MDedge Rheumatology

Women with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis who used a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor during pregnancy gave birth to infants with higher birth weight than did other patients, without an increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to findings from a Dutch prospective cohort study published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study involved 188 patients drawn from the ongoing Preconceptional Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, which followed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases before and during pregnancy. Women enrolled in PreCARA were closely monitored and treated with a therapeutic approach that aimed to achieve minimal disease activity, which included the use of TNF inhibitors.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

Much research on TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has been limited to the first trimester and focused primarily on congenital malformations. In addition, most previous studies evaluating TNF inhibitors during pregnancy involved patients with different underlying diseases, making it difficult to interpret the results.

Hieronymus T. W. Smeele, MD, and colleagues at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, evaluated participants every 3 months before pregnancy; then again in the first, second, and third trimesters; and at 6, 12, and 26 weeks post partum. At these visits, in addition to undergoing an examination of their joints, patients completed questionnaires and gave blood samples. Disease activity was determined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Twin births and diagnoses other than RA were excluded.
 

Bigger babies

The study found that use of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (n = 92 women) did not increase the risk of birth defects or emergency cesarean sections. While RA is typically associated with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth weights, TNF inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in birth weight and fewer infants born SGA, even when the comparison was adjusted for confounders, such as disease activity. At the same time, TNF inhibitors were not associated with high birth weight or with infants who were large for gestational age (LGA).

The results showed that the effects were greatest when TNF inhibitors were used in the third trimester. However, teasing out the effects based on trimester is difficult because participants who used TNF inhibitors during the third trimester were likely to use them in the first and second trimester as well. The study’s authors pointed out that these results need to be replicated.

“The immune system is not only important in the pathogenesis of RA,” the study’s authors wrote, “but also for ensuring and maintaining a normal pregnancy.” They pointed out that many adverse outcomes of pregnancy that are thought to arise from inadequate development of the placenta, such as intrauterine growth restriction, SGA, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, can involve an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF. “It is tempting to speculate that treatment with [TNF inhibitors] during pregnancy promotes placentation and thereby fetal growth and birth weight by changing the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and by increasing the number and function of [regulatory T cells].” They also hypothesize that treatment with TNF inhibitors induces epigenetic changes in the fetus, which positively influence fetal growth. 
 

Welcomed data

This is a well-done, interesting study that will add to the still-slim body of research on pregnancy in rheumatic diseases, Kevin Byram, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology and immunology and associate director of the rheumatology training program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

“Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from clinical trials, not just in rheumatoid arthritis, but in other rheumatic diseases, so we don’t have a lot of great data,” he said, adding that the more interesting part of the study was that it showed there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. “I’m not sure what to make of the increased birth weight. It will be interesting to see if the hypothesis that there might be a role for this molecule in preventing low birth weight goes anywhere.”

The work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. PreCARA is an investigator-initiated study that was financially supported by UCB. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Women with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis who used a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor during pregnancy gave birth to infants with higher birth weight than did other patients, without an increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to findings from a Dutch prospective cohort study published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study involved 188 patients drawn from the ongoing Preconceptional Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, which followed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases before and during pregnancy. Women enrolled in PreCARA were closely monitored and treated with a therapeutic approach that aimed to achieve minimal disease activity, which included the use of TNF inhibitors.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

Much research on TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has been limited to the first trimester and focused primarily on congenital malformations. In addition, most previous studies evaluating TNF inhibitors during pregnancy involved patients with different underlying diseases, making it difficult to interpret the results.

Hieronymus T. W. Smeele, MD, and colleagues at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, evaluated participants every 3 months before pregnancy; then again in the first, second, and third trimesters; and at 6, 12, and 26 weeks post partum. At these visits, in addition to undergoing an examination of their joints, patients completed questionnaires and gave blood samples. Disease activity was determined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Twin births and diagnoses other than RA were excluded.
 

Bigger babies

The study found that use of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (n = 92 women) did not increase the risk of birth defects or emergency cesarean sections. While RA is typically associated with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth weights, TNF inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in birth weight and fewer infants born SGA, even when the comparison was adjusted for confounders, such as disease activity. At the same time, TNF inhibitors were not associated with high birth weight or with infants who were large for gestational age (LGA).

The results showed that the effects were greatest when TNF inhibitors were used in the third trimester. However, teasing out the effects based on trimester is difficult because participants who used TNF inhibitors during the third trimester were likely to use them in the first and second trimester as well. The study’s authors pointed out that these results need to be replicated.

“The immune system is not only important in the pathogenesis of RA,” the study’s authors wrote, “but also for ensuring and maintaining a normal pregnancy.” They pointed out that many adverse outcomes of pregnancy that are thought to arise from inadequate development of the placenta, such as intrauterine growth restriction, SGA, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, can involve an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF. “It is tempting to speculate that treatment with [TNF inhibitors] during pregnancy promotes placentation and thereby fetal growth and birth weight by changing the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and by increasing the number and function of [regulatory T cells].” They also hypothesize that treatment with TNF inhibitors induces epigenetic changes in the fetus, which positively influence fetal growth. 
 

Welcomed data

This is a well-done, interesting study that will add to the still-slim body of research on pregnancy in rheumatic diseases, Kevin Byram, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology and immunology and associate director of the rheumatology training program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

“Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from clinical trials, not just in rheumatoid arthritis, but in other rheumatic diseases, so we don’t have a lot of great data,” he said, adding that the more interesting part of the study was that it showed there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. “I’m not sure what to make of the increased birth weight. It will be interesting to see if the hypothesis that there might be a role for this molecule in preventing low birth weight goes anywhere.”

The work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. PreCARA is an investigator-initiated study that was financially supported by UCB. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Women with well-controlled rheumatoid arthritis who used a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor during pregnancy gave birth to infants with higher birth weight than did other patients, without an increased risk of adverse outcomes, according to findings from a Dutch prospective cohort study published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study involved 188 patients drawn from the ongoing Preconceptional Counseling in Active RA (PreCARA) study, which followed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases before and during pregnancy. Women enrolled in PreCARA were closely monitored and treated with a therapeutic approach that aimed to achieve minimal disease activity, which included the use of TNF inhibitors.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

Much research on TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has been limited to the first trimester and focused primarily on congenital malformations. In addition, most previous studies evaluating TNF inhibitors during pregnancy involved patients with different underlying diseases, making it difficult to interpret the results.

Hieronymus T. W. Smeele, MD, and colleagues at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, evaluated participants every 3 months before pregnancy; then again in the first, second, and third trimesters; and at 6, 12, and 26 weeks post partum. At these visits, in addition to undergoing an examination of their joints, patients completed questionnaires and gave blood samples. Disease activity was determined using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Twin births and diagnoses other than RA were excluded.
 

Bigger babies

The study found that use of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (n = 92 women) did not increase the risk of birth defects or emergency cesarean sections. While RA is typically associated with small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth weights, TNF inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in birth weight and fewer infants born SGA, even when the comparison was adjusted for confounders, such as disease activity. At the same time, TNF inhibitors were not associated with high birth weight or with infants who were large for gestational age (LGA).

The results showed that the effects were greatest when TNF inhibitors were used in the third trimester. However, teasing out the effects based on trimester is difficult because participants who used TNF inhibitors during the third trimester were likely to use them in the first and second trimester as well. The study’s authors pointed out that these results need to be replicated.

“The immune system is not only important in the pathogenesis of RA,” the study’s authors wrote, “but also for ensuring and maintaining a normal pregnancy.” They pointed out that many adverse outcomes of pregnancy that are thought to arise from inadequate development of the placenta, such as intrauterine growth restriction, SGA, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, can involve an increase in proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF. “It is tempting to speculate that treatment with [TNF inhibitors] during pregnancy promotes placentation and thereby fetal growth and birth weight by changing the balance between proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and by increasing the number and function of [regulatory T cells].” They also hypothesize that treatment with TNF inhibitors induces epigenetic changes in the fetus, which positively influence fetal growth. 
 

Welcomed data

This is a well-done, interesting study that will add to the still-slim body of research on pregnancy in rheumatic diseases, Kevin Byram, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology and immunology and associate director of the rheumatology training program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

“Historically, pregnant women have been excluded from clinical trials, not just in rheumatoid arthritis, but in other rheumatic diseases, so we don’t have a lot of great data,” he said, adding that the more interesting part of the study was that it showed there was no increased risk of adverse outcomes. “I’m not sure what to make of the increased birth weight. It will be interesting to see if the hypothesis that there might be a role for this molecule in preventing low birth weight goes anywhere.”

The work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. PreCARA is an investigator-initiated study that was financially supported by UCB. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis have a higher fracture rate and a higher post-fracture mortality rate, compared with the general population, according to a large new study from Sweden.

Alcohol-related cirrhosis was associated with an almost fourfold increased fracture rate, and the post-fracture mortality rates were higher at both 30 days and 1 year later.

“Half of all fractures were presumably associated with osteoporosis,” write the study authors, who are gastroenterologists and epidemiologists at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. “This suggests that existing pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis may reduce the fracture risk in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and possibly also reduce mortality rates.”

But, the authors continue, “our data indicate that osteoporosis may not be the only explanatory factor for this increased fracture risk. Removing modifiable risk factors such as smoking, heavy alcohol use, or malnutrition may further reduce the risk of fractures.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing risks

The association between liver cirrhosis and fractures appears strongest in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis, the most common cause of cirrhosis in many countries, including Sweden, the authors write.

Previous studies have examined mostly relative risk or hip fractures. The authors aimed to determine not only the relative risk but also the absolute risk, which “can better inform clinicians and policymakers of the actual size of the problem,” they write.

In a nationwide population-based cohort study, they analyzed data from the Swedish National Patient Registry between 1969 and 2016, which included 25,090 patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Patients were matched for sex, age, and municipality with 239,458 controls from the Swedish Total Population Registry. They calculated the cumulative incidence of fractures and accounted for competing risks, such as death or liver transportation.

Overall, 48,635 fractures occurred during 3.4 million person-years of follow-up, including 3,659 (14.6%) among patients and 44,976 (18.8%) among controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 3.8-times higher fracture rate, with 38.7 fractures per 1,000 person-years, compared with 13.3 in controls. Alcohol-related cirrhosis was also associated with a 1.9-times higher fracture rate than nonalcoholic cirrhosis and a 1.3-times higher fracture rate than noncirrhotic alcohol-related liver disease.

The cumulative incidence of fractures was elevated for patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis in the first 19 years of follow-up, with a 5-year risk at nearly 10%, compared with 4.5% for controls, and a 10-year risk of 13.5%, compared with 8.7% for controls.

Among those with a fracture, the median time to death was 2.8 years in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and 3.5 years in controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 1.6-times higher post-fracture mortality rate at 30 days, as well as a 1.8-times higher post-fracture mortality rate after one year.

“Falls and fractures kill patients with cirrhosis. Data like these are crucial to spread awareness and represent a call to arms,” Elliot Tapper, MD, an assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Dr. Tapper, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches the health outcomes of patients with cirrhosis. His previous studies have found that falls, injuries, and death are common in patients with cirrhosis, which could be predicted with an algorithm based on a prior history of falls, blood sodium level, mobility, and quality of life.

“The data emphasize that a fall and fracture herald a time of increased risk,” he said. “Research is needed to develop interventions that prevent falls and help patients remain more resilient when they happen.”
 

Promoting bone health

Osteoporosis was the most common presumed mechanism in both patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis (49.4%) and controls (52.2%), while high-energy trauma from motor vehicle crashes or heights preceded 10.9% of fractures in patients and 13.5% in controls.

The Karolinska Institute study found that patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 4.4-times higher rate of osteoporotic fracture than controls, which remained 3.6-times higher when using a stricter definition of osteoporotic fracture (a diagnosis of osteoporosis before, at, or within 3 months from the date of a fracture of the vertebrae, pelvis, proximal humerus, distal forearm, or hip).

Patients with osteoporosis at baseline had a 2.5-times higher incidence of fractures than controls with baseline osteoporosis. The absolute risk of fractures in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and osteoporosis was higher than for controls with osteoporosis during the first 3 years after a cirrhosis diagnosis.

In addition, the post-fracture mortality rate in those with osteoporosis was more than double in patients with cirrhosis in the first 30 days after a fracture and more than tripled after one year.

“Bone health isn’t necessarily prioritized for our patients, even though it is linked to higher mortality and disability,” Arpan Patel, MD, PhD, a hepatologist at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and assistant professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Patel, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between osteoporotic fracture risk, hospitalization, and death in patients with cirrhosis.

“Current guidelines support assessing post-liver transplant patients for bone density but do not currently advocate for doing so in patients with cirrhosis or alcohol-associated liver disease, who are a much larger at-risk population,” Dr. Patel said.

“The current paper supports the idea that we should consider the broad ramifications of alcohol use on bone health for our patients and suggests that there should be greater efforts to screen for and manage osteoporosis and osteopenia in our patients earlier,” he added.

The researchers were supported by grants from Region Stockholm and the Syskonen Svensson Foundation, though the funders had no role in the conduct of the study. The study authors reported no other disclosures or conflicts of interest. Dr. Tapper and Dr. Patel report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis have a higher fracture rate and a higher post-fracture mortality rate, compared with the general population, according to a large new study from Sweden.

Alcohol-related cirrhosis was associated with an almost fourfold increased fracture rate, and the post-fracture mortality rates were higher at both 30 days and 1 year later.

“Half of all fractures were presumably associated with osteoporosis,” write the study authors, who are gastroenterologists and epidemiologists at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. “This suggests that existing pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis may reduce the fracture risk in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and possibly also reduce mortality rates.”

But, the authors continue, “our data indicate that osteoporosis may not be the only explanatory factor for this increased fracture risk. Removing modifiable risk factors such as smoking, heavy alcohol use, or malnutrition may further reduce the risk of fractures.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing risks

The association between liver cirrhosis and fractures appears strongest in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis, the most common cause of cirrhosis in many countries, including Sweden, the authors write.

Previous studies have examined mostly relative risk or hip fractures. The authors aimed to determine not only the relative risk but also the absolute risk, which “can better inform clinicians and policymakers of the actual size of the problem,” they write.

In a nationwide population-based cohort study, they analyzed data from the Swedish National Patient Registry between 1969 and 2016, which included 25,090 patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Patients were matched for sex, age, and municipality with 239,458 controls from the Swedish Total Population Registry. They calculated the cumulative incidence of fractures and accounted for competing risks, such as death or liver transportation.

Overall, 48,635 fractures occurred during 3.4 million person-years of follow-up, including 3,659 (14.6%) among patients and 44,976 (18.8%) among controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 3.8-times higher fracture rate, with 38.7 fractures per 1,000 person-years, compared with 13.3 in controls. Alcohol-related cirrhosis was also associated with a 1.9-times higher fracture rate than nonalcoholic cirrhosis and a 1.3-times higher fracture rate than noncirrhotic alcohol-related liver disease.

The cumulative incidence of fractures was elevated for patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis in the first 19 years of follow-up, with a 5-year risk at nearly 10%, compared with 4.5% for controls, and a 10-year risk of 13.5%, compared with 8.7% for controls.

Among those with a fracture, the median time to death was 2.8 years in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and 3.5 years in controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 1.6-times higher post-fracture mortality rate at 30 days, as well as a 1.8-times higher post-fracture mortality rate after one year.

“Falls and fractures kill patients with cirrhosis. Data like these are crucial to spread awareness and represent a call to arms,” Elliot Tapper, MD, an assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Dr. Tapper, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches the health outcomes of patients with cirrhosis. His previous studies have found that falls, injuries, and death are common in patients with cirrhosis, which could be predicted with an algorithm based on a prior history of falls, blood sodium level, mobility, and quality of life.

“The data emphasize that a fall and fracture herald a time of increased risk,” he said. “Research is needed to develop interventions that prevent falls and help patients remain more resilient when they happen.”
 

Promoting bone health

Osteoporosis was the most common presumed mechanism in both patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis (49.4%) and controls (52.2%), while high-energy trauma from motor vehicle crashes or heights preceded 10.9% of fractures in patients and 13.5% in controls.

The Karolinska Institute study found that patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 4.4-times higher rate of osteoporotic fracture than controls, which remained 3.6-times higher when using a stricter definition of osteoporotic fracture (a diagnosis of osteoporosis before, at, or within 3 months from the date of a fracture of the vertebrae, pelvis, proximal humerus, distal forearm, or hip).

Patients with osteoporosis at baseline had a 2.5-times higher incidence of fractures than controls with baseline osteoporosis. The absolute risk of fractures in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and osteoporosis was higher than for controls with osteoporosis during the first 3 years after a cirrhosis diagnosis.

In addition, the post-fracture mortality rate in those with osteoporosis was more than double in patients with cirrhosis in the first 30 days after a fracture and more than tripled after one year.

“Bone health isn’t necessarily prioritized for our patients, even though it is linked to higher mortality and disability,” Arpan Patel, MD, PhD, a hepatologist at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and assistant professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Patel, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between osteoporotic fracture risk, hospitalization, and death in patients with cirrhosis.

“Current guidelines support assessing post-liver transplant patients for bone density but do not currently advocate for doing so in patients with cirrhosis or alcohol-associated liver disease, who are a much larger at-risk population,” Dr. Patel said.

“The current paper supports the idea that we should consider the broad ramifications of alcohol use on bone health for our patients and suggests that there should be greater efforts to screen for and manage osteoporosis and osteopenia in our patients earlier,” he added.

The researchers were supported by grants from Region Stockholm and the Syskonen Svensson Foundation, though the funders had no role in the conduct of the study. The study authors reported no other disclosures or conflicts of interest. Dr. Tapper and Dr. Patel report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis have a higher fracture rate and a higher post-fracture mortality rate, compared with the general population, according to a large new study from Sweden.

Alcohol-related cirrhosis was associated with an almost fourfold increased fracture rate, and the post-fracture mortality rates were higher at both 30 days and 1 year later.

“Half of all fractures were presumably associated with osteoporosis,” write the study authors, who are gastroenterologists and epidemiologists at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. “This suggests that existing pharmacotherapy for osteoporosis may reduce the fracture risk in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and possibly also reduce mortality rates.”

But, the authors continue, “our data indicate that osteoporosis may not be the only explanatory factor for this increased fracture risk. Removing modifiable risk factors such as smoking, heavy alcohol use, or malnutrition may further reduce the risk of fractures.”

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Analyzing risks

The association between liver cirrhosis and fractures appears strongest in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis, the most common cause of cirrhosis in many countries, including Sweden, the authors write.

Previous studies have examined mostly relative risk or hip fractures. The authors aimed to determine not only the relative risk but also the absolute risk, which “can better inform clinicians and policymakers of the actual size of the problem,” they write.

In a nationwide population-based cohort study, they analyzed data from the Swedish National Patient Registry between 1969 and 2016, which included 25,090 patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Patients were matched for sex, age, and municipality with 239,458 controls from the Swedish Total Population Registry. They calculated the cumulative incidence of fractures and accounted for competing risks, such as death or liver transportation.

Overall, 48,635 fractures occurred during 3.4 million person-years of follow-up, including 3,659 (14.6%) among patients and 44,976 (18.8%) among controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 3.8-times higher fracture rate, with 38.7 fractures per 1,000 person-years, compared with 13.3 in controls. Alcohol-related cirrhosis was also associated with a 1.9-times higher fracture rate than nonalcoholic cirrhosis and a 1.3-times higher fracture rate than noncirrhotic alcohol-related liver disease.

The cumulative incidence of fractures was elevated for patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis in the first 19 years of follow-up, with a 5-year risk at nearly 10%, compared with 4.5% for controls, and a 10-year risk of 13.5%, compared with 8.7% for controls.

Among those with a fracture, the median time to death was 2.8 years in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and 3.5 years in controls.

Patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 1.6-times higher post-fracture mortality rate at 30 days, as well as a 1.8-times higher post-fracture mortality rate after one year.

“Falls and fractures kill patients with cirrhosis. Data like these are crucial to spread awareness and represent a call to arms,” Elliot Tapper, MD, an assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Dr. Tapper, who wasn’t involved with this study, researches the health outcomes of patients with cirrhosis. His previous studies have found that falls, injuries, and death are common in patients with cirrhosis, which could be predicted with an algorithm based on a prior history of falls, blood sodium level, mobility, and quality of life.

“The data emphasize that a fall and fracture herald a time of increased risk,” he said. “Research is needed to develop interventions that prevent falls and help patients remain more resilient when they happen.”
 

Promoting bone health

Osteoporosis was the most common presumed mechanism in both patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis (49.4%) and controls (52.2%), while high-energy trauma from motor vehicle crashes or heights preceded 10.9% of fractures in patients and 13.5% in controls.

The Karolinska Institute study found that patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis had a 4.4-times higher rate of osteoporotic fracture than controls, which remained 3.6-times higher when using a stricter definition of osteoporotic fracture (a diagnosis of osteoporosis before, at, or within 3 months from the date of a fracture of the vertebrae, pelvis, proximal humerus, distal forearm, or hip).

Patients with osteoporosis at baseline had a 2.5-times higher incidence of fractures than controls with baseline osteoporosis. The absolute risk of fractures in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis and osteoporosis was higher than for controls with osteoporosis during the first 3 years after a cirrhosis diagnosis.

In addition, the post-fracture mortality rate in those with osteoporosis was more than double in patients with cirrhosis in the first 30 days after a fracture and more than tripled after one year.

“Bone health isn’t necessarily prioritized for our patients, even though it is linked to higher mortality and disability,” Arpan Patel, MD, PhD, a hepatologist at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and assistant professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Dr. Patel, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between osteoporotic fracture risk, hospitalization, and death in patients with cirrhosis.

“Current guidelines support assessing post-liver transplant patients for bone density but do not currently advocate for doing so in patients with cirrhosis or alcohol-associated liver disease, who are a much larger at-risk population,” Dr. Patel said.

“The current paper supports the idea that we should consider the broad ramifications of alcohol use on bone health for our patients and suggests that there should be greater efforts to screen for and manage osteoporosis and osteopenia in our patients earlier,” he added.

The researchers were supported by grants from Region Stockholm and the Syskonen Svensson Foundation, though the funders had no role in the conduct of the study. The study authors reported no other disclosures or conflicts of interest. Dr. Tapper and Dr. Patel report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

Taking vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fractures among adults in midlife and older adults, compared with placebo, according to results from an ancillary study of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The data showed that taking 2,000 IU of supplemental vitamin D each day without coadministered calcium did not have a significant effect on nonvertebral fractures (hazard ratio, 0.97; P = .50), hip fractures (HR, 1.01; P = .96), or total fractures (HR, 0.98; P = .70), compared with taking placebo, among individuals who did not have osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, or low bone mass, report Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the calcium and bone section at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstock

The findings were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Prior randomized, controlled trials have presented conflicting findings. Some have shown that there is some benefit to supplemental vitamin D, whereas others have shown no effect or even harm with regard to risk of fractures, Dr. LeBoff noted.

“Because of the conflicting data at the time, we tested this hypothesis in an effort to advance science and understanding of the effects of vitamin D on bone. In a previous study, we did not see an effect of supplemental vitamin D on bone density in a subcohort from the VITAL trial,” Dr. LeBoff said in an interview.

“We previously reported that vitamin D, about 2,000 units per day, did not increase bone density, nor did it affect bone structure, according to PQCT [peripheral quantitative CT]. So that was an indicator that since bone density is a surrogate marker of fractures, there may not be an effect on fractures,” she added.

These results should dispel any idea that vitamin D alone could significantly reduce fracture rates in the general population, noted Steven R. Cummings, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Clifford Rosen, MD, of Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, in an accompanying editorial.

“Adding those findings to previous reports from VITAL and other trials showing the lack of an effect for preventing numerous conditions suggests that providers should stop screening for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or recommending vitamin D supplements, and people should stop taking vitamin D supplements to prevent major diseases or extend life,” the editorialists wrote.

The researchers assessed 25,871 participants from all 50 states during a median follow-up time of 5.3 years. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive placebo or vitamin D.

The mean age of the participants was 67.1 years; 50.6% of the study cohort were women, and 20.2% of the cohort were Black. Participants did not have low bone mass, vitamin D deficiency, or osteoporosis.

Participants agreed not to supplement their dietary intake with more than 1,200 mg of calcium each day and no more than 800 IU of vitamin D each day.

Participants filled out detailed surveys to evaluate baseline prescription drug use, demographic factors, medical history, and the consumption of supplements, such as fish oil, calcium, and vitamin D, during the run-in stage. Yearly surveys were used to assess side effects, adherence to the investigation protocol, falls, fractures, physical activity, osteoporosis and associated risk factors, onset of major illness, and the use of nontrial prescription drugs and supplements, such as vitamin D and calcium.

The researchers adjudicated incident fracture data using a centralized medical record review. To approximate the therapeutic effect in intention-to-treat analyses, they used proportional-hazard models.

Notably, outcomes were similar for the placebo and vitamin D groups with regard to incident kidney stones and hypercalcemia.

The effect of vitamin D supplementation was not modified by baseline parameters such as race or ethnicity, sex, body mass index, age, or blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

Dr. Cummings and Dr. Rosen pointed out that these findings, along with other VITAL trial data, show that no subgroups classified on the basis of baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, including those with levels less than 20 ng/mL, benefited from vitamin supplementation.

“There is no justification for measuring 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the general population or treating to a target serum level. A 25-hydroxyvitamin D level might be a useful diagnostic test for some patients with conditions that may be due to or that may cause severe deficiency,” the editorialists noted.

Except with regard to select patients, such as individuals living in nursing homes who have limited sun exposure, the use of the terms “vitamin D deficiency” and “vitamin D “insufficiency” should now be reevaluated, Dr. Rosen and Dr. Cummings wrote.

The study’s limitations include its assessment of only one dosage of vitamin D supplementation and a lack of adjustment for multiplicity, exploratory, parent trial, or secondary endpoints, the researchers noted.

The number of participants who had vitamin D deficiency was limited, owing to ethical and feasibility concerns regarding these patients. The data are not generalizable to individuals who are older and institutionalized or those who have osteomalacia or osteoporosis, the researchers wrote.
 

Expert commentary

“The interpretation of this [study] to me is that vitamin D is not for everybody,” said Baha Arafah, MD, professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and chief of the division of endocrinology at University Hospital, both in Cleveland, who was not involved in the study.

“This is not the final word; I would suggest that you don’t throw vitamin D at everybody. I would use markers of bone formation as a better measure to determine whether they need vitamin D or not, specifically looking at parathyroid hormone,” Dr. Arafah said in an interview.

Dr. Arafah pointed out that these data do not mean that clinicians should stop thinking about vitamin D altogether. “I think that would be the wrong message to read. If you read through the article, you will find that there are people who do need vitamin D; people who are deficient do need vitamin D. There’s no question that excessive or extreme vitamin D deficiency can lead to other things, specifically, osteomalacia, weak bones, [and] poor mineralization, so we are not totally out of the woods at this time.”

The ancillary study of the VITAL trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D 3 supplements used in the trial. Dr. LeBoff reported that she holds stock in Amgen. Cummings reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. Rosen is associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Arafah reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fractures among adults in midlife and older adults, compared with placebo, according to results from an ancillary study of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The data showed that taking 2,000 IU of supplemental vitamin D each day without coadministered calcium did not have a significant effect on nonvertebral fractures (hazard ratio, 0.97; P = .50), hip fractures (HR, 1.01; P = .96), or total fractures (HR, 0.98; P = .70), compared with taking placebo, among individuals who did not have osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, or low bone mass, report Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the calcium and bone section at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstock

The findings were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Prior randomized, controlled trials have presented conflicting findings. Some have shown that there is some benefit to supplemental vitamin D, whereas others have shown no effect or even harm with regard to risk of fractures, Dr. LeBoff noted.

“Because of the conflicting data at the time, we tested this hypothesis in an effort to advance science and understanding of the effects of vitamin D on bone. In a previous study, we did not see an effect of supplemental vitamin D on bone density in a subcohort from the VITAL trial,” Dr. LeBoff said in an interview.

“We previously reported that vitamin D, about 2,000 units per day, did not increase bone density, nor did it affect bone structure, according to PQCT [peripheral quantitative CT]. So that was an indicator that since bone density is a surrogate marker of fractures, there may not be an effect on fractures,” she added.

These results should dispel any idea that vitamin D alone could significantly reduce fracture rates in the general population, noted Steven R. Cummings, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Clifford Rosen, MD, of Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, in an accompanying editorial.

“Adding those findings to previous reports from VITAL and other trials showing the lack of an effect for preventing numerous conditions suggests that providers should stop screening for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or recommending vitamin D supplements, and people should stop taking vitamin D supplements to prevent major diseases or extend life,” the editorialists wrote.

The researchers assessed 25,871 participants from all 50 states during a median follow-up time of 5.3 years. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive placebo or vitamin D.

The mean age of the participants was 67.1 years; 50.6% of the study cohort were women, and 20.2% of the cohort were Black. Participants did not have low bone mass, vitamin D deficiency, or osteoporosis.

Participants agreed not to supplement their dietary intake with more than 1,200 mg of calcium each day and no more than 800 IU of vitamin D each day.

Participants filled out detailed surveys to evaluate baseline prescription drug use, demographic factors, medical history, and the consumption of supplements, such as fish oil, calcium, and vitamin D, during the run-in stage. Yearly surveys were used to assess side effects, adherence to the investigation protocol, falls, fractures, physical activity, osteoporosis and associated risk factors, onset of major illness, and the use of nontrial prescription drugs and supplements, such as vitamin D and calcium.

The researchers adjudicated incident fracture data using a centralized medical record review. To approximate the therapeutic effect in intention-to-treat analyses, they used proportional-hazard models.

Notably, outcomes were similar for the placebo and vitamin D groups with regard to incident kidney stones and hypercalcemia.

The effect of vitamin D supplementation was not modified by baseline parameters such as race or ethnicity, sex, body mass index, age, or blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

Dr. Cummings and Dr. Rosen pointed out that these findings, along with other VITAL trial data, show that no subgroups classified on the basis of baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, including those with levels less than 20 ng/mL, benefited from vitamin supplementation.

“There is no justification for measuring 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the general population or treating to a target serum level. A 25-hydroxyvitamin D level might be a useful diagnostic test for some patients with conditions that may be due to or that may cause severe deficiency,” the editorialists noted.

Except with regard to select patients, such as individuals living in nursing homes who have limited sun exposure, the use of the terms “vitamin D deficiency” and “vitamin D “insufficiency” should now be reevaluated, Dr. Rosen and Dr. Cummings wrote.

The study’s limitations include its assessment of only one dosage of vitamin D supplementation and a lack of adjustment for multiplicity, exploratory, parent trial, or secondary endpoints, the researchers noted.

The number of participants who had vitamin D deficiency was limited, owing to ethical and feasibility concerns regarding these patients. The data are not generalizable to individuals who are older and institutionalized or those who have osteomalacia or osteoporosis, the researchers wrote.
 

Expert commentary

“The interpretation of this [study] to me is that vitamin D is not for everybody,” said Baha Arafah, MD, professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and chief of the division of endocrinology at University Hospital, both in Cleveland, who was not involved in the study.

“This is not the final word; I would suggest that you don’t throw vitamin D at everybody. I would use markers of bone formation as a better measure to determine whether they need vitamin D or not, specifically looking at parathyroid hormone,” Dr. Arafah said in an interview.

Dr. Arafah pointed out that these data do not mean that clinicians should stop thinking about vitamin D altogether. “I think that would be the wrong message to read. If you read through the article, you will find that there are people who do need vitamin D; people who are deficient do need vitamin D. There’s no question that excessive or extreme vitamin D deficiency can lead to other things, specifically, osteomalacia, weak bones, [and] poor mineralization, so we are not totally out of the woods at this time.”

The ancillary study of the VITAL trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D 3 supplements used in the trial. Dr. LeBoff reported that she holds stock in Amgen. Cummings reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. Rosen is associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Arafah reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fractures among adults in midlife and older adults, compared with placebo, according to results from an ancillary study of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The data showed that taking 2,000 IU of supplemental vitamin D each day without coadministered calcium did not have a significant effect on nonvertebral fractures (hazard ratio, 0.97; P = .50), hip fractures (HR, 1.01; P = .96), or total fractures (HR, 0.98; P = .70), compared with taking placebo, among individuals who did not have osteoporosis, vitamin D deficiency, or low bone mass, report Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the calcium and bone section at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstock

The findings were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Prior randomized, controlled trials have presented conflicting findings. Some have shown that there is some benefit to supplemental vitamin D, whereas others have shown no effect or even harm with regard to risk of fractures, Dr. LeBoff noted.

“Because of the conflicting data at the time, we tested this hypothesis in an effort to advance science and understanding of the effects of vitamin D on bone. In a previous study, we did not see an effect of supplemental vitamin D on bone density in a subcohort from the VITAL trial,” Dr. LeBoff said in an interview.

“We previously reported that vitamin D, about 2,000 units per day, did not increase bone density, nor did it affect bone structure, according to PQCT [peripheral quantitative CT]. So that was an indicator that since bone density is a surrogate marker of fractures, there may not be an effect on fractures,” she added.

These results should dispel any idea that vitamin D alone could significantly reduce fracture rates in the general population, noted Steven R. Cummings, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Clifford Rosen, MD, of Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, in an accompanying editorial.

“Adding those findings to previous reports from VITAL and other trials showing the lack of an effect for preventing numerous conditions suggests that providers should stop screening for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or recommending vitamin D supplements, and people should stop taking vitamin D supplements to prevent major diseases or extend life,” the editorialists wrote.

The researchers assessed 25,871 participants from all 50 states during a median follow-up time of 5.3 years. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive placebo or vitamin D.

The mean age of the participants was 67.1 years; 50.6% of the study cohort were women, and 20.2% of the cohort were Black. Participants did not have low bone mass, vitamin D deficiency, or osteoporosis.

Participants agreed not to supplement their dietary intake with more than 1,200 mg of calcium each day and no more than 800 IU of vitamin D each day.

Participants filled out detailed surveys to evaluate baseline prescription drug use, demographic factors, medical history, and the consumption of supplements, such as fish oil, calcium, and vitamin D, during the run-in stage. Yearly surveys were used to assess side effects, adherence to the investigation protocol, falls, fractures, physical activity, osteoporosis and associated risk factors, onset of major illness, and the use of nontrial prescription drugs and supplements, such as vitamin D and calcium.

The researchers adjudicated incident fracture data using a centralized medical record review. To approximate the therapeutic effect in intention-to-treat analyses, they used proportional-hazard models.

Notably, outcomes were similar for the placebo and vitamin D groups with regard to incident kidney stones and hypercalcemia.

The effect of vitamin D supplementation was not modified by baseline parameters such as race or ethnicity, sex, body mass index, age, or blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

Dr. Cummings and Dr. Rosen pointed out that these findings, along with other VITAL trial data, show that no subgroups classified on the basis of baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, including those with levels less than 20 ng/mL, benefited from vitamin supplementation.

“There is no justification for measuring 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the general population or treating to a target serum level. A 25-hydroxyvitamin D level might be a useful diagnostic test for some patients with conditions that may be due to or that may cause severe deficiency,” the editorialists noted.

Except with regard to select patients, such as individuals living in nursing homes who have limited sun exposure, the use of the terms “vitamin D deficiency” and “vitamin D “insufficiency” should now be reevaluated, Dr. Rosen and Dr. Cummings wrote.

The study’s limitations include its assessment of only one dosage of vitamin D supplementation and a lack of adjustment for multiplicity, exploratory, parent trial, or secondary endpoints, the researchers noted.

The number of participants who had vitamin D deficiency was limited, owing to ethical and feasibility concerns regarding these patients. The data are not generalizable to individuals who are older and institutionalized or those who have osteomalacia or osteoporosis, the researchers wrote.
 

Expert commentary

“The interpretation of this [study] to me is that vitamin D is not for everybody,” said Baha Arafah, MD, professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and chief of the division of endocrinology at University Hospital, both in Cleveland, who was not involved in the study.

“This is not the final word; I would suggest that you don’t throw vitamin D at everybody. I would use markers of bone formation as a better measure to determine whether they need vitamin D or not, specifically looking at parathyroid hormone,” Dr. Arafah said in an interview.

Dr. Arafah pointed out that these data do not mean that clinicians should stop thinking about vitamin D altogether. “I think that would be the wrong message to read. If you read through the article, you will find that there are people who do need vitamin D; people who are deficient do need vitamin D. There’s no question that excessive or extreme vitamin D deficiency can lead to other things, specifically, osteomalacia, weak bones, [and] poor mineralization, so we are not totally out of the woods at this time.”

The ancillary study of the VITAL trial was sponsored by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Pharmavite donated the vitamin D 3 supplements used in the trial. Dr. LeBoff reported that she holds stock in Amgen. Cummings reported receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. Rosen is associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Arafah reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exercise in a pill? Sign us up

You just got home from a long shift and you know you should go to the gym, but the bed is calling and you just answered. We know sometimes we have to make sacrifices in the name of fitness, but there just aren’t enough hours in the day. Unless our prayers have been answered. There could be a pill that has the benefits of working out without having to work out.

In a study published in Nature, investigators reported that they have identified a molecule made during exercise and used it on mice, which took in less food after being given the pill, which may open doors to understanding how exercise affects hunger.

©Rido/Fotolia.com

Gonorrhea and grandparents: A match made in prehistoric heaven

*Editorial note: LOTME takes no responsibility for any unfortunate imagery the reader may have experienced from the above headline.

Old people are the greatest. Back pains, cognitive decline, aches in all the diodes down your left side, there’s nothing quite like your golden years. Notably, however, humans are one of the few animals who experience true old age, as most creatures are adapted to maximize reproductive potential. As such, living past menopause is rare in the animal kingdom.

CDC/John Martin Jr.

This is where the “grandmother hypothesis” comes in: Back in Ye Olde Stone Age, women who lived into old age could provide child care for younger women, because human babies require a lot more time and attention than other animal offspring. But how did humans end up living so long? Enter a group of Californian researchers, who believe they have an answer. It was gonorrhea.

When compared with the chimpanzee genome (as well as with Neanderthals and Denisovans, our closest ancestors), humans have a unique mutated version of the CD33 gene that lacks a sugar-binding site; the standard version uses the sugar-binding site to protect against autoimmune response in the body, but that same site actually suppresses the brain’s ability to clear away damaged brain cells and amyloid, which eventually leads to diseases like dementia. The mutated version allows microglia (brain immune cells) to attack and clear out this unwanted material. People with higher levels of this mutated CD33 variant actually have higher protection against Alzheimer’s.

Interestingly, gonorrhea bacteria are coated in the same sugar that standard CD33 receptors bind to, thus allowing them to bypass the body’s immune system. According to the researchers, the mutated CD33 version likely emerged as a protection against gonorrhea, depriving the bacteria of their “molecular mimicry” abilities. In one of life’s happy accidents, it turned out this mutation also protects against age-related diseases, thus allowing humans with the mutation to live longer. Obviously, this was a good thing, and we ran with it until the modern day. Now we have senior citizens climbing Everest, and all our politicians keep on politicking into their 70s and 80s ... well, everything has its drawbacks.
 

Parents raise a glass to children’s food addiction

There can be something pretty addicting about processed foods. Have you ever eaten just one french fry? Or taken just one cookie? If so, your willpower is incredible. For many of us, it can be a struggle to stop.

© Aleksandr Stennikov/Fotolia.com

A recent study from the University of Michigan, which considered the existence of an eating phenotype, suggests our parents’ habits could be to blame.

By administering a series of questionnaires that inquired about food addiction, alcohol use disorders, cannabis use disorder, nicotine/e-cigarette dependence, and their family tree, investigators found that participants with a “paternal history of problematic alcohol use” had higher risk of food addiction but not obesity.

Apparently about one in five people display a clinically significant addiction to highly processed foods. It was noted that foods like ice cream, pizza, and french fries have high amounts of refined carbs and fats, which could trigger an addictive response.

Lindzey Hoover, a graduate student at the university who was the study’s lead author, noted that living in an environment where these foods are cheap and accessible can be really challenging for those with a family history of addiction. The investigators suggested that public health approaches, like restriction of other substances and marketing to kids, should be put in place for highly processed foods.

Maybe french fries should come with a warning label.
 

A prescription for America’s traffic problems

Nostalgia is a funny thing. Do you ever feel nostalgic about things that really weren’t very pleasant in the first place? Take, for instance, the morning commute. Here in the Washington area, more than 2 years into the COVID era, the traffic is still not what it used to be … and we kind of miss it.

PhotoDisk

Nah, not really. That was just a way to get everyone thinking about driving, because AAA has something of an explanation for the situation out there on the highways and byways of America. It’s drugs. No, not those kinds of drugs. This time it’s prescription drugs that are the problem. Well, part of the problem, anyway.

AAA did a survey last summer and found that nearly 50% of drivers “used one or more potentially impairing medications in the past 30 days. … The proportion of those choosing to drive is higher among those taking multiple medications.” How much higher? More than 63% of those with two or more prescriptions were driving within 2 hours of taking at least one of those meds, as were 71% of those taking three or more.

The 2,657 respondents also were asked about the types of potentially impairing drugs they were taking: 61% of those using antidepressants had been on the road within 2 hours of use at least once in the past 30 days, as had 73% of those taking an amphetamine, AAA said.

So there you have it. That guy in the BMW who’s been tailgating you for the last 3 miles? He may be a jerk, but there’s a good chance he’s a jerk with a prescription … or two … or three.

Exercise in a pill? Sign us up

You just got home from a long shift and you know you should go to the gym, but the bed is calling and you just answered. We know sometimes we have to make sacrifices in the name of fitness, but there just aren’t enough hours in the day. Unless our prayers have been answered. There could be a pill that has the benefits of working out without having to work out.

In a study published in Nature, investigators reported that they have identified a molecule made during exercise and used it on mice, which took in less food after being given the pill, which may open doors to understanding how exercise affects hunger.

©Rido/Fotolia.com

Gonorrhea and grandparents: A match made in prehistoric heaven

*Editorial note: LOTME takes no responsibility for any unfortunate imagery the reader may have experienced from the above headline.

Old people are the greatest. Back pains, cognitive decline, aches in all the diodes down your left side, there’s nothing quite like your golden years. Notably, however, humans are one of the few animals who experience true old age, as most creatures are adapted to maximize reproductive potential. As such, living past menopause is rare in the animal kingdom.

CDC/John Martin Jr.

This is where the “grandmother hypothesis” comes in: Back in Ye Olde Stone Age, women who lived into old age could provide child care for younger women, because human babies require a lot more time and attention than other animal offspring. But how did humans end up living so long? Enter a group of Californian researchers, who believe they have an answer. It was gonorrhea.

When compared with the chimpanzee genome (as well as with Neanderthals and Denisovans, our closest ancestors), humans have a unique mutated version of the CD33 gene that lacks a sugar-binding site; the standard version uses the sugar-binding site to protect against autoimmune response in the body, but that same site actually suppresses the brain’s ability to clear away damaged brain cells and amyloid, which eventually leads to diseases like dementia. The mutated version allows microglia (brain immune cells) to attack and clear out this unwanted material. People with higher levels of this mutated CD33 variant actually have higher protection against Alzheimer’s.

Interestingly, gonorrhea bacteria are coated in the same sugar that standard CD33 receptors bind to, thus allowing them to bypass the body’s immune system. According to the researchers, the mutated CD33 version likely emerged as a protection against gonorrhea, depriving the bacteria of their “molecular mimicry” abilities. In one of life’s happy accidents, it turned out this mutation also protects against age-related diseases, thus allowing humans with the mutation to live longer. Obviously, this was a good thing, and we ran with it until the modern day. Now we have senior citizens climbing Everest, and all our politicians keep on politicking into their 70s and 80s ... well, everything has its drawbacks.
 

Parents raise a glass to children’s food addiction

There can be something pretty addicting about processed foods. Have you ever eaten just one french fry? Or taken just one cookie? If so, your willpower is incredible. For many of us, it can be a struggle to stop.

© Aleksandr Stennikov/Fotolia.com

A recent study from the University of Michigan, which considered the existence of an eating phenotype, suggests our parents’ habits could be to blame.

By administering a series of questionnaires that inquired about food addiction, alcohol use disorders, cannabis use disorder, nicotine/e-cigarette dependence, and their family tree, investigators found that participants with a “paternal history of problematic alcohol use” had higher risk of food addiction but not obesity.

Apparently about one in five people display a clinically significant addiction to highly processed foods. It was noted that foods like ice cream, pizza, and french fries have high amounts of refined carbs and fats, which could trigger an addictive response.

Lindzey Hoover, a graduate student at the university who was the study’s lead author, noted that living in an environment where these foods are cheap and accessible can be really challenging for those with a family history of addiction. The investigators suggested that public health approaches, like restriction of other substances and marketing to kids, should be put in place for highly processed foods.

Maybe french fries should come with a warning label.
 

A prescription for America’s traffic problems

Nostalgia is a funny thing. Do you ever feel nostalgic about things that really weren’t very pleasant in the first place? Take, for instance, the morning commute. Here in the Washington area, more than 2 years into the COVID era, the traffic is still not what it used to be … and we kind of miss it.

PhotoDisk

Nah, not really. That was just a way to get everyone thinking about driving, because AAA has something of an explanation for the situation out there on the highways and byways of America. It’s drugs. No, not those kinds of drugs. This time it’s prescription drugs that are the problem. Well, part of the problem, anyway.

AAA did a survey last summer and found that nearly 50% of drivers “used one or more potentially impairing medications in the past 30 days. … The proportion of those choosing to drive is higher among those taking multiple medications.” How much higher? More than 63% of those with two or more prescriptions were driving within 2 hours of taking at least one of those meds, as were 71% of those taking three or more.

The 2,657 respondents also were asked about the types of potentially impairing drugs they were taking: 61% of those using antidepressants had been on the road within 2 hours of use at least once in the past 30 days, as had 73% of those taking an amphetamine, AAA said.

So there you have it. That guy in the BMW who’s been tailgating you for the last 3 miles? He may be a jerk, but there’s a good chance he’s a jerk with a prescription … or two … or three.

Exercise in a pill? Sign us up

You just got home from a long shift and you know you should go to the gym, but the bed is calling and you just answered. We know sometimes we have to make sacrifices in the name of fitness, but there just aren’t enough hours in the day. Unless our prayers have been answered. There could be a pill that has the benefits of working out without having to work out.

In a study published in Nature, investigators reported that they have identified a molecule made during exercise and used it on mice, which took in less food after being given the pill, which may open doors to understanding how exercise affects hunger.

©Rido/Fotolia.com

Gonorrhea and grandparents: A match made in prehistoric heaven

*Editorial note: LOTME takes no responsibility for any unfortunate imagery the reader may have experienced from the above headline.

Old people are the greatest. Back pains, cognitive decline, aches in all the diodes down your left side, there’s nothing quite like your golden years. Notably, however, humans are one of the few animals who experience true old age, as most creatures are adapted to maximize reproductive potential. As such, living past menopause is rare in the animal kingdom.

CDC/John Martin Jr.

This is where the “grandmother hypothesis” comes in: Back in Ye Olde Stone Age, women who lived into old age could provide child care for younger women, because human babies require a lot more time and attention than other animal offspring. But how did humans end up living so long? Enter a group of Californian researchers, who believe they have an answer. It was gonorrhea.

When compared with the chimpanzee genome (as well as with Neanderthals and Denisovans, our closest ancestors), humans have a unique mutated version of the CD33 gene that lacks a sugar-binding site; the standard version uses the sugar-binding site to protect against autoimmune response in the body, but that same site actually suppresses the brain’s ability to clear away damaged brain cells and amyloid, which eventually leads to diseases like dementia. The mutated version allows microglia (brain immune cells) to attack and clear out this unwanted material. People with higher levels of this mutated CD33 variant actually have higher protection against Alzheimer’s.

Interestingly, gonorrhea bacteria are coated in the same sugar that standard CD33 receptors bind to, thus allowing them to bypass the body’s immune system. According to the researchers, the mutated CD33 version likely emerged as a protection against gonorrhea, depriving the bacteria of their “molecular mimicry” abilities. In one of life’s happy accidents, it turned out this mutation also protects against age-related diseases, thus allowing humans with the mutation to live longer. Obviously, this was a good thing, and we ran with it until the modern day. Now we have senior citizens climbing Everest, and all our politicians keep on politicking into their 70s and 80s ... well, everything has its drawbacks.
 

Parents raise a glass to children’s food addiction

There can be something pretty addicting about processed foods. Have you ever eaten just one french fry? Or taken just one cookie? If so, your willpower is incredible. For many of us, it can be a struggle to stop.

© Aleksandr Stennikov/Fotolia.com

A recent study from the University of Michigan, which considered the existence of an eating phenotype, suggests our parents’ habits could be to blame.

By administering a series of questionnaires that inquired about food addiction, alcohol use disorders, cannabis use disorder, nicotine/e-cigarette dependence, and their family tree, investigators found that participants with a “paternal history of problematic alcohol use” had higher risk of food addiction but not obesity.

Apparently about one in five people display a clinically significant addiction to highly processed foods. It was noted that foods like ice cream, pizza, and french fries have high amounts of refined carbs and fats, which could trigger an addictive response.

Lindzey Hoover, a graduate student at the university who was the study’s lead author, noted that living in an environment where these foods are cheap and accessible can be really challenging for those with a family history of addiction. The investigators suggested that public health approaches, like restriction of other substances and marketing to kids, should be put in place for highly processed foods.

Maybe french fries should come with a warning label.
 

A prescription for America’s traffic problems

Nostalgia is a funny thing. Do you ever feel nostalgic about things that really weren’t very pleasant in the first place? Take, for instance, the morning commute. Here in the Washington area, more than 2 years into the COVID era, the traffic is still not what it used to be … and we kind of miss it.

PhotoDisk

Nah, not really. That was just a way to get everyone thinking about driving, because AAA has something of an explanation for the situation out there on the highways and byways of America. It’s drugs. No, not those kinds of drugs. This time it’s prescription drugs that are the problem. Well, part of the problem, anyway.

AAA did a survey last summer and found that nearly 50% of drivers “used one or more potentially impairing medications in the past 30 days. … The proportion of those choosing to drive is higher among those taking multiple medications.” How much higher? More than 63% of those with two or more prescriptions were driving within 2 hours of taking at least one of those meds, as were 71% of those taking three or more.

The 2,657 respondents also were asked about the types of potentially impairing drugs they were taking: 61% of those using antidepressants had been on the road within 2 hours of use at least once in the past 30 days, as had 73% of those taking an amphetamine, AAA said.

So there you have it. That guy in the BMW who’s been tailgating you for the last 3 miles? He may be a jerk, but there’s a good chance he’s a jerk with a prescription … or two … or three.

Scientists seeking to stay ahead of an evolving SARS-Cov-2 virus are looking at new strategies, including developing intranasal vaccines, according to speakers at a conference on July 26.

The Biden administration held a summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, inviting researchers to provide a public update on efforts to try to keep ahead of SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists and federal officials are looking to build on the successes seen in developing the original crop of COVID vaccines, which were authorized for use in the United States less than a year after the pandemic took hold.

But emerging variants are eroding these gains. For months now, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have been keeping an eye on how the level of effectiveness of COVID vaccines has waned during the rise of the Omicron strain. And there’s continual concern about how SARS-CoV-2 might evolve over time.

“Our vaccines are terrific,” Ashish K. Jha, MD, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, said at the summit. “[But] we have to do better.”

Among the approaches being considered are vaccines that would be applied intranasally, with the idea that this might be able to boost the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

At the summit, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the intranasal approach might be helpful in preventing transmission as well as reducing the burden of illness for those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re stopping the virus from spreading right at the border,” Dr. Iwasaki said at the summit. “This is akin to putting a guard outside of the house in order to patrol for invaders compared to putting the guards in the hallway of the building in the hope that they capture the invader.”

Dr. Iwasaki is one of the founders of Xanadu Bio, a private company created last year to focus on ways to kill SARS-CoV-2 in the nasosinus before it spreads deeper into the respiratory tract. In an editorial in Science Immunology, Dr. Iwasaki and Eric J. Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, urged greater federal investment in this approach to fighting SARS-CoV-2. (Dr. Topol is editor-in-chief of Medscape.)

Titled “Operation Nasal Vaccine – Lightning speed to counter COVID-19,” their editorial noted the “unprecedented success” seen in the rapid development of the first two mRNA shots. Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol noted that these victories had been “fueled by the $10 billion governmental investment in Operation Warp Speed.

“During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time we have seen a succession of important variants of concern, with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages,”  wrote Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol.

Recent developments have “spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing, and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots,” they added.
 

An early setback

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) have for some time been looking to vet an array of next-generation vaccine concepts, including ones that trigger mucosal immunity, the Washington Post reported in April.

At the summit on July 26, several participants, including Dr. Jha, stressed the role that public-private partnerships were key to the rapid development of the initial COVID vaccines. They said continued U.S. government support will be needed to make advances in this field.

One of the presenters, Biao He, PhD, founder and president of CyanVac and Blue Lake Biotechnology, spoke of the federal support that his efforts have received over the years to develop intranasal vaccines. His Georgia-based firm already has an experimental intranasal vaccine candidate, CVXGA1-001, in phase 1 testing (NCT04954287).

The CVXGA-001 builds on technology already used in a veterinary product, an intranasal vaccine long used to prevent kennel cough in dogs, he said at the summit.

The emerging field of experimental intranasal COVID vaccines already has had at least one setback.

The biotech firm Altimmune in June 2021 announced that it would discontinue development of its experimental intranasal AdCOVID vaccine following disappointing phase 1 results. The vaccine appeared to be well tolerated in the test, but the immunogenicity data demonstrated lower than expected results in healthy volunteers, especially in light of the responses seen to already cleared vaccines, Altimmune said in a release. 

In the statement, Scot Roberts, PhD, chief scientific officer at Altimmune, noted that the study participants lacked immunity from prior infection or vaccination. “We believe that prior immunity in humans may be important for a robust immune response to intranasal dosing with AdCOVID,” he said.

At the summit, Marty Moore, PhD, cofounder and chief scientific officer for Redwood City, Calif.–based Meissa Vaccines, noted the challenges that remain ahead for intranasal COVID vaccines, while also highlighting what he sees as the potential of this approach.

Meissa also has advanced an experimental intranasal COVID vaccine as far as phase 1 testing (NCT04798001).

“No one here today can tell you that mucosal COVID vaccines work. We’re not there yet. We need clinical efficacy data to answer that question,” Dr. Moore said.

But there’s a potential for a “knockout blow to COVID, a transmission-blocking vaccine” from the intranasal approach, he said.

“The virus is mutating faster than our ability to manage vaccines and not enough people are getting boosters. These injectable vaccines do a great job of preventing severe disease, but they do little to prevent infection” from spreading, Dr. Moore said.

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

Scientists seeking to stay ahead of an evolving SARS-Cov-2 virus are looking at new strategies, including developing intranasal vaccines, according to speakers at a conference on July 26.

The Biden administration held a summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, inviting researchers to provide a public update on efforts to try to keep ahead of SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists and federal officials are looking to build on the successes seen in developing the original crop of COVID vaccines, which were authorized for use in the United States less than a year after the pandemic took hold.

But emerging variants are eroding these gains. For months now, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have been keeping an eye on how the level of effectiveness of COVID vaccines has waned during the rise of the Omicron strain. And there’s continual concern about how SARS-CoV-2 might evolve over time.

“Our vaccines are terrific,” Ashish K. Jha, MD, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, said at the summit. “[But] we have to do better.”

Among the approaches being considered are vaccines that would be applied intranasally, with the idea that this might be able to boost the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

At the summit, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the intranasal approach might be helpful in preventing transmission as well as reducing the burden of illness for those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re stopping the virus from spreading right at the border,” Dr. Iwasaki said at the summit. “This is akin to putting a guard outside of the house in order to patrol for invaders compared to putting the guards in the hallway of the building in the hope that they capture the invader.”

Dr. Iwasaki is one of the founders of Xanadu Bio, a private company created last year to focus on ways to kill SARS-CoV-2 in the nasosinus before it spreads deeper into the respiratory tract. In an editorial in Science Immunology, Dr. Iwasaki and Eric J. Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, urged greater federal investment in this approach to fighting SARS-CoV-2. (Dr. Topol is editor-in-chief of Medscape.)

Titled “Operation Nasal Vaccine – Lightning speed to counter COVID-19,” their editorial noted the “unprecedented success” seen in the rapid development of the first two mRNA shots. Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol noted that these victories had been “fueled by the $10 billion governmental investment in Operation Warp Speed.

“During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time we have seen a succession of important variants of concern, with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages,”  wrote Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol.

Recent developments have “spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing, and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots,” they added.
 

An early setback

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) have for some time been looking to vet an array of next-generation vaccine concepts, including ones that trigger mucosal immunity, the Washington Post reported in April.

At the summit on July 26, several participants, including Dr. Jha, stressed the role that public-private partnerships were key to the rapid development of the initial COVID vaccines. They said continued U.S. government support will be needed to make advances in this field.

One of the presenters, Biao He, PhD, founder and president of CyanVac and Blue Lake Biotechnology, spoke of the federal support that his efforts have received over the years to develop intranasal vaccines. His Georgia-based firm already has an experimental intranasal vaccine candidate, CVXGA1-001, in phase 1 testing (NCT04954287).

The CVXGA-001 builds on technology already used in a veterinary product, an intranasal vaccine long used to prevent kennel cough in dogs, he said at the summit.

The emerging field of experimental intranasal COVID vaccines already has had at least one setback.

The biotech firm Altimmune in June 2021 announced that it would discontinue development of its experimental intranasal AdCOVID vaccine following disappointing phase 1 results. The vaccine appeared to be well tolerated in the test, but the immunogenicity data demonstrated lower than expected results in healthy volunteers, especially in light of the responses seen to already cleared vaccines, Altimmune said in a release. 

In the statement, Scot Roberts, PhD, chief scientific officer at Altimmune, noted that the study participants lacked immunity from prior infection or vaccination. “We believe that prior immunity in humans may be important for a robust immune response to intranasal dosing with AdCOVID,” he said.

At the summit, Marty Moore, PhD, cofounder and chief scientific officer for Redwood City, Calif.–based Meissa Vaccines, noted the challenges that remain ahead for intranasal COVID vaccines, while also highlighting what he sees as the potential of this approach.

Meissa also has advanced an experimental intranasal COVID vaccine as far as phase 1 testing (NCT04798001).

“No one here today can tell you that mucosal COVID vaccines work. We’re not there yet. We need clinical efficacy data to answer that question,” Dr. Moore said.

But there’s a potential for a “knockout blow to COVID, a transmission-blocking vaccine” from the intranasal approach, he said.

“The virus is mutating faster than our ability to manage vaccines and not enough people are getting boosters. These injectable vaccines do a great job of preventing severe disease, but they do little to prevent infection” from spreading, Dr. Moore said.

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

Scientists seeking to stay ahead of an evolving SARS-Cov-2 virus are looking at new strategies, including developing intranasal vaccines, according to speakers at a conference on July 26.

The Biden administration held a summit on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, inviting researchers to provide a public update on efforts to try to keep ahead of SARS-CoV-2.

Scientists and federal officials are looking to build on the successes seen in developing the original crop of COVID vaccines, which were authorized for use in the United States less than a year after the pandemic took hold.

But emerging variants are eroding these gains. For months now, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration have been keeping an eye on how the level of effectiveness of COVID vaccines has waned during the rise of the Omicron strain. And there’s continual concern about how SARS-CoV-2 might evolve over time.

“Our vaccines are terrific,” Ashish K. Jha, MD, the White House’s COVID-19 response coordinator, said at the summit. “[But] we have to do better.”

Among the approaches being considered are vaccines that would be applied intranasally, with the idea that this might be able to boost the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

At the summit, Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the intranasal approach might be helpful in preventing transmission as well as reducing the burden of illness for those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

“We’re stopping the virus from spreading right at the border,” Dr. Iwasaki said at the summit. “This is akin to putting a guard outside of the house in order to patrol for invaders compared to putting the guards in the hallway of the building in the hope that they capture the invader.”

Dr. Iwasaki is one of the founders of Xanadu Bio, a private company created last year to focus on ways to kill SARS-CoV-2 in the nasosinus before it spreads deeper into the respiratory tract. In an editorial in Science Immunology, Dr. Iwasaki and Eric J. Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, urged greater federal investment in this approach to fighting SARS-CoV-2. (Dr. Topol is editor-in-chief of Medscape.)

Titled “Operation Nasal Vaccine – Lightning speed to counter COVID-19,” their editorial noted the “unprecedented success” seen in the rapid development of the first two mRNA shots. Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol noted that these victories had been “fueled by the $10 billion governmental investment in Operation Warp Speed.

“During the first year of the pandemic, meaningful evolution of the virus was slow-paced, without any functional consequences, but since that time we have seen a succession of important variants of concern, with increasing transmissibility and immune evasion, culminating in the Omicron lineages,”  wrote Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Topol.

Recent developments have “spotlighted the possibility of nasal vaccines, with their allure for achieving mucosal immunity, complementing, and likely bolstering the circulating immunity achieved via intramuscular shots,” they added.
 

An early setback

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) have for some time been looking to vet an array of next-generation vaccine concepts, including ones that trigger mucosal immunity, the Washington Post reported in April.

At the summit on July 26, several participants, including Dr. Jha, stressed the role that public-private partnerships were key to the rapid development of the initial COVID vaccines. They said continued U.S. government support will be needed to make advances in this field.

One of the presenters, Biao He, PhD, founder and president of CyanVac and Blue Lake Biotechnology, spoke of the federal support that his efforts have received over the years to develop intranasal vaccines. His Georgia-based firm already has an experimental intranasal vaccine candidate, CVXGA1-001, in phase 1 testing (NCT04954287).

The CVXGA-001 builds on technology already used in a veterinary product, an intranasal vaccine long used to prevent kennel cough in dogs, he said at the summit.

The emerging field of experimental intranasal COVID vaccines already has had at least one setback.

The biotech firm Altimmune in June 2021 announced that it would discontinue development of its experimental intranasal AdCOVID vaccine following disappointing phase 1 results. The vaccine appeared to be well tolerated in the test, but the immunogenicity data demonstrated lower than expected results in healthy volunteers, especially in light of the responses seen to already cleared vaccines, Altimmune said in a release. 

In the statement, Scot Roberts, PhD, chief scientific officer at Altimmune, noted that the study participants lacked immunity from prior infection or vaccination. “We believe that prior immunity in humans may be important for a robust immune response to intranasal dosing with AdCOVID,” he said.

At the summit, Marty Moore, PhD, cofounder and chief scientific officer for Redwood City, Calif.–based Meissa Vaccines, noted the challenges that remain ahead for intranasal COVID vaccines, while also highlighting what he sees as the potential of this approach.

Meissa also has advanced an experimental intranasal COVID vaccine as far as phase 1 testing (NCT04798001).

“No one here today can tell you that mucosal COVID vaccines work. We’re not there yet. We need clinical efficacy data to answer that question,” Dr. Moore said.

But there’s a potential for a “knockout blow to COVID, a transmission-blocking vaccine” from the intranasal approach, he said.

“The virus is mutating faster than our ability to manage vaccines and not enough people are getting boosters. These injectable vaccines do a great job of preventing severe disease, but they do little to prevent infection” from spreading, Dr. Moore said.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

Few people like to pay taxes, and physicians are no exception.

For the Medscape Physicians and Taxes Report 2022, physicians shared information about their tax debt as well as how they feel about the U.S. tax code, audits, and the prospects for the future.

Even though it may not always seem that way to physicians, their family tax bills – around $75,406 on average – are in line with the other top 10% of U.S. taxpayers, according to an examination of IRS data by the Tax Foundation. However, when it comes to local taxes, the Tax Foundation found that physicians pay more than average. (Forty-three states collect tax on individual incomes.)

The average physician’s family pays a 35% marginal tax rate, compared with the top marginal tax rate in the United States of 37%. (The marginal tax rate is the highest amount of tax charged on each additional dollar after the IRS bracket rates are applied to your income.)

According to Alexis Gallati, founder of Cerebral Tax Advisors, a Knoxville, Tenn.–based firm that caters to medical professionals, doctors also should pay attention to their effective tax rate, or the percentage of income they pay in taxes. It takes into account differing tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and other income sources, she says. “It gives a better 30,000-foot view of your tax situation.”

Some high-income families are required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), though in 2019 that applied to only one-tenth of U.S. households. The AMT is designed to make sure that high earners with many options for exemptions and deductions still contribute a minimum amount of tax. Only 13% of physicians surveyed said they paid the AMT, though 29% were unsure.
 

Filing taxes as painful as paying them

According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans think they pay too much tax. (About 44% think their tax bill is about right, and a kindhearted 4% think they pay too little.) Doctors are outliers on this one, with 75% saying they pay too much in taxes.

When asked what they would do to fix the tax system, the physicians in the Medscape survey had a wide array of proposed solutions, from “drop the corporate tax rate to nearly nothing to stimulate the economy” to “everyone should pay equitably. There are too many loopholes for the very wealthy.”

Some of the complaints were less about tax rates than the process of filing. One respondent said: “I would love for this system to not be our personal responsibility. Why should it be my duty to pay someone every year to do my taxes?”

About 48% of physicians prepare their own taxes (about the same percentage as the rest of the population), with most of those filing electronically, primarily because it saves time and the software is easy to use. Intuit TurboTax was the most popular online software, with 22% of respondents saying they currently used this product.

Of those who did pay someone to prepare their taxes, the complexity of their taxes cost them; the average respondent paid about three times the average rate for the service. In the long run, the cost might have been recouped.

Navjeet Chahal, managing partner and CEO of Chahal and Associates, a San Francisco–area firm specializing in working with physicians, points out that tax advisors don’t just fill out the forms; they proactively advise physicians about how they can limit their taxes. And indeed, most respondents feel that they got their money’s worth, with 70% saying their tax preparers charged a fair fee.

Though the physicians surveyed tended to think they pay too much tax, and several mentioned particular gripes with the system, the complexity of the tax code didn’t seem to be a big issue. While 82% of Americans polled in 2021 by Pew Research said they were bothered “a lot” or “some” by the complexity of the tax system, 68% of physicians agreed or slightly agreed that the U.S. tax system “makes sense.”
 

Gimme a break

Physicians are the beneficiaries of several types of tax breaks. Contributing to a pretax 401(k) account was the most common exemption, with 60% of physicians surveyed using this plan. Other tax breaks cited by respondents were: contributing to charity (54%), home mortgage interest (46%), and writing off business expenses (39%).

About one in five physicians has experienced an audit, but that risk has declined significantly in recent years, thanks to tighter IRS budgets. Overall, only about 1 in 167 U.S. taxpayers were audited in 2020, according to the IRS. Even for taxpayers reporting $5 million or more in income, the audit rate is only about 0.25%, the Government Accountability Office says.

The odds of a physician being summoned to a meeting with an auditor probably won’t increase for a few years, Mr. Gallati said. But the good news for doctors is bad news for lower-income Americans. “The IRS is woefully understaffed and underfunded, with the result that the agency is going for lower-hanging fruit and auditing more people in lower income brackets,” she said in an interview.

While one respondent described his experience with the IRS as “the audit from hell,” others thought it not so bad, with 72% saying the auditors treated them fairly. One respondent described the audit as “boring, short, and successful for me. The IRS owed me money.”

When it comes to taxes, physician respondents, on the whole, did not seem to be optimistic about the future. About 61% expect an increase in their tax rate because of Biden administration policies. One respondent veered into hyperbole with the comment: “I believe taxes will increase for physicians until they have no more money!”

Mr. Chahal doesn’t see it that way. He pointed out that recent attempts to raise taxes completely failed. “I personally don’t see that happening unless there’s a significant shift in the House and the Senate.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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