an oral glucose tolerance test and categorized as prediabetes or type 2 diabetes in line with World Health Organization diagnostic criteria.
• The association between sleep duration and type 2 diabetes was assessed on multivariate logistic regression analysis, taking into account a range of potential confounding factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean age of the participants was 60.1 years, and there was an even split between men and women. In all, 832 had prediabetes and 1,341 type 2 diabetes, and the mean sleep duration was 8.3 hours.
• The results indicated there was a U-shaped relationship between sleep duration and type 2 diabetes, so that both long and short sleep durations increased the risk.
• In the fully adjusted model, a sleep duration of 5 hours was associated with an odds ratio for type 2 diabetes versus 8 hours sleep of 2.9. For a sleep duration of 12 hours, the odds ratio was 1.8.
• The association between sleep duration and diabetes was not significant.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “support the idea that sleep duration could be a relevant risk factor for type 2 diabetes independent of lifestyle risk factors, including diet, physical activity, smoking behavior, and alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors.

“These findings underpin the importance of promoting healthy sleep habits to avoid sleep deprivation,” they added.
 

STUDY DETAILS:

The research was led by Jeroen D. Albers, MSc, department of social medicine, Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, and published in Sleep Health. It is an analysis of The Maastricht Study.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its cross-sectional nature, particularly because there are “plausible causal paths between sleep duration and type 2 in both directions,” the authors note. The accelerometer used in the study also cannot reliably distinguish between waking and sleeping time in bed, with the potential for misclassification. Daytime naps were also not included, and long-term changes sleep patterns were not measured. In addition, it was not possible to control for some potential confounding factors.

DISCLOSURES:

The Maastricht Study was supported by the European Regional Development Fund via OP-Zuid, the Province of Limburg, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Stichting De Weijerhorst, the Pearl String Initiative Diabetes, the School for Cardiovascular Diseases, the School for Public Health and Primary Care, the School for Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Stichting Annadal, Health Foundation Limburg, and unrestricted grants from Janssen-Cilag, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis Netherlands. One author declares a relationship with Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

Both short and long sleep durations appear to increase the risk for type 2 diabetes, independent of lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors, suggests an analysis of a Dutch study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data on 5,561 participants aged 40–75 years from The Maastricht Study who completed the baseline survey between November 2010 and January 2018 and had full data available were included.
• Sleep duration was assessed as the in-bed time in minutes, using a median of 7 nights’ data from an activPAL3 (PAL Technologies) accelerometer, which is worn on the thigh.
• Glucose metabolism was determined via an oral glucose tolerance test and categorized as prediabetes or type 2 diabetes in line with World Health Organization diagnostic criteria.
• The association between sleep duration and type 2 diabetes was assessed on multivariate logistic regression analysis, taking into account a range of potential confounding factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean age of the participants was 60.1 years, and there was an even split between men and women. In all, 832 had prediabetes and 1,341 type 2 diabetes, and the mean sleep duration was 8.3 hours.
• The results indicated there was a U-shaped relationship between sleep duration and type 2 diabetes, so that both long and short sleep durations increased the risk.
• In the fully adjusted model, a sleep duration of 5 hours was associated with an odds ratio for type 2 diabetes versus 8 hours sleep of 2.9. For a sleep duration of 12 hours, the odds ratio was 1.8.
• The association between sleep duration and diabetes was not significant.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “support the idea that sleep duration could be a relevant risk factor for type 2 diabetes independent of lifestyle risk factors, including diet, physical activity, smoking behavior, and alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors.

“These findings underpin the importance of promoting healthy sleep habits to avoid sleep deprivation,” they added.
 

STUDY DETAILS:

The research was led by Jeroen D. Albers, MSc, department of social medicine, Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, and published in Sleep Health. It is an analysis of The Maastricht Study.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its cross-sectional nature, particularly because there are “plausible causal paths between sleep duration and type 2 in both directions,” the authors note. The accelerometer used in the study also cannot reliably distinguish between waking and sleeping time in bed, with the potential for misclassification. Daytime naps were also not included, and long-term changes sleep patterns were not measured. In addition, it was not possible to control for some potential confounding factors.

DISCLOSURES:

The Maastricht Study was supported by the European Regional Development Fund via OP-Zuid, the Province of Limburg, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Stichting De Weijerhorst, the Pearl String Initiative Diabetes, the School for Cardiovascular Diseases, the School for Public Health and Primary Care, the School for Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Stichting Annadal, Health Foundation Limburg, and unrestricted grants from Janssen-Cilag, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis Netherlands. One author declares a relationship with Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

Both short and long sleep durations appear to increase the risk for type 2 diabetes, independent of lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors, suggests an analysis of a Dutch study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data on 5,561 participants aged 40–75 years from The Maastricht Study who completed the baseline survey between November 2010 and January 2018 and had full data available were included.
• Sleep duration was assessed as the in-bed time in minutes, using a median of 7 nights’ data from an activPAL3 (PAL Technologies) accelerometer, which is worn on the thigh.
• Glucose metabolism was determined via an oral glucose tolerance test and categorized as prediabetes or type 2 diabetes in line with World Health Organization diagnostic criteria.
• The association between sleep duration and type 2 diabetes was assessed on multivariate logistic regression analysis, taking into account a range of potential confounding factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean age of the participants was 60.1 years, and there was an even split between men and women. In all, 832 had prediabetes and 1,341 type 2 diabetes, and the mean sleep duration was 8.3 hours.
• The results indicated there was a U-shaped relationship between sleep duration and type 2 diabetes, so that both long and short sleep durations increased the risk.
• In the fully adjusted model, a sleep duration of 5 hours was associated with an odds ratio for type 2 diabetes versus 8 hours sleep of 2.9. For a sleep duration of 12 hours, the odds ratio was 1.8.
• The association between sleep duration and diabetes was not significant.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “support the idea that sleep duration could be a relevant risk factor for type 2 diabetes independent of lifestyle risk factors, including diet, physical activity, smoking behavior, and alcohol consumption,” wrote the authors.

“These findings underpin the importance of promoting healthy sleep habits to avoid sleep deprivation,” they added.
 

STUDY DETAILS:

The research was led by Jeroen D. Albers, MSc, department of social medicine, Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, and published in Sleep Health. It is an analysis of The Maastricht Study.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its cross-sectional nature, particularly because there are “plausible causal paths between sleep duration and type 2 in both directions,” the authors note. The accelerometer used in the study also cannot reliably distinguish between waking and sleeping time in bed, with the potential for misclassification. Daytime naps were also not included, and long-term changes sleep patterns were not measured. In addition, it was not possible to control for some potential confounding factors.

DISCLOSURES:

The Maastricht Study was supported by the European Regional Development Fund via OP-Zuid, the Province of Limburg, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Stichting De Weijerhorst, the Pearl String Initiative Diabetes, the School for Cardiovascular Diseases, the School for Public Health and Primary Care, the School for Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Stichting Annadal, Health Foundation Limburg, and unrestricted grants from Janssen-Cilag, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis Netherlands. One author declares a relationship with Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Those who run Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour have something in common with those who run ERAS, the Electronic Residency Application Service. They cause agita to the people they purport to serve.

Most medical students won’t see Taylor Swift perform her hit song “Cruel Summer,” but they will spend thousands of dollars on ERAS as they prepare for the 2024 residency match. Medical students applying for residency tend to be as stressed out as Swifties trying to score concert tickets. Aside from the expenses of residency applications, students also face an increasingly complex application process: a match algorithm many of them do not understand and major changes to the application process that most learn about right before the application cycle begins.

I have gone through two matches myself, one for internal medicine and one for neurology, and I have also guided students through the process for almost a decade as a dean of student affairs at a medical school. Every summer, the application process is filled with numerous changes, often with little, if any, warning for the students. One year, for example, a specialty required additional essays tailored to each program. Though this requirement may have helped programs discern which students are most enthusiastic about their programs, it also disadvantaged students working on busier rotations, strapped for time to write as many as 70 additional essays in a matter of weeks.

Other recent changes have included “signaling” programs, selecting preferred regions, and preinterview recordings for some specialties. In 2023, students cannot include more than 10 activities on their ERAS application. I have spoken to students at numerous medical schools concerned about the difficulty of selecting 10 activities out of dozens of meaningful pursuits throughout their journeys; this challenge is particularly acute for students who had other careers before entering medical school.

The stress continues to mount even after residency applications have been submitted. Students often feel tied to their phones because offers for residency interviews roll in day and night by email, and if they wait more than a few hours to respond, they’re often moved to a waiting list for their preferred interview date. One year, while we were rounding on patients, a student stepped away to schedule an interview; while doing so, he missed out on managing a patient who developed a neurologic emergency. Thankfully, many but not all specialties have put rules in place to allow students more time to think through interview offers. Having more time to think, even if it’s just 48 hours, may decrease stress, limit the negative impacts on medical education, and promote informed decisions during interview season.

To be sure, most changes are being made in an effort to improve the experience of the students and programs. But as with anything, the result has been a mix of good and bad. The transition to virtual interviews allowed students to apply more broadly to programs without worrying about travel costs. The move also benefits students with disabilities who face accessibility and other challenges with traveling. However, virtual interviews came with several downsides, including but not limited to an increased number of applications submitted (recall that this was also a benefit), interview hoarding, and challenges of connecting personally via virtual platform. Despite the virtual format, applicants increasingly are doing in-person second looks, which some worry may give those applicants an additional advantage over applicants who do not have the time or financial resources to travel for a second look. Despite these shortcomings, it is important that virtual interviews remain an option for those applicants who need it.

Another change, which has been extensively debated in medical education in recent years, was the switch to pass/fail on the USMLE Step 1 exam. Though this move decreased the stress students experienced in the first 2 years of medical school, it has resulted in a new challenge as many residency programs put more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. Many medical students feel they do not have a good gauge of their competitiveness until a few weeks before they submit their application, particularly those applicants attending medical schools that do not provide them with information regarding their class standing until right before they submit their applications.

By the time Swift’s Eras Tour ends in the summer of 2024, medical students will already have matched and started their residency programs. At the same time, a new batch of students will be entering the next year’s match. Though the number of anticipated changes may not reach the level of seismic activity caused by the Swifties at her Seattle concert, many medical students fear that the changes may be just like tectonic plates shifting the match process away from its original purpose: to provide an orderly and fair mechanism for matching the preferences of applicants for U.S. residency positions with the preferences of residency program directors.

Dr. Etienne is with WMCHealth Good Samaritan Hospital, New York, and New York Medical College. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A lot of businesses benefit from being in private equity funds.

Health care isn’t one of them, and a recent report found that private equity buyouts of medical practices resulted in higher consumer prices.

This really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Such funds may offer glittering phrases like “improved technology” and “greater efficiency” but the bottom line is that they’re run by – and for – the shareholders. The majority of them aren’t going to be medical people or realize that you can’t run a medical practice like it’s a clothing retailer or electronic car manufacturer.

I’m not saying medicine isn’t a business – it is. I depend on my little practice to support three families, so keeping it in the black is important. But it also needs to run well to do that. Measures to increase revenue, like cutting my staff down (there are only two of them) or overbooking patients would seriously impact me effectively doing my part, which is playing doctor.

You can predict pretty accurately how long it will take to put a motor and bumper assembly on a specific model of car, but you can’t do that in medicine because people aren’t standardized. Even if you control variables such as same sex, age, and diagnosis, personalities vary widely, as do treatment decisions, questions they’ll have, and the “oh, another thing” factor.

That doesn’t happen at a bottling plant.

In the business model of health care, you’re hoping revenue will pay overhead and a reasonable salary for everyone. But when you add a private equity firm in, the shareholders also expect to be paid. Which means either revenue has to go up significantly, or costs have to be cut (layoffs, short staffing, reduced benefits, etc.), or a combination of both.

Regardless of which option is chosen, it isn’t good for the medical staff or the patients. Increasing the number of people seen in a given amount of time per doctor may be good for the shareholders, but it’s not good for the doctor or the person being cared for. Think of Lucy and Ethyl at the chocolate factory.

Even in an auto factory, if you speed up the rate of cars going through the assembly line, sooner or later mistakes will be made. Humans can’t keep up, and even robots will make errors if things aren’t aligned correctly, or are a few seconds ahead or behind the program. This is why they (hopefully) have quality control, to try and catch those things before they’re on the road.

Of course, cars are more easily fixable. When the mistake is found you repair or replace the part. You can’t do that as easily in people, and when serious mistakes happen it’s the doctor who’s held at fault – not the shareholders who pressured him or her to see patients faster and with less support.

Unfortunately, this is the way the current trend is going. The more people who are involved in the practice of medicine, in person or behind the scenes, the smaller each slice of the pie gets.

That’s not good for the patient, who’s the person at the center of it all and the reason why we’re here.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A lot of businesses benefit from being in private equity funds.

Health care isn’t one of them, and a recent report found that private equity buyouts of medical practices resulted in higher consumer prices.

This really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Such funds may offer glittering phrases like “improved technology” and “greater efficiency” but the bottom line is that they’re run by – and for – the shareholders. The majority of them aren’t going to be medical people or realize that you can’t run a medical practice like it’s a clothing retailer or electronic car manufacturer.

I’m not saying medicine isn’t a business – it is. I depend on my little practice to support three families, so keeping it in the black is important. But it also needs to run well to do that. Measures to increase revenue, like cutting my staff down (there are only two of them) or overbooking patients would seriously impact me effectively doing my part, which is playing doctor.

You can predict pretty accurately how long it will take to put a motor and bumper assembly on a specific model of car, but you can’t do that in medicine because people aren’t standardized. Even if you control variables such as same sex, age, and diagnosis, personalities vary widely, as do treatment decisions, questions they’ll have, and the “oh, another thing” factor.

That doesn’t happen at a bottling plant.

In the business model of health care, you’re hoping revenue will pay overhead and a reasonable salary for everyone. But when you add a private equity firm in, the shareholders also expect to be paid. Which means either revenue has to go up significantly, or costs have to be cut (layoffs, short staffing, reduced benefits, etc.), or a combination of both.

Regardless of which option is chosen, it isn’t good for the medical staff or the patients. Increasing the number of people seen in a given amount of time per doctor may be good for the shareholders, but it’s not good for the doctor or the person being cared for. Think of Lucy and Ethyl at the chocolate factory.

Even in an auto factory, if you speed up the rate of cars going through the assembly line, sooner or later mistakes will be made. Humans can’t keep up, and even robots will make errors if things aren’t aligned correctly, or are a few seconds ahead or behind the program. This is why they (hopefully) have quality control, to try and catch those things before they’re on the road.

Of course, cars are more easily fixable. When the mistake is found you repair or replace the part. You can’t do that as easily in people, and when serious mistakes happen it’s the doctor who’s held at fault – not the shareholders who pressured him or her to see patients faster and with less support.

Unfortunately, this is the way the current trend is going. The more people who are involved in the practice of medicine, in person or behind the scenes, the smaller each slice of the pie gets.

That’s not good for the patient, who’s the person at the center of it all and the reason why we’re here.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A lot of businesses benefit from being in private equity funds.

Health care isn’t one of them, and a recent report found that private equity buyouts of medical practices resulted in higher consumer prices.

This really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Such funds may offer glittering phrases like “improved technology” and “greater efficiency” but the bottom line is that they’re run by – and for – the shareholders. The majority of them aren’t going to be medical people or realize that you can’t run a medical practice like it’s a clothing retailer or electronic car manufacturer.

I’m not saying medicine isn’t a business – it is. I depend on my little practice to support three families, so keeping it in the black is important. But it also needs to run well to do that. Measures to increase revenue, like cutting my staff down (there are only two of them) or overbooking patients would seriously impact me effectively doing my part, which is playing doctor.

You can predict pretty accurately how long it will take to put a motor and bumper assembly on a specific model of car, but you can’t do that in medicine because people aren’t standardized. Even if you control variables such as same sex, age, and diagnosis, personalities vary widely, as do treatment decisions, questions they’ll have, and the “oh, another thing” factor.

That doesn’t happen at a bottling plant.

In the business model of health care, you’re hoping revenue will pay overhead and a reasonable salary for everyone. But when you add a private equity firm in, the shareholders also expect to be paid. Which means either revenue has to go up significantly, or costs have to be cut (layoffs, short staffing, reduced benefits, etc.), or a combination of both.

Regardless of which option is chosen, it isn’t good for the medical staff or the patients. Increasing the number of people seen in a given amount of time per doctor may be good for the shareholders, but it’s not good for the doctor or the person being cared for. Think of Lucy and Ethyl at the chocolate factory.

Even in an auto factory, if you speed up the rate of cars going through the assembly line, sooner or later mistakes will be made. Humans can’t keep up, and even robots will make errors if things aren’t aligned correctly, or are a few seconds ahead or behind the program. This is why they (hopefully) have quality control, to try and catch those things before they’re on the road.

Of course, cars are more easily fixable. When the mistake is found you repair or replace the part. You can’t do that as easily in people, and when serious mistakes happen it’s the doctor who’s held at fault – not the shareholders who pressured him or her to see patients faster and with less support.

Unfortunately, this is the way the current trend is going. The more people who are involved in the practice of medicine, in person or behind the scenes, the smaller each slice of the pie gets.

That’s not good for the patient, who’s the person at the center of it all and the reason why we’re here.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.