Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Enrollment is opening for four clinical trials that will evaluate new treatments for long COVID, the National Institutes of Health announced at a media briefing today. Additional clinical trials to test at least seven more treatments are expected to launch in the coming months, officials said.

The trials are part of the NIH’s research effort known as the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative. In December 2020, Congress approved $1.15 billion for the NIH to research and test treatments for long COVID. The new clinical trials are in phase 2 and will test safety and effectiveness.

“The condition affects nearly all body systems and presents with more than 200 symptoms,” said Walter J. Koroshetz, MD, director of the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and colead of the RECOVER Initiative. How many people have long COVID is uncertain, he told attendees at the briefing. “The answer kind of depends on how you define the problem and also what variant caused it. The incidence was higher in Delta.” Some estimates suggest that 5%-10% of those infected develop long COVID. “I don’t think we have solid numbers, as it’s a moving target,” Dr. Koroshetz said.

Patients with long COVID have grown increasingly frustrated at the lack of effective treatments. Some doctors have turned to off-label use of some drugs to treat them.

The four trials include the following:

• RECOVER-VITAL will focus on a treatment for viral persistence, which can occur if the virus lingers and causes the immune system to not work properly. One treatment will test a longer dose regimen of the antiviral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir), which is currently used to treat mild to moderate COVID to halt progression to severe COVID.
• RECOVER-NEURO will target treatments for symptoms such as brain fog, memory problems, and attention challenges. Among the potential treatments are a program called BrainHQ, which provides Web-based training, and PASC-Cognitive Recovery (post-acute sequelae of COVID), a Web-based program developed by Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Also being tested is a direct current stimulation program to improve brain activity.
• RECOVER-SLEEP will evaluate treatments for sleep problems, which can include daytime sleepiness and other problems. According to Dr. Koroshetz, melatonin, light therapy, and an educational coaching system are among the treatments that will be studied.
• RECOVER-AUTONOMIC will evaluate treatments to address symptoms linked with problems of the autonomic nervous system. The first trial will target postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which can include irregular heartbeat, fatigue, and dizziness. A treatment for immune disease and a drug currently used to treat chronic heart failure will be tested.

Timelines

The first trial, on viral persistence, has launched, said Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, a principal investigator at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the clinical trials data coordinating center for the trials. “We are actively working to launch the second on cognitive dysfunction.” The sleep and autonomic trials will launch in the coming months, she said. Also planned is a trial to study exercise intolerance, which is reported by many with long COVID.

Information on how to join long COVID trials is available here.

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

Enrollment is opening for four clinical trials that will evaluate new treatments for long COVID, the National Institutes of Health announced at a media briefing today. Additional clinical trials to test at least seven more treatments are expected to launch in the coming months, officials said.

The trials are part of the NIH’s research effort known as the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative. In December 2020, Congress approved $1.15 billion for the NIH to research and test treatments for long COVID. The new clinical trials are in phase 2 and will test safety and effectiveness.

“The condition affects nearly all body systems and presents with more than 200 symptoms,” said Walter J. Koroshetz, MD, director of the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and colead of the RECOVER Initiative. How many people have long COVID is uncertain, he told attendees at the briefing. “The answer kind of depends on how you define the problem and also what variant caused it. The incidence was higher in Delta.” Some estimates suggest that 5%-10% of those infected develop long COVID. “I don’t think we have solid numbers, as it’s a moving target,” Dr. Koroshetz said.

Patients with long COVID have grown increasingly frustrated at the lack of effective treatments. Some doctors have turned to off-label use of some drugs to treat them.

The four trials include the following:

• RECOVER-VITAL will focus on a treatment for viral persistence, which can occur if the virus lingers and causes the immune system to not work properly. One treatment will test a longer dose regimen of the antiviral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir), which is currently used to treat mild to moderate COVID to halt progression to severe COVID.
• RECOVER-NEURO will target treatments for symptoms such as brain fog, memory problems, and attention challenges. Among the potential treatments are a program called BrainHQ, which provides Web-based training, and PASC-Cognitive Recovery (post-acute sequelae of COVID), a Web-based program developed by Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Also being tested is a direct current stimulation program to improve brain activity.
• RECOVER-SLEEP will evaluate treatments for sleep problems, which can include daytime sleepiness and other problems. According to Dr. Koroshetz, melatonin, light therapy, and an educational coaching system are among the treatments that will be studied.
• RECOVER-AUTONOMIC will evaluate treatments to address symptoms linked with problems of the autonomic nervous system. The first trial will target postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which can include irregular heartbeat, fatigue, and dizziness. A treatment for immune disease and a drug currently used to treat chronic heart failure will be tested.

Timelines

The first trial, on viral persistence, has launched, said Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, a principal investigator at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the clinical trials data coordinating center for the trials. “We are actively working to launch the second on cognitive dysfunction.” The sleep and autonomic trials will launch in the coming months, she said. Also planned is a trial to study exercise intolerance, which is reported by many with long COVID.

Information on how to join long COVID trials is available here.

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

Enrollment is opening for four clinical trials that will evaluate new treatments for long COVID, the National Institutes of Health announced at a media briefing today. Additional clinical trials to test at least seven more treatments are expected to launch in the coming months, officials said.

The trials are part of the NIH’s research effort known as the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative. In December 2020, Congress approved $1.15 billion for the NIH to research and test treatments for long COVID. The new clinical trials are in phase 2 and will test safety and effectiveness.

“The condition affects nearly all body systems and presents with more than 200 symptoms,” said Walter J. Koroshetz, MD, director of the NIH National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and colead of the RECOVER Initiative. How many people have long COVID is uncertain, he told attendees at the briefing. “The answer kind of depends on how you define the problem and also what variant caused it. The incidence was higher in Delta.” Some estimates suggest that 5%-10% of those infected develop long COVID. “I don’t think we have solid numbers, as it’s a moving target,” Dr. Koroshetz said.

Patients with long COVID have grown increasingly frustrated at the lack of effective treatments. Some doctors have turned to off-label use of some drugs to treat them.

The four trials include the following:

• RECOVER-VITAL will focus on a treatment for viral persistence, which can occur if the virus lingers and causes the immune system to not work properly. One treatment will test a longer dose regimen of the antiviral Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir), which is currently used to treat mild to moderate COVID to halt progression to severe COVID.
• RECOVER-NEURO will target treatments for symptoms such as brain fog, memory problems, and attention challenges. Among the potential treatments are a program called BrainHQ, which provides Web-based training, and PASC-Cognitive Recovery (post-acute sequelae of COVID), a Web-based program developed by Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Also being tested is a direct current stimulation program to improve brain activity.
• RECOVER-SLEEP will evaluate treatments for sleep problems, which can include daytime sleepiness and other problems. According to Dr. Koroshetz, melatonin, light therapy, and an educational coaching system are among the treatments that will be studied.
• RECOVER-AUTONOMIC will evaluate treatments to address symptoms linked with problems of the autonomic nervous system. The first trial will target postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which can include irregular heartbeat, fatigue, and dizziness. A treatment for immune disease and a drug currently used to treat chronic heart failure will be tested.

Timelines

The first trial, on viral persistence, has launched, said Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, a principal investigator at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the clinical trials data coordinating center for the trials. “We are actively working to launch the second on cognitive dysfunction.” The sleep and autonomic trials will launch in the coming months, she said. Also planned is a trial to study exercise intolerance, which is reported by many with long COVID.

Information on how to join long COVID trials is available here.

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

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Meditation and foreign language training does not boost cognitive function in cognitively healthy older adults, a new study suggests.

The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.

“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.

Harriet Demnitz-King

Contradictory findings

For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.

The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.

Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.

The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.

“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”

Natalie Marchant

More to learn

The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.

“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”

Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.

“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”

The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.

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

Meditation and foreign language training does not boost cognitive function in cognitively healthy older adults, a new study suggests.

The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.

“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.

Harriet Demnitz-King

Contradictory findings

For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.

The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.

Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.

The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.

“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”

Natalie Marchant

More to learn

The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.

“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”

Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.

“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”

The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.

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

Meditation and foreign language training does not boost cognitive function in cognitively healthy older adults, a new study suggests.

The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.

“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.

Harriet Demnitz-King

Contradictory findings

For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.

The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.

Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.

The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.

“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”

Natalie Marchant

More to learn

The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.

“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”

Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.

“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”

The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.

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

The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show.

Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study’s results were “unexpected,” study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It’s also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss,” Dr. Barnes said.

“Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function,” she added.

The findings were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Randomized trial

A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire.

For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3%-5% by year 3.

The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests.

The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants.

“We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups,” Dr. Barnes noted in her presentation.

From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group versus 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group.

However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23).

At the trial’s conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI.

Dr. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study.

Dr. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time.
 

More to brain health than diet

Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet.

“This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved,” said Dr. Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.

However, he believes that better brain health requires a multipronged approach.

“In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set,” said Dr. Fotuhi.

“Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals,” Dr. Fotuhi said.

Dr. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional “brain fitness program” that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-concussion syndrome.

“Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall,” Dr. Fotuhi told this news organization.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show.

Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study’s results were “unexpected,” study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It’s also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss,” Dr. Barnes said.

“Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function,” she added.

The findings were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Randomized trial

A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire.

For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3%-5% by year 3.

The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests.

The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants.

“We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups,” Dr. Barnes noted in her presentation.

From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group versus 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group.

However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23).

At the trial’s conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI.

Dr. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study.

Dr. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time.
 

More to brain health than diet

Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet.

“This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved,” said Dr. Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.

However, he believes that better brain health requires a multipronged approach.

“In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set,” said Dr. Fotuhi.

“Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals,” Dr. Fotuhi said.

Dr. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional “brain fitness program” that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-concussion syndrome.

“Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall,” Dr. Fotuhi told this news organization.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show.

Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study’s results were “unexpected,” study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It’s also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss,” Dr. Barnes said.

“Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function,” she added.

The findings were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Randomized trial

A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire.

For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3%-5% by year 3.

The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests.

The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants.

“We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups,” Dr. Barnes noted in her presentation.

From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group versus 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group.

However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23).

At the trial’s conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI.

Dr. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study.

Dr. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time.
 

More to brain health than diet

Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet.

“This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved,” said Dr. Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.

However, he believes that better brain health requires a multipronged approach.

“In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set,” said Dr. Fotuhi.

“Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals,” Dr. Fotuhi said.

Dr. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional “brain fitness program” that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and post-concussion syndrome.

“Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall,” Dr. Fotuhi told this news organization.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Dr. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Experience with long COVID has shone a spotlight on persistent Lyme disease and other often debilitating chronic illnesses that follow known or suspected infections – and on the urgent need for a common and well-funded research agenda, education of physicians, growth of multidisciplinary clinics, and financially supported clinical care.

“We critically need to understand the epidemiology and pathogenesis of chronic symptoms, and identify more effective ways to manage, treat, and potentially cure these illnesses,” Lyle Petersen, MD, MPH, director of the division of vector-borne diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the start of a 2-day National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) workshop, “Toward a Common Research Agenda in Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses.”

Thinking about infection-associated chronic illnesses as an entity – one predicated on commonalities in chronic symptoms and in leading hypotheses for causes – represents a paradigm shift that researchers and patient advocates said can avoid research redundancies and is essential to address what the NASEM calls an overlooked, growing public health problem.

An estimated 2 million people in the United States are living with what’s called posttreatment Lyme disease (PTLD) – a subset of patients with persistent or chronic Lyme disease – and an estimated 1.7-3.3 million people in the United States have diagnoses of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). More than 700,000 people are living with multiple sclerosis. And as of January 2023, 11% of people in the United States reported having long COVID symptoms; the incidence of long COVID is currently estimated at 10%-30% of nonhospitalized cases of COVID-19.

These illnesses “have come under one umbrella,” said Avindra Nath, MD, clinical director of the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Nath

Persistent infection, viral reactivation

RNA viral infections can lead to persistent inflammation and dysregulated immunity, with or without viral persistence over time, Timothy J. Henrich, MD, MMSc, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a keynote address.

Research on Ebola survivors has documented long-lasting inflammation and severe immune dysfunction 2 years after infection, for instance. And it’s well known that HIV-1 leads to aberrant immune responses, inflammation, and organ damage despite antiretroviral therapy, said Dr. Henrich, who leads a laboratory/research group that studies approaches to HIV-1 cure and PET-based imaging approaches to characterize viral reservoirs and immune sequelae.

Viral persistence, which can be difficult to measure, has also been documented in Ebola survivors. And in patients living with HIV-1, HIV-1 RNA and protein expression have been shown to persist, again despite antiretroviral therapy. The UCSF Long-Term Immunological Impact of Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study, for which Dr. Henrich is the principal investigator, found spike RNA in colorectal tissue more than 22 months post COVID, and other research documented viral protein in gut tissue for up to 6 months, he said.

“I think we’re appreciating now, in at least the scientific and treatment community, that there’s a potential for ‘acute’ infections to exhibit some degree of persistence leading to clinical morbidity,” said Dr. Henrich, one of several speakers to describe reports of pathogen persistence. Regarding long COVID, its “etiology is likely heterogeneous,” he said, but persistence of SARS-CoV-2 “may lay behind” other described mechanisms, from clotting/microvascular dysfunction to inflammation and tissue damage to immune dysregulation.

Reactivation of existing latent viral infections in the setting of new acute microbial illness may also play an etiologic role in chronic illnesses, Dr. Henrich said. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation has been shown in some studies, including their UCSF COVID-19 cohort, to be associated with long COVID.

“Physicians have been trained to be skeptical about the role [of latent viral infections],” Michael Peluso, MD, an infectious disease physician and assistant professor at UCSF, said during a talk on viral reactivation. This skepticism needs to be “reexamined and overcome,” he said.

Herpesviruses have frequently been associated with ME/CFS, he noted. And evidence of a strong association between EBV and multiple sclerosis came recently from a prospective study of 10 million military recruits that found a 32-fold increased risk of MS after EBV infection but no increase after infection with other viruses, Dr. Peluso and Dr. Henrich both noted.
 

Research needs, treatment trials

Research needs are vast: The need to learn more about the mechanisms of pathogen persistence and immune evasion, for instance, and the need for more biomarker studies, more imaging studies and tissue analyses, more study of microbiome composition and activity, and continued development and application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing.

Workshop participants also spoke of the need to better understand the molecular mimicry that can occur between pathogen-produced proteins and self-antigens, for instance, and the effects of inflammation and infection-related immune changes on neuronal and microglial function in the brain.

“We should perform similar forms of analysis [across] patients with different infection-associated chronic conditions,” said Amy Proal, PhD, president of the PolyBio Research Foundation, which funds research on infection-associated chronic infections. And within individual conditions and well-characterized study groups “we should perform many different forms of analysis … so we can define endotypes and get more solid biomarkers so that industry [will have more confidence] to run clinical trials.”

In the meantime, patients need fast-moving treatment trials for long COVID, long Lyme, and other infection-associated chronic illnesses, speakers emphasized. “We all agree that treatment trials are overdue,” said the NINDS’ Dr. Nath. “We can’t afford to wait for another decade until we understand all the mechanisms, but rather we can do clinical trials based on what we understand now and study the pathophysiology in the context of the clinical trials.”

Just as was done with HIV, said Steven G. Deeks, MD, professor of medicine at UCSF, researchers must “practice experimental medicine” and select pathways and mechanisms of interest, interrupt those pathways in a controlled manner, and assess impact. “Much of this can be done by repurposing existing drugs,” he said, like antivirals for persistent viral infection, EBV-directed therapies for EBV reactivation, anti-inflammatory drugs for inflammation, B–cell-directed therapies for autoantibodies, and antiplatelet drugs for microvascular disease.

When done correctly, he said, such “probe” studies can deepen mechanistic understandings, lead to biomarkers, and provide proof-of-concept that “will encourage massive investment in developing new therapies” for long COVID and other infection-associated chronic illnesses.

Trials of treatments for long COVID “are starting, so I’m optimistic,” said Dr. Deeks, an expert on HIV pathogenesis and treatment and a principal investigator of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) study. Among the trials: A study of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for neurologic long COVID; a study of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody that can deplete tissue/cellular reservoirs of viral particles (replicating or not); and a study evaluating baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase inhibitor, for neurocognitive impairment and cardiopulmonary symptoms of long COVID.

Alessio Fasano, MD, professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, described at the workshop how he began investigating the use of larazotide acetate – an inhibitor of the protein zonulin, which increases intestinal permeability – in children with COVID-19 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C) after learning that SARS-CoV-2 viral particles persist in the gastrointestinal tract, causing dysbiosis and zonulin upregulation.

In an ongoing phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the agent thus far has expedited the resolution of gastrointestinal symptoms and clearance of spike protein from the circulation, he said. A phase 2 trial of the agent for pediatric patients with long COVID and SARS-CoV-2 antigenemia is underway. “What if we were to stop [chains of events] by stopping the passage of elements from the virus into circulation?’ he said.

In the realm of Lyme disease, a recently launched Clinical Trials Network for Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Diseases has awarded pilot study grants to evaluate treatments aimed at a variety of possible disease mechanisms that, notably, are similar to those of other chronic illnesses: persistence of infection or remnants of infection, immune dysregulation and autoimmune reactions, neural dysfunction, and gut microbiome changes. (Microclots and mitochondrial dysfunction have not been as well studied in Lyme.)

Current and upcoming studies include evaluations of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation for those with persistent Lyme fatigue, transcranial direct current stimulation with cognitive retraining for Lyme brain fog, and tetracycline for PTLD, said Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who directs the Lyme & Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center and the coordinating center of the new network.

Columbia University Irving Medical Center

Calls for a new NIH center and patient involvement

Patients and patient advocacy organizations have played a vital role in research thus far: They’ve documented post-COVID symptoms that academic researchers said they would not otherwise have known of. Leaders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative have coauthored published reviews with leading long COVID experts. And patients with tick-borne illnesses have enrolled in the MyLymeData patient registry run by LymeDisease.org, which has documented patient-experienced efficacy of alternative treatments and described antibiotic responders and nonresponders.

At the workshop, they shared findings alongside academic experts, and researchers called for their continued involvement. “Patient engagement at every step of the research process is critical,” Dr. Nath said.

“We need to ensure that research is reflective of lived experiences … and [that we’re] accelerating clinical trials of therapeutics that are of priority to the patient community,” said Lisa McCorkell, cofounder of the long COVID-focused Patient-Led Research Collaborative.

Ms. McCorkell also called for the creation of an office for infection-associated chronic illnesses in the NIH director’s office. Others voiced their support. “I think it’s a great idea to have an NIH center for infection-associated chronic illnesses,” said Dr. Fallon. “I think it would have a profound impact.”

The other great need, of course, is funding. “We have ideas, we have drugs that can be repurposed, we have a highly informed and engaged community that will enroll in and be retained in studies, and we have outcomes we can measure,” Dr. Deeks said. “What we’re missing is industry engagement and funding. We need massive engagement from the NIH.”
 

Real-world treatment needs

In the meantime, patients are seeking treatment, and “clinicians need to have uncertainty tolerance” and try multiple treatments simultaneously, said David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System and professor of rehabilitation and human performance at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. He oversees a multidisciplinary hybrid clinical care research center that has seen over 1,500 patients with long COVID and is beginning to see patients with other infection-associated chronic illnesses.

Claudia Paul

It’s a model that should be replicated to help fill the “enormous unmet clinical need” of patients with infection-associated chronic illness, said Peter Rowe, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and an expert on ME/CFS. And “as we request [more research funding], we will also need [financial] support for clinical care,” he emphasized, to provide equitable access for patients and to attract treating physicians.

Moreover, said Linda Geng, MD, PhD, the culture of stigma needs to change. Right now, patients with long COVID often feel dismissed not only by friends, families, and coworkers, but by clinicians who find it find it hard “to grasp that this is real and a biological condition.”

And it’s not just conditions such as long COVID that are stigmatized, but treatments as well, she said. For instance, some clinicians view low-dose naltrexone, a treatment increasingly being used for inflammation, with suspicion because it is used for opioid use disorder and alcohol use disorder – or because the “low-dose” label summons mistrust of homeopathy. “Even with therapies, there are preconceived notions and biases,” said Dr. Geng, cofounder and codirector of the Stanford (Calif.) Long COVID program.

“What almost killed me,” said Meghan O’Rourke, who has ongoing effects from long-undiagnosed tick-borne illness, “was the invisibility of the illness.” Ms. O’Rourke teaches at Yale University and is the author of “The Invisible Kingdom: Reimagining Chronic Illness.”

Teaching young physicians about these illnesses would help, she and others said. During a question and answer session, Dr. Putrino shared that the Icahn School of Medicine has recently committed to “create a complex chronic illness medical curriculum” that will impact medical education from the first year of medical school through residencies. Dr. Putrino said his team is also working on materials to help other clinics develop care models similar to those at his Mount Sinai clinic.

The NASEM workshop did not collect or require disclosures of its participants.

Experience with long COVID has shone a spotlight on persistent Lyme disease and other often debilitating chronic illnesses that follow known or suspected infections – and on the urgent need for a common and well-funded research agenda, education of physicians, growth of multidisciplinary clinics, and financially supported clinical care.

“We critically need to understand the epidemiology and pathogenesis of chronic symptoms, and identify more effective ways to manage, treat, and potentially cure these illnesses,” Lyle Petersen, MD, MPH, director of the division of vector-borne diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the start of a 2-day National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) workshop, “Toward a Common Research Agenda in Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses.”

Thinking about infection-associated chronic illnesses as an entity – one predicated on commonalities in chronic symptoms and in leading hypotheses for causes – represents a paradigm shift that researchers and patient advocates said can avoid research redundancies and is essential to address what the NASEM calls an overlooked, growing public health problem.

An estimated 2 million people in the United States are living with what’s called posttreatment Lyme disease (PTLD) – a subset of patients with persistent or chronic Lyme disease – and an estimated 1.7-3.3 million people in the United States have diagnoses of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). More than 700,000 people are living with multiple sclerosis. And as of January 2023, 11% of people in the United States reported having long COVID symptoms; the incidence of long COVID is currently estimated at 10%-30% of nonhospitalized cases of COVID-19.

These illnesses “have come under one umbrella,” said Avindra Nath, MD, clinical director of the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Nath

Persistent infection, viral reactivation

RNA viral infections can lead to persistent inflammation and dysregulated immunity, with or without viral persistence over time, Timothy J. Henrich, MD, MMSc, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a keynote address.

Research on Ebola survivors has documented long-lasting inflammation and severe immune dysfunction 2 years after infection, for instance. And it’s well known that HIV-1 leads to aberrant immune responses, inflammation, and organ damage despite antiretroviral therapy, said Dr. Henrich, who leads a laboratory/research group that studies approaches to HIV-1 cure and PET-based imaging approaches to characterize viral reservoirs and immune sequelae.

Viral persistence, which can be difficult to measure, has also been documented in Ebola survivors. And in patients living with HIV-1, HIV-1 RNA and protein expression have been shown to persist, again despite antiretroviral therapy. The UCSF Long-Term Immunological Impact of Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study, for which Dr. Henrich is the principal investigator, found spike RNA in colorectal tissue more than 22 months post COVID, and other research documented viral protein in gut tissue for up to 6 months, he said.

“I think we’re appreciating now, in at least the scientific and treatment community, that there’s a potential for ‘acute’ infections to exhibit some degree of persistence leading to clinical morbidity,” said Dr. Henrich, one of several speakers to describe reports of pathogen persistence. Regarding long COVID, its “etiology is likely heterogeneous,” he said, but persistence of SARS-CoV-2 “may lay behind” other described mechanisms, from clotting/microvascular dysfunction to inflammation and tissue damage to immune dysregulation.

Reactivation of existing latent viral infections in the setting of new acute microbial illness may also play an etiologic role in chronic illnesses, Dr. Henrich said. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation has been shown in some studies, including their UCSF COVID-19 cohort, to be associated with long COVID.

“Physicians have been trained to be skeptical about the role [of latent viral infections],” Michael Peluso, MD, an infectious disease physician and assistant professor at UCSF, said during a talk on viral reactivation. This skepticism needs to be “reexamined and overcome,” he said.

Herpesviruses have frequently been associated with ME/CFS, he noted. And evidence of a strong association between EBV and multiple sclerosis came recently from a prospective study of 10 million military recruits that found a 32-fold increased risk of MS after EBV infection but no increase after infection with other viruses, Dr. Peluso and Dr. Henrich both noted.
 

Research needs, treatment trials

Research needs are vast: The need to learn more about the mechanisms of pathogen persistence and immune evasion, for instance, and the need for more biomarker studies, more imaging studies and tissue analyses, more study of microbiome composition and activity, and continued development and application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing.

Workshop participants also spoke of the need to better understand the molecular mimicry that can occur between pathogen-produced proteins and self-antigens, for instance, and the effects of inflammation and infection-related immune changes on neuronal and microglial function in the brain.

“We should perform similar forms of analysis [across] patients with different infection-associated chronic conditions,” said Amy Proal, PhD, president of the PolyBio Research Foundation, which funds research on infection-associated chronic infections. And within individual conditions and well-characterized study groups “we should perform many different forms of analysis … so we can define endotypes and get more solid biomarkers so that industry [will have more confidence] to run clinical trials.”

In the meantime, patients need fast-moving treatment trials for long COVID, long Lyme, and other infection-associated chronic illnesses, speakers emphasized. “We all agree that treatment trials are overdue,” said the NINDS’ Dr. Nath. “We can’t afford to wait for another decade until we understand all the mechanisms, but rather we can do clinical trials based on what we understand now and study the pathophysiology in the context of the clinical trials.”

Just as was done with HIV, said Steven G. Deeks, MD, professor of medicine at UCSF, researchers must “practice experimental medicine” and select pathways and mechanisms of interest, interrupt those pathways in a controlled manner, and assess impact. “Much of this can be done by repurposing existing drugs,” he said, like antivirals for persistent viral infection, EBV-directed therapies for EBV reactivation, anti-inflammatory drugs for inflammation, B–cell-directed therapies for autoantibodies, and antiplatelet drugs for microvascular disease.

When done correctly, he said, such “probe” studies can deepen mechanistic understandings, lead to biomarkers, and provide proof-of-concept that “will encourage massive investment in developing new therapies” for long COVID and other infection-associated chronic illnesses.

Trials of treatments for long COVID “are starting, so I’m optimistic,” said Dr. Deeks, an expert on HIV pathogenesis and treatment and a principal investigator of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) study. Among the trials: A study of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for neurologic long COVID; a study of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody that can deplete tissue/cellular reservoirs of viral particles (replicating or not); and a study evaluating baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase inhibitor, for neurocognitive impairment and cardiopulmonary symptoms of long COVID.

Alessio Fasano, MD, professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, described at the workshop how he began investigating the use of larazotide acetate – an inhibitor of the protein zonulin, which increases intestinal permeability – in children with COVID-19 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C) after learning that SARS-CoV-2 viral particles persist in the gastrointestinal tract, causing dysbiosis and zonulin upregulation.

In an ongoing phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the agent thus far has expedited the resolution of gastrointestinal symptoms and clearance of spike protein from the circulation, he said. A phase 2 trial of the agent for pediatric patients with long COVID and SARS-CoV-2 antigenemia is underway. “What if we were to stop [chains of events] by stopping the passage of elements from the virus into circulation?’ he said.

In the realm of Lyme disease, a recently launched Clinical Trials Network for Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Diseases has awarded pilot study grants to evaluate treatments aimed at a variety of possible disease mechanisms that, notably, are similar to those of other chronic illnesses: persistence of infection or remnants of infection, immune dysregulation and autoimmune reactions, neural dysfunction, and gut microbiome changes. (Microclots and mitochondrial dysfunction have not been as well studied in Lyme.)

Current and upcoming studies include evaluations of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation for those with persistent Lyme fatigue, transcranial direct current stimulation with cognitive retraining for Lyme brain fog, and tetracycline for PTLD, said Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who directs the Lyme & Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center and the coordinating center of the new network.

Columbia University Irving Medical Center

Calls for a new NIH center and patient involvement

Patients and patient advocacy organizations have played a vital role in research thus far: They’ve documented post-COVID symptoms that academic researchers said they would not otherwise have known of. Leaders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative have coauthored published reviews with leading long COVID experts. And patients with tick-borne illnesses have enrolled in the MyLymeData patient registry run by LymeDisease.org, which has documented patient-experienced efficacy of alternative treatments and described antibiotic responders and nonresponders.

At the workshop, they shared findings alongside academic experts, and researchers called for their continued involvement. “Patient engagement at every step of the research process is critical,” Dr. Nath said.

“We need to ensure that research is reflective of lived experiences … and [that we’re] accelerating clinical trials of therapeutics that are of priority to the patient community,” said Lisa McCorkell, cofounder of the long COVID-focused Patient-Led Research Collaborative.

Ms. McCorkell also called for the creation of an office for infection-associated chronic illnesses in the NIH director’s office. Others voiced their support. “I think it’s a great idea to have an NIH center for infection-associated chronic illnesses,” said Dr. Fallon. “I think it would have a profound impact.”

The other great need, of course, is funding. “We have ideas, we have drugs that can be repurposed, we have a highly informed and engaged community that will enroll in and be retained in studies, and we have outcomes we can measure,” Dr. Deeks said. “What we’re missing is industry engagement and funding. We need massive engagement from the NIH.”
 

Real-world treatment needs

In the meantime, patients are seeking treatment, and “clinicians need to have uncertainty tolerance” and try multiple treatments simultaneously, said David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System and professor of rehabilitation and human performance at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. He oversees a multidisciplinary hybrid clinical care research center that has seen over 1,500 patients with long COVID and is beginning to see patients with other infection-associated chronic illnesses.

Claudia Paul

It’s a model that should be replicated to help fill the “enormous unmet clinical need” of patients with infection-associated chronic illness, said Peter Rowe, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and an expert on ME/CFS. And “as we request [more research funding], we will also need [financial] support for clinical care,” he emphasized, to provide equitable access for patients and to attract treating physicians.

Moreover, said Linda Geng, MD, PhD, the culture of stigma needs to change. Right now, patients with long COVID often feel dismissed not only by friends, families, and coworkers, but by clinicians who find it find it hard “to grasp that this is real and a biological condition.”

And it’s not just conditions such as long COVID that are stigmatized, but treatments as well, she said. For instance, some clinicians view low-dose naltrexone, a treatment increasingly being used for inflammation, with suspicion because it is used for opioid use disorder and alcohol use disorder – or because the “low-dose” label summons mistrust of homeopathy. “Even with therapies, there are preconceived notions and biases,” said Dr. Geng, cofounder and codirector of the Stanford (Calif.) Long COVID program.

“What almost killed me,” said Meghan O’Rourke, who has ongoing effects from long-undiagnosed tick-borne illness, “was the invisibility of the illness.” Ms. O’Rourke teaches at Yale University and is the author of “The Invisible Kingdom: Reimagining Chronic Illness.”

Teaching young physicians about these illnesses would help, she and others said. During a question and answer session, Dr. Putrino shared that the Icahn School of Medicine has recently committed to “create a complex chronic illness medical curriculum” that will impact medical education from the first year of medical school through residencies. Dr. Putrino said his team is also working on materials to help other clinics develop care models similar to those at his Mount Sinai clinic.

The NASEM workshop did not collect or require disclosures of its participants.

Experience with long COVID has shone a spotlight on persistent Lyme disease and other often debilitating chronic illnesses that follow known or suspected infections – and on the urgent need for a common and well-funded research agenda, education of physicians, growth of multidisciplinary clinics, and financially supported clinical care.

“We critically need to understand the epidemiology and pathogenesis of chronic symptoms, and identify more effective ways to manage, treat, and potentially cure these illnesses,” Lyle Petersen, MD, MPH, director of the division of vector-borne diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the start of a 2-day National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) workshop, “Toward a Common Research Agenda in Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses.”

Thinking about infection-associated chronic illnesses as an entity – one predicated on commonalities in chronic symptoms and in leading hypotheses for causes – represents a paradigm shift that researchers and patient advocates said can avoid research redundancies and is essential to address what the NASEM calls an overlooked, growing public health problem.

An estimated 2 million people in the United States are living with what’s called posttreatment Lyme disease (PTLD) – a subset of patients with persistent or chronic Lyme disease – and an estimated 1.7-3.3 million people in the United States have diagnoses of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). More than 700,000 people are living with multiple sclerosis. And as of January 2023, 11% of people in the United States reported having long COVID symptoms; the incidence of long COVID is currently estimated at 10%-30% of nonhospitalized cases of COVID-19.

These illnesses “have come under one umbrella,” said Avindra Nath, MD, clinical director of the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Nath

Persistent infection, viral reactivation

RNA viral infections can lead to persistent inflammation and dysregulated immunity, with or without viral persistence over time, Timothy J. Henrich, MD, MMSc, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a keynote address.

Research on Ebola survivors has documented long-lasting inflammation and severe immune dysfunction 2 years after infection, for instance. And it’s well known that HIV-1 leads to aberrant immune responses, inflammation, and organ damage despite antiretroviral therapy, said Dr. Henrich, who leads a laboratory/research group that studies approaches to HIV-1 cure and PET-based imaging approaches to characterize viral reservoirs and immune sequelae.

Viral persistence, which can be difficult to measure, has also been documented in Ebola survivors. And in patients living with HIV-1, HIV-1 RNA and protein expression have been shown to persist, again despite antiretroviral therapy. The UCSF Long-Term Immunological Impact of Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study, for which Dr. Henrich is the principal investigator, found spike RNA in colorectal tissue more than 22 months post COVID, and other research documented viral protein in gut tissue for up to 6 months, he said.

“I think we’re appreciating now, in at least the scientific and treatment community, that there’s a potential for ‘acute’ infections to exhibit some degree of persistence leading to clinical morbidity,” said Dr. Henrich, one of several speakers to describe reports of pathogen persistence. Regarding long COVID, its “etiology is likely heterogeneous,” he said, but persistence of SARS-CoV-2 “may lay behind” other described mechanisms, from clotting/microvascular dysfunction to inflammation and tissue damage to immune dysregulation.

Reactivation of existing latent viral infections in the setting of new acute microbial illness may also play an etiologic role in chronic illnesses, Dr. Henrich said. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation has been shown in some studies, including their UCSF COVID-19 cohort, to be associated with long COVID.

“Physicians have been trained to be skeptical about the role [of latent viral infections],” Michael Peluso, MD, an infectious disease physician and assistant professor at UCSF, said during a talk on viral reactivation. This skepticism needs to be “reexamined and overcome,” he said.

Herpesviruses have frequently been associated with ME/CFS, he noted. And evidence of a strong association between EBV and multiple sclerosis came recently from a prospective study of 10 million military recruits that found a 32-fold increased risk of MS after EBV infection but no increase after infection with other viruses, Dr. Peluso and Dr. Henrich both noted.
 

Research needs, treatment trials

Research needs are vast: The need to learn more about the mechanisms of pathogen persistence and immune evasion, for instance, and the need for more biomarker studies, more imaging studies and tissue analyses, more study of microbiome composition and activity, and continued development and application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing.

Workshop participants also spoke of the need to better understand the molecular mimicry that can occur between pathogen-produced proteins and self-antigens, for instance, and the effects of inflammation and infection-related immune changes on neuronal and microglial function in the brain.

“We should perform similar forms of analysis [across] patients with different infection-associated chronic conditions,” said Amy Proal, PhD, president of the PolyBio Research Foundation, which funds research on infection-associated chronic infections. And within individual conditions and well-characterized study groups “we should perform many different forms of analysis … so we can define endotypes and get more solid biomarkers so that industry [will have more confidence] to run clinical trials.”

In the meantime, patients need fast-moving treatment trials for long COVID, long Lyme, and other infection-associated chronic illnesses, speakers emphasized. “We all agree that treatment trials are overdue,” said the NINDS’ Dr. Nath. “We can’t afford to wait for another decade until we understand all the mechanisms, but rather we can do clinical trials based on what we understand now and study the pathophysiology in the context of the clinical trials.”

Just as was done with HIV, said Steven G. Deeks, MD, professor of medicine at UCSF, researchers must “practice experimental medicine” and select pathways and mechanisms of interest, interrupt those pathways in a controlled manner, and assess impact. “Much of this can be done by repurposing existing drugs,” he said, like antivirals for persistent viral infection, EBV-directed therapies for EBV reactivation, anti-inflammatory drugs for inflammation, B–cell-directed therapies for autoantibodies, and antiplatelet drugs for microvascular disease.

When done correctly, he said, such “probe” studies can deepen mechanistic understandings, lead to biomarkers, and provide proof-of-concept that “will encourage massive investment in developing new therapies” for long COVID and other infection-associated chronic illnesses.

Trials of treatments for long COVID “are starting, so I’m optimistic,” said Dr. Deeks, an expert on HIV pathogenesis and treatment and a principal investigator of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) study. Among the trials: A study of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for neurologic long COVID; a study of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody that can deplete tissue/cellular reservoirs of viral particles (replicating or not); and a study evaluating baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase inhibitor, for neurocognitive impairment and cardiopulmonary symptoms of long COVID.

Alessio Fasano, MD, professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, described at the workshop how he began investigating the use of larazotide acetate – an inhibitor of the protein zonulin, which increases intestinal permeability – in children with COVID-19 Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C) after learning that SARS-CoV-2 viral particles persist in the gastrointestinal tract, causing dysbiosis and zonulin upregulation.

In an ongoing phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the agent thus far has expedited the resolution of gastrointestinal symptoms and clearance of spike protein from the circulation, he said. A phase 2 trial of the agent for pediatric patients with long COVID and SARS-CoV-2 antigenemia is underway. “What if we were to stop [chains of events] by stopping the passage of elements from the virus into circulation?’ he said.

In the realm of Lyme disease, a recently launched Clinical Trials Network for Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Diseases has awarded pilot study grants to evaluate treatments aimed at a variety of possible disease mechanisms that, notably, are similar to those of other chronic illnesses: persistence of infection or remnants of infection, immune dysregulation and autoimmune reactions, neural dysfunction, and gut microbiome changes. (Microclots and mitochondrial dysfunction have not been as well studied in Lyme.)

Current and upcoming studies include evaluations of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation for those with persistent Lyme fatigue, transcranial direct current stimulation with cognitive retraining for Lyme brain fog, and tetracycline for PTLD, said Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who directs the Lyme & Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center and the coordinating center of the new network.

Columbia University Irving Medical Center

Calls for a new NIH center and patient involvement

Patients and patient advocacy organizations have played a vital role in research thus far: They’ve documented post-COVID symptoms that academic researchers said they would not otherwise have known of. Leaders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative have coauthored published reviews with leading long COVID experts. And patients with tick-borne illnesses have enrolled in the MyLymeData patient registry run by LymeDisease.org, which has documented patient-experienced efficacy of alternative treatments and described antibiotic responders and nonresponders.

At the workshop, they shared findings alongside academic experts, and researchers called for their continued involvement. “Patient engagement at every step of the research process is critical,” Dr. Nath said.

“We need to ensure that research is reflective of lived experiences … and [that we’re] accelerating clinical trials of therapeutics that are of priority to the patient community,” said Lisa McCorkell, cofounder of the long COVID-focused Patient-Led Research Collaborative.

Ms. McCorkell also called for the creation of an office for infection-associated chronic illnesses in the NIH director’s office. Others voiced their support. “I think it’s a great idea to have an NIH center for infection-associated chronic illnesses,” said Dr. Fallon. “I think it would have a profound impact.”

The other great need, of course, is funding. “We have ideas, we have drugs that can be repurposed, we have a highly informed and engaged community that will enroll in and be retained in studies, and we have outcomes we can measure,” Dr. Deeks said. “What we’re missing is industry engagement and funding. We need massive engagement from the NIH.”
 

Real-world treatment needs

In the meantime, patients are seeking treatment, and “clinicians need to have uncertainty tolerance” and try multiple treatments simultaneously, said David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System and professor of rehabilitation and human performance at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. He oversees a multidisciplinary hybrid clinical care research center that has seen over 1,500 patients with long COVID and is beginning to see patients with other infection-associated chronic illnesses.

Claudia Paul

It’s a model that should be replicated to help fill the “enormous unmet clinical need” of patients with infection-associated chronic illness, said Peter Rowe, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and an expert on ME/CFS. And “as we request [more research funding], we will also need [financial] support for clinical care,” he emphasized, to provide equitable access for patients and to attract treating physicians.

Moreover, said Linda Geng, MD, PhD, the culture of stigma needs to change. Right now, patients with long COVID often feel dismissed not only by friends, families, and coworkers, but by clinicians who find it find it hard “to grasp that this is real and a biological condition.”

And it’s not just conditions such as long COVID that are stigmatized, but treatments as well, she said. For instance, some clinicians view low-dose naltrexone, a treatment increasingly being used for inflammation, with suspicion because it is used for opioid use disorder and alcohol use disorder – or because the “low-dose” label summons mistrust of homeopathy. “Even with therapies, there are preconceived notions and biases,” said Dr. Geng, cofounder and codirector of the Stanford (Calif.) Long COVID program.

“What almost killed me,” said Meghan O’Rourke, who has ongoing effects from long-undiagnosed tick-borne illness, “was the invisibility of the illness.” Ms. O’Rourke teaches at Yale University and is the author of “The Invisible Kingdom: Reimagining Chronic Illness.”

Teaching young physicians about these illnesses would help, she and others said. During a question and answer session, Dr. Putrino shared that the Icahn School of Medicine has recently committed to “create a complex chronic illness medical curriculum” that will impact medical education from the first year of medical school through residencies. Dr. Putrino said his team is also working on materials to help other clinics develop care models similar to those at his Mount Sinai clinic.

The NASEM workshop did not collect or require disclosures of its participants.

Chronic constipation may be associated with worsening cognitive function, new data from three prospective cohort studies with more than 100,000 adults show.

Compared with individuals who have a bowel movement once daily, adults with constipation who have a bowel movement every 3 days or more had significantly worse cognition that was commensurate with an additional 3 years of chronological cognitive aging, the investigators found.

“We should watch for symptoms of abnormal intestinal function, especially constipation, in older individuals, as these symptoms may hint at a higher risk of cognitive decline in the future,” study investigator Chaoran Ma, MD, PhD, former research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and current assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Prevent constipation, improve brain health?

It’s estimated that 16% of the world’s population suffers from constipation. The problem is more common in older adults, owing to age-related factors such as a lack of dietary fiber and exercise and the use of constipating drugs to treat other medical conditions.

Chronic constipation – defined as having bowel movements every 3 days or more – has been associated with long-term health problems, such as inflammation, hormonal imbalances, anxiety, and depression.

However, few studies have investigated variations in intestinal motility and cognitive function.

“Our study provides first-of-its-kind evidence that examined a wide spectrum of bowel movement frequency, especially an analysis of the more frequent end, in relation to cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said.

The analysis involved data from 112,753 women and men from the Nurses’ Health Study (aged 30-55 years), the Nurses’ Health Study II (aged 25-42), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (aged 40-75).

Data on participants’ bowel movement frequency was collected between 2012 and 2013, and self-assessments of cognitive function were obtained from 2014 to 2017. A subgroup of 12,696 participants completed a standard neuropsychological test battery for objective cognitive assessment between 2014 and 2018.

The results show that bowel movement frequency was associated with overall objective cognitive function and learning and working memory in an inverse J-shape dose-response manner (both P for nonlinearity < .05).

Compared with adults who had one bowel movement daily, those who only had a bowel movement every 3 or more days had significantly worse cognition, equivalent to 3 years of additional aging (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7).

The researchers also observed similar J-shape dose-response relationships of bowel movement frequency with the odds of subjective cognitive decline and the likelihood of having more subjective cognitive complaints over time.

Compared with once-daily bowel movements, having bowel movements every 3 or more days was associated with a greater likelihood of subjective cognitive decline (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.60-1.86).

These relationships were generally consistent across the three cohorts and subgroups.

“These results stress the importance of clinicians discussing gut health, especially constipation, with their older patients,” senior investigator Dong Wang, MD, ScD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said in a conference statement.

“Interventions for preventing constipation and improving gut health include adopting healthy diets enriched with high-fiber and high-polyphenol foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; taking fiber supplementation; drinking plenty of water every day; and having regular physical activity,” Dr. Wang added.

The researchers also explored the role of the gut microbiome in the association between bowel movement frequency and cognitive function in a subgroup of 515 women and men.

They found that bowel movement frequency and subjective cognition were significantly associated with the overall variation of the gut microbiome (both P < .005) and specific microbial species.

“This research adds further evidence for a link between the microbiome and gastrointestinal function with cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said in an interview.
 

Interconnected systems

Commenting on the study in a conference statement, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “our body systems are all interconnected. When one system is malfunctioning, it impacts other systems. When that dysfunction isn’t addressed, it can create a waterfall of consequences for the rest of the body.”

Dr. Snyder cautioned, however, that “there are a lot of unanswered questions about the connection between the health of our digestive system and our long-term cognitive function. Answering these questions may uncover novel therapeutic and risk-reduction approaches for Alzheimer’s and other dementias.”

In an interview, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk, is evaluating the impact of behavioral interventions on the gut-brain axis.

“We want to better understand how engaging in healthier habits can impact microorganisms in the gut and how changes in gut bacteria relate to brain health,” Dr. Griffin said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma, Dr. Wang, Dr. Snyder, and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Chronic constipation may be associated with worsening cognitive function, new data from three prospective cohort studies with more than 100,000 adults show.

Compared with individuals who have a bowel movement once daily, adults with constipation who have a bowel movement every 3 days or more had significantly worse cognition that was commensurate with an additional 3 years of chronological cognitive aging, the investigators found.

“We should watch for symptoms of abnormal intestinal function, especially constipation, in older individuals, as these symptoms may hint at a higher risk of cognitive decline in the future,” study investigator Chaoran Ma, MD, PhD, former research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and current assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Prevent constipation, improve brain health?

It’s estimated that 16% of the world’s population suffers from constipation. The problem is more common in older adults, owing to age-related factors such as a lack of dietary fiber and exercise and the use of constipating drugs to treat other medical conditions.

Chronic constipation – defined as having bowel movements every 3 days or more – has been associated with long-term health problems, such as inflammation, hormonal imbalances, anxiety, and depression.

However, few studies have investigated variations in intestinal motility and cognitive function.

“Our study provides first-of-its-kind evidence that examined a wide spectrum of bowel movement frequency, especially an analysis of the more frequent end, in relation to cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said.

The analysis involved data from 112,753 women and men from the Nurses’ Health Study (aged 30-55 years), the Nurses’ Health Study II (aged 25-42), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (aged 40-75).

Data on participants’ bowel movement frequency was collected between 2012 and 2013, and self-assessments of cognitive function were obtained from 2014 to 2017. A subgroup of 12,696 participants completed a standard neuropsychological test battery for objective cognitive assessment between 2014 and 2018.

The results show that bowel movement frequency was associated with overall objective cognitive function and learning and working memory in an inverse J-shape dose-response manner (both P for nonlinearity < .05).

Compared with adults who had one bowel movement daily, those who only had a bowel movement every 3 or more days had significantly worse cognition, equivalent to 3 years of additional aging (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7).

The researchers also observed similar J-shape dose-response relationships of bowel movement frequency with the odds of subjective cognitive decline and the likelihood of having more subjective cognitive complaints over time.

Compared with once-daily bowel movements, having bowel movements every 3 or more days was associated with a greater likelihood of subjective cognitive decline (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.60-1.86).

These relationships were generally consistent across the three cohorts and subgroups.

“These results stress the importance of clinicians discussing gut health, especially constipation, with their older patients,” senior investigator Dong Wang, MD, ScD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said in a conference statement.

“Interventions for preventing constipation and improving gut health include adopting healthy diets enriched with high-fiber and high-polyphenol foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; taking fiber supplementation; drinking plenty of water every day; and having regular physical activity,” Dr. Wang added.

The researchers also explored the role of the gut microbiome in the association between bowel movement frequency and cognitive function in a subgroup of 515 women and men.

They found that bowel movement frequency and subjective cognition were significantly associated with the overall variation of the gut microbiome (both P < .005) and specific microbial species.

“This research adds further evidence for a link between the microbiome and gastrointestinal function with cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said in an interview.
 

Interconnected systems

Commenting on the study in a conference statement, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “our body systems are all interconnected. When one system is malfunctioning, it impacts other systems. When that dysfunction isn’t addressed, it can create a waterfall of consequences for the rest of the body.”

Dr. Snyder cautioned, however, that “there are a lot of unanswered questions about the connection between the health of our digestive system and our long-term cognitive function. Answering these questions may uncover novel therapeutic and risk-reduction approaches for Alzheimer’s and other dementias.”

In an interview, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk, is evaluating the impact of behavioral interventions on the gut-brain axis.

“We want to better understand how engaging in healthier habits can impact microorganisms in the gut and how changes in gut bacteria relate to brain health,” Dr. Griffin said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma, Dr. Wang, Dr. Snyder, and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Chronic constipation may be associated with worsening cognitive function, new data from three prospective cohort studies with more than 100,000 adults show.

Compared with individuals who have a bowel movement once daily, adults with constipation who have a bowel movement every 3 days or more had significantly worse cognition that was commensurate with an additional 3 years of chronological cognitive aging, the investigators found.

“We should watch for symptoms of abnormal intestinal function, especially constipation, in older individuals, as these symptoms may hint at a higher risk of cognitive decline in the future,” study investigator Chaoran Ma, MD, PhD, former research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and current assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Prevent constipation, improve brain health?

It’s estimated that 16% of the world’s population suffers from constipation. The problem is more common in older adults, owing to age-related factors such as a lack of dietary fiber and exercise and the use of constipating drugs to treat other medical conditions.

Chronic constipation – defined as having bowel movements every 3 days or more – has been associated with long-term health problems, such as inflammation, hormonal imbalances, anxiety, and depression.

However, few studies have investigated variations in intestinal motility and cognitive function.

“Our study provides first-of-its-kind evidence that examined a wide spectrum of bowel movement frequency, especially an analysis of the more frequent end, in relation to cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said.

The analysis involved data from 112,753 women and men from the Nurses’ Health Study (aged 30-55 years), the Nurses’ Health Study II (aged 25-42), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (aged 40-75).

Data on participants’ bowel movement frequency was collected between 2012 and 2013, and self-assessments of cognitive function were obtained from 2014 to 2017. A subgroup of 12,696 participants completed a standard neuropsychological test battery for objective cognitive assessment between 2014 and 2018.

The results show that bowel movement frequency was associated with overall objective cognitive function and learning and working memory in an inverse J-shape dose-response manner (both P for nonlinearity < .05).

Compared with adults who had one bowel movement daily, those who only had a bowel movement every 3 or more days had significantly worse cognition, equivalent to 3 years of additional aging (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7).

The researchers also observed similar J-shape dose-response relationships of bowel movement frequency with the odds of subjective cognitive decline and the likelihood of having more subjective cognitive complaints over time.

Compared with once-daily bowel movements, having bowel movements every 3 or more days was associated with a greater likelihood of subjective cognitive decline (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.60-1.86).

These relationships were generally consistent across the three cohorts and subgroups.

“These results stress the importance of clinicians discussing gut health, especially constipation, with their older patients,” senior investigator Dong Wang, MD, ScD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said in a conference statement.

“Interventions for preventing constipation and improving gut health include adopting healthy diets enriched with high-fiber and high-polyphenol foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; taking fiber supplementation; drinking plenty of water every day; and having regular physical activity,” Dr. Wang added.

The researchers also explored the role of the gut microbiome in the association between bowel movement frequency and cognitive function in a subgroup of 515 women and men.

They found that bowel movement frequency and subjective cognition were significantly associated with the overall variation of the gut microbiome (both P < .005) and specific microbial species.

“This research adds further evidence for a link between the microbiome and gastrointestinal function with cognitive function,” Dr. Ma said in an interview.
 

Interconnected systems

Commenting on the study in a conference statement, Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “our body systems are all interconnected. When one system is malfunctioning, it impacts other systems. When that dysfunction isn’t addressed, it can create a waterfall of consequences for the rest of the body.”

Dr. Snyder cautioned, however, that “there are a lot of unanswered questions about the connection between the health of our digestive system and our long-term cognitive function. Answering these questions may uncover novel therapeutic and risk-reduction approaches for Alzheimer’s and other dementias.”

In an interview, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk, is evaluating the impact of behavioral interventions on the gut-brain axis.

“We want to better understand how engaging in healthier habits can impact microorganisms in the gut and how changes in gut bacteria relate to brain health,” Dr. Griffin said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma, Dr. Wang, Dr. Snyder, and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Like many stressful chronic conditions, hearing loss appears to foster fatigue, according to an analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Study data published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, examined NHANES data from 2015 to 2016 and 2017 to 2018, including findings on more than 3,000 participants aged 40 and older. Based on the audiometry subset of NHANES data, hearing loss was associated with a higher frequency of fatigue – even after adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and lifestyle variables such as smoking, alcohol, and body mass index, in a nationally representative sample of adults in middle and older age.

“We wanted to get away from small clinical data and take a look at the population level to see if hearing loss was related to fatigue and, further perhaps, to cognitive decline,” said coauthor Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “We found people with hearing loss had twice the risk of reporting fatigue nearly every day versus those not reporting fatigue.” This cross-sectional study provides needed population-based evidence from a nationally representative sample, according to Dr. Reed and associates, who have been researching the possible connection between age-related hearing loss, physical activity levels, and cognitive decline.
 

Study details

The 3,031 age-eligible participants had a mean age of 58 years; 48% were male, and 10% were Black. Some hearing loss was reported by 24%.

They responded to the following question: “Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by feeling tired or having little energy?” Response categories were “not at all,” “several days,” “more than half the days,” and “nearly every day.” Those with hearing loss were more likely to report fatigue for more than half the days (relative risk ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-3.67) and nearly every day (RRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.16-3.65), compared with not having fatigue. Additional adjustment for comorbidities and depressive symptoms showed similar results.

Hearing loss was defined as > 25 decibels hearing level (dB HL) versus normal hearing of ≤ 25 dB HL, and continuously by every 10 dB HL poorer. Each 10-dB HL of audiometric hearing loss was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting fatigue nearly every day (RRR, 1.24; 95% CI,1.04-1.47), but not for more than half the days.

The association tended to be stronger in younger, non-Hispanic White, and female participants, but statistical testing did not support differential associations by age, sex, race, or ethnicity.

While some might intuitively expect hearing loss to cause noticeably more fatigue in middle-aged people who may be straining to hear during hours in the daily workplace or at home, Dr. Reed said older people probably feel more hearing-related fatigue owing to age and comorbidities. “And higher physical activity levels of middle-aged adults can be protective.”

Dr. Reed advised primary care physicians to be sure to ask about fatigue and hearing status during wellness exams and take appropriate steps to diagnose and correct hearing problems. “Make sure hearing is part of the health equation because hearing loss can be part of the culprit. And it’s very possible that hearing loss is also contributing to cognitive decline.”

Dr. Reed’s group will soon release data on a clinical trial on hearing loss and cognitive decline.

The authors called for studies incorporating fatigue assessments in order to clarify how hearing loss might contribute to physical and mental fatigue and how it could be associated with downstream outcomes such as fatigue-related physical impairment. Dr. Reed reported grants from the National Institute on Aging during the conduct of the study and stock compensation from the Neosensory Advisory Board outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported academic or government research funding as well as fees and honoraria from various private-sector companies.

Like many stressful chronic conditions, hearing loss appears to foster fatigue, according to an analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Study data published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, examined NHANES data from 2015 to 2016 and 2017 to 2018, including findings on more than 3,000 participants aged 40 and older. Based on the audiometry subset of NHANES data, hearing loss was associated with a higher frequency of fatigue – even after adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and lifestyle variables such as smoking, alcohol, and body mass index, in a nationally representative sample of adults in middle and older age.

“We wanted to get away from small clinical data and take a look at the population level to see if hearing loss was related to fatigue and, further perhaps, to cognitive decline,” said coauthor Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “We found people with hearing loss had twice the risk of reporting fatigue nearly every day versus those not reporting fatigue.” This cross-sectional study provides needed population-based evidence from a nationally representative sample, according to Dr. Reed and associates, who have been researching the possible connection between age-related hearing loss, physical activity levels, and cognitive decline.
 

Study details

The 3,031 age-eligible participants had a mean age of 58 years; 48% were male, and 10% were Black. Some hearing loss was reported by 24%.

They responded to the following question: “Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by feeling tired or having little energy?” Response categories were “not at all,” “several days,” “more than half the days,” and “nearly every day.” Those with hearing loss were more likely to report fatigue for more than half the days (relative risk ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-3.67) and nearly every day (RRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.16-3.65), compared with not having fatigue. Additional adjustment for comorbidities and depressive symptoms showed similar results.

Hearing loss was defined as > 25 decibels hearing level (dB HL) versus normal hearing of ≤ 25 dB HL, and continuously by every 10 dB HL poorer. Each 10-dB HL of audiometric hearing loss was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting fatigue nearly every day (RRR, 1.24; 95% CI,1.04-1.47), but not for more than half the days.

The association tended to be stronger in younger, non-Hispanic White, and female participants, but statistical testing did not support differential associations by age, sex, race, or ethnicity.

While some might intuitively expect hearing loss to cause noticeably more fatigue in middle-aged people who may be straining to hear during hours in the daily workplace or at home, Dr. Reed said older people probably feel more hearing-related fatigue owing to age and comorbidities. “And higher physical activity levels of middle-aged adults can be protective.”

Dr. Reed advised primary care physicians to be sure to ask about fatigue and hearing status during wellness exams and take appropriate steps to diagnose and correct hearing problems. “Make sure hearing is part of the health equation because hearing loss can be part of the culprit. And it’s very possible that hearing loss is also contributing to cognitive decline.”

Dr. Reed’s group will soon release data on a clinical trial on hearing loss and cognitive decline.

The authors called for studies incorporating fatigue assessments in order to clarify how hearing loss might contribute to physical and mental fatigue and how it could be associated with downstream outcomes such as fatigue-related physical impairment. Dr. Reed reported grants from the National Institute on Aging during the conduct of the study and stock compensation from the Neosensory Advisory Board outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported academic or government research funding as well as fees and honoraria from various private-sector companies.

Like many stressful chronic conditions, hearing loss appears to foster fatigue, according to an analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Study data published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, examined NHANES data from 2015 to 2016 and 2017 to 2018, including findings on more than 3,000 participants aged 40 and older. Based on the audiometry subset of NHANES data, hearing loss was associated with a higher frequency of fatigue – even after adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and lifestyle variables such as smoking, alcohol, and body mass index, in a nationally representative sample of adults in middle and older age.

“We wanted to get away from small clinical data and take a look at the population level to see if hearing loss was related to fatigue and, further perhaps, to cognitive decline,” said coauthor Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “We found people with hearing loss had twice the risk of reporting fatigue nearly every day versus those not reporting fatigue.” This cross-sectional study provides needed population-based evidence from a nationally representative sample, according to Dr. Reed and associates, who have been researching the possible connection between age-related hearing loss, physical activity levels, and cognitive decline.
 

Study details

The 3,031 age-eligible participants had a mean age of 58 years; 48% were male, and 10% were Black. Some hearing loss was reported by 24%.

They responded to the following question: “Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by feeling tired or having little energy?” Response categories were “not at all,” “several days,” “more than half the days,” and “nearly every day.” Those with hearing loss were more likely to report fatigue for more than half the days (relative risk ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-3.67) and nearly every day (RRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.16-3.65), compared with not having fatigue. Additional adjustment for comorbidities and depressive symptoms showed similar results.

Hearing loss was defined as > 25 decibels hearing level (dB HL) versus normal hearing of ≤ 25 dB HL, and continuously by every 10 dB HL poorer. Each 10-dB HL of audiometric hearing loss was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting fatigue nearly every day (RRR, 1.24; 95% CI,1.04-1.47), but not for more than half the days.

The association tended to be stronger in younger, non-Hispanic White, and female participants, but statistical testing did not support differential associations by age, sex, race, or ethnicity.

While some might intuitively expect hearing loss to cause noticeably more fatigue in middle-aged people who may be straining to hear during hours in the daily workplace or at home, Dr. Reed said older people probably feel more hearing-related fatigue owing to age and comorbidities. “And higher physical activity levels of middle-aged adults can be protective.”

Dr. Reed advised primary care physicians to be sure to ask about fatigue and hearing status during wellness exams and take appropriate steps to diagnose and correct hearing problems. “Make sure hearing is part of the health equation because hearing loss can be part of the culprit. And it’s very possible that hearing loss is also contributing to cognitive decline.”

Dr. Reed’s group will soon release data on a clinical trial on hearing loss and cognitive decline.

The authors called for studies incorporating fatigue assessments in order to clarify how hearing loss might contribute to physical and mental fatigue and how it could be associated with downstream outcomes such as fatigue-related physical impairment. Dr. Reed reported grants from the National Institute on Aging during the conduct of the study and stock compensation from the Neosensory Advisory Board outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported academic or government research funding as well as fees and honoraria from various private-sector companies.

As millions of Americans face another year of long COVID, some are finding they are unable to return to work or cannot work as they did before they got sick and are turning to doctors for help with documenting their disability.

For those who can return to work, a doctor’s diagnosis of long COVID is key to gaining access to workplace accommodations, such as working flex hours or remotely. For those who cannot work, a note from the doctor is the first step to collecting disability payments.

With no definitive blood tests or scans for long COVID that could confirm a diagnosis, some say doctors may feel uncomfortable in this role, which puts them in a tough spot, said Wes Ely, MD, MPH, codirector of the critical illness, brain dysfunction and survivorship center at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Doctors typically are not taught to deal with vagueness in diagnostics.

“Long COVID falls straight into the gray zone,” he said. There are no tests and a long list of common symptoms. “It makes a lot of doctors feel super insecure,” he said.

Now, patients and their advocates are calling for doctors to be more open-minded about how they assess those with long COVID and other chronic illnesses. Although their disability may not be visible, many with long COVID struggle to function. If they need help, they say, they need a doctor to confirm their limitations – test results or no test results.

Better documentation of patient-reported symptoms would go a long way, according to a perspective published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“There’s a long history of people with disabilities being forced to ask doctors to legitimize their symptoms,” said study author Zackary Berger, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. Berger believes doctors should learn to listen more closely to patients, turn their narratives into patient notes, and use the new International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) code, a worldwide system for identifying and generating data on diseases, when they diagnose long COVID. He also thinks doctors should become advocates for their patients.

The Americans With Disabilities Act allows employers to request medical proof of disability, “and thereby assigns physicians the gate-keeping role of determining patients’ eligibility for reasonable accommodations,” according to the analysis. Those accommodations may mean a handicapped parking space or extra days working remotely.

Without a definitive diagnostic test, long COVID joins fibromyalgia and ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), which lack biomarkers or imaging tests to support a diagnosis, they write.

“These diagnoses are therefore contentious, and government agencies, employers, and many physicians do not accept these conditions as real,” they write.

Physicians make a good faith effort in trying to understand long COVID, but both doctors and the courts like to see evidence, said Michael Ashley Stein, JD, PHD, director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Dr. Stein and others say that doctors should listen closely to their patients’ descriptions of their symptoms.

“In the absence of agreed-upon biomarkers, doctors need to listen to their patients and look for other [indications] and other consistent evidence of conditions, and then work from there rather than dismiss the existence of these conditions,” he said.

Dr. Ely said he and others were taught in medical school that if it doesn’t come up on a diagnostic test, there’s no problem. “I am absolutely complicit,” he said. “I’m part of the community that did that for so many years.”

Dr. Ely agreed that the demand for clinical test results does not work for long COVID and chronic diseases such as ME/CFS. People come in with complaints and they get a typical medical workup with labs, he said, and the labs look normal on paper.

“And [the doctor is] thinking: ‘I don’t know what is wrong with this person and there’s nothing on paper I can treat. I don’t know if I even believe in long COVID.’ ”

At the same time, patients might need support from a doctor to get accommodations at work under the ADA, such as flexible hours. Or doctors’ notes may be required if a patient is trying to collect private disability insurance, workers compensation, or federal disability payments through Social Security.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on diagnosing long COVID, updated last December, point out that normal laboratory or imaging findings do not rule out long COVID.

In addition, 12 key symptoms of long COVID were identified in May by scientists working with the RECOVER Initiative, the federal government’s long COVID research program. These symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, loss of or change in smell or taste, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Still, patients with long COVID seeking help also face the “disability con,” a term coined by the second author of the NEJM article, Doron Dorfman, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, N.J.

“Nowadays, when people think disability, they immediately think fraud,” he said.

Prof. Dorfman thinks the perception that many people are faking disabilities to gain an unfair advantage is the biggest barrier for anyone seeking help. The disability system is “preventing people who deserve legal rights from actually obtaining them,” he said.

He urged doctors to believe their patients. One way is to try to “translate the person’s narrative into medical language.”

His coauthor Dr. Berger did not agree with the argument that doctors cannot diagnose without tests.

“Any clinician knows that lab tests are not everything,” he said. “There are conditions that don’t have specific biomarkers that we diagnose all the time.” He cited acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections as examples.

Benefits lawyers have taken note of the complexities for people with long COVID who seek help through the ADA and federal disability program.

One law firm noted: “The government safety net is not designed to help an emerging disease with no clear diagnosis or treatment plans. Insurance carriers are denying claims, and long-term disability benefits are being denied.”

About 16 million working-age Americans have long COVID, according to an update of a 2022 report by the Brookings Institute. Up to 4 million of these people are out of work because of the condition, the study found. The research is based on newly collected U.S. Census Bureau data that show 24% of those with long COVID report “significant activity limitations.”

Dr. Ely said he sees progress in this area. Many of these issues have come up at the committee convened by the National Academy of Science to look at the working definition of long COVID. NAS, a Washington research group, held a public meeting on their findings on June 22.
 

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

As millions of Americans face another year of long COVID, some are finding they are unable to return to work or cannot work as they did before they got sick and are turning to doctors for help with documenting their disability.

For those who can return to work, a doctor’s diagnosis of long COVID is key to gaining access to workplace accommodations, such as working flex hours or remotely. For those who cannot work, a note from the doctor is the first step to collecting disability payments.

With no definitive blood tests or scans for long COVID that could confirm a diagnosis, some say doctors may feel uncomfortable in this role, which puts them in a tough spot, said Wes Ely, MD, MPH, codirector of the critical illness, brain dysfunction and survivorship center at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Doctors typically are not taught to deal with vagueness in diagnostics.

“Long COVID falls straight into the gray zone,” he said. There are no tests and a long list of common symptoms. “It makes a lot of doctors feel super insecure,” he said.

Now, patients and their advocates are calling for doctors to be more open-minded about how they assess those with long COVID and other chronic illnesses. Although their disability may not be visible, many with long COVID struggle to function. If they need help, they say, they need a doctor to confirm their limitations – test results or no test results.

Better documentation of patient-reported symptoms would go a long way, according to a perspective published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“There’s a long history of people with disabilities being forced to ask doctors to legitimize their symptoms,” said study author Zackary Berger, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. Berger believes doctors should learn to listen more closely to patients, turn their narratives into patient notes, and use the new International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) code, a worldwide system for identifying and generating data on diseases, when they diagnose long COVID. He also thinks doctors should become advocates for their patients.

The Americans With Disabilities Act allows employers to request medical proof of disability, “and thereby assigns physicians the gate-keeping role of determining patients’ eligibility for reasonable accommodations,” according to the analysis. Those accommodations may mean a handicapped parking space or extra days working remotely.

Without a definitive diagnostic test, long COVID joins fibromyalgia and ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), which lack biomarkers or imaging tests to support a diagnosis, they write.

“These diagnoses are therefore contentious, and government agencies, employers, and many physicians do not accept these conditions as real,” they write.

Physicians make a good faith effort in trying to understand long COVID, but both doctors and the courts like to see evidence, said Michael Ashley Stein, JD, PHD, director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Dr. Stein and others say that doctors should listen closely to their patients’ descriptions of their symptoms.

“In the absence of agreed-upon biomarkers, doctors need to listen to their patients and look for other [indications] and other consistent evidence of conditions, and then work from there rather than dismiss the existence of these conditions,” he said.

Dr. Ely said he and others were taught in medical school that if it doesn’t come up on a diagnostic test, there’s no problem. “I am absolutely complicit,” he said. “I’m part of the community that did that for so many years.”

Dr. Ely agreed that the demand for clinical test results does not work for long COVID and chronic diseases such as ME/CFS. People come in with complaints and they get a typical medical workup with labs, he said, and the labs look normal on paper.

“And [the doctor is] thinking: ‘I don’t know what is wrong with this person and there’s nothing on paper I can treat. I don’t know if I even believe in long COVID.’ ”

At the same time, patients might need support from a doctor to get accommodations at work under the ADA, such as flexible hours. Or doctors’ notes may be required if a patient is trying to collect private disability insurance, workers compensation, or federal disability payments through Social Security.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on diagnosing long COVID, updated last December, point out that normal laboratory or imaging findings do not rule out long COVID.

In addition, 12 key symptoms of long COVID were identified in May by scientists working with the RECOVER Initiative, the federal government’s long COVID research program. These symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, loss of or change in smell or taste, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Still, patients with long COVID seeking help also face the “disability con,” a term coined by the second author of the NEJM article, Doron Dorfman, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, N.J.

“Nowadays, when people think disability, they immediately think fraud,” he said.

Prof. Dorfman thinks the perception that many people are faking disabilities to gain an unfair advantage is the biggest barrier for anyone seeking help. The disability system is “preventing people who deserve legal rights from actually obtaining them,” he said.

He urged doctors to believe their patients. One way is to try to “translate the person’s narrative into medical language.”

His coauthor Dr. Berger did not agree with the argument that doctors cannot diagnose without tests.

“Any clinician knows that lab tests are not everything,” he said. “There are conditions that don’t have specific biomarkers that we diagnose all the time.” He cited acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections as examples.

Benefits lawyers have taken note of the complexities for people with long COVID who seek help through the ADA and federal disability program.

One law firm noted: “The government safety net is not designed to help an emerging disease with no clear diagnosis or treatment plans. Insurance carriers are denying claims, and long-term disability benefits are being denied.”

About 16 million working-age Americans have long COVID, according to an update of a 2022 report by the Brookings Institute. Up to 4 million of these people are out of work because of the condition, the study found. The research is based on newly collected U.S. Census Bureau data that show 24% of those with long COVID report “significant activity limitations.”

Dr. Ely said he sees progress in this area. Many of these issues have come up at the committee convened by the National Academy of Science to look at the working definition of long COVID. NAS, a Washington research group, held a public meeting on their findings on June 22.
 

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

As millions of Americans face another year of long COVID, some are finding they are unable to return to work or cannot work as they did before they got sick and are turning to doctors for help with documenting their disability.

For those who can return to work, a doctor’s diagnosis of long COVID is key to gaining access to workplace accommodations, such as working flex hours or remotely. For those who cannot work, a note from the doctor is the first step to collecting disability payments.

With no definitive blood tests or scans for long COVID that could confirm a diagnosis, some say doctors may feel uncomfortable in this role, which puts them in a tough spot, said Wes Ely, MD, MPH, codirector of the critical illness, brain dysfunction and survivorship center at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Doctors typically are not taught to deal with vagueness in diagnostics.

“Long COVID falls straight into the gray zone,” he said. There are no tests and a long list of common symptoms. “It makes a lot of doctors feel super insecure,” he said.

Now, patients and their advocates are calling for doctors to be more open-minded about how they assess those with long COVID and other chronic illnesses. Although their disability may not be visible, many with long COVID struggle to function. If they need help, they say, they need a doctor to confirm their limitations – test results or no test results.

Better documentation of patient-reported symptoms would go a long way, according to a perspective published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“There’s a long history of people with disabilities being forced to ask doctors to legitimize their symptoms,” said study author Zackary Berger, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. Berger believes doctors should learn to listen more closely to patients, turn their narratives into patient notes, and use the new International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) code, a worldwide system for identifying and generating data on diseases, when they diagnose long COVID. He also thinks doctors should become advocates for their patients.

The Americans With Disabilities Act allows employers to request medical proof of disability, “and thereby assigns physicians the gate-keeping role of determining patients’ eligibility for reasonable accommodations,” according to the analysis. Those accommodations may mean a handicapped parking space or extra days working remotely.

Without a definitive diagnostic test, long COVID joins fibromyalgia and ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), which lack biomarkers or imaging tests to support a diagnosis, they write.

“These diagnoses are therefore contentious, and government agencies, employers, and many physicians do not accept these conditions as real,” they write.

Physicians make a good faith effort in trying to understand long COVID, but both doctors and the courts like to see evidence, said Michael Ashley Stein, JD, PHD, director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Dr. Stein and others say that doctors should listen closely to their patients’ descriptions of their symptoms.

“In the absence of agreed-upon biomarkers, doctors need to listen to their patients and look for other [indications] and other consistent evidence of conditions, and then work from there rather than dismiss the existence of these conditions,” he said.

Dr. Ely said he and others were taught in medical school that if it doesn’t come up on a diagnostic test, there’s no problem. “I am absolutely complicit,” he said. “I’m part of the community that did that for so many years.”

Dr. Ely agreed that the demand for clinical test results does not work for long COVID and chronic diseases such as ME/CFS. People come in with complaints and they get a typical medical workup with labs, he said, and the labs look normal on paper.

“And [the doctor is] thinking: ‘I don’t know what is wrong with this person and there’s nothing on paper I can treat. I don’t know if I even believe in long COVID.’ ”

At the same time, patients might need support from a doctor to get accommodations at work under the ADA, such as flexible hours. Or doctors’ notes may be required if a patient is trying to collect private disability insurance, workers compensation, or federal disability payments through Social Security.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on diagnosing long COVID, updated last December, point out that normal laboratory or imaging findings do not rule out long COVID.

In addition, 12 key symptoms of long COVID were identified in May by scientists working with the RECOVER Initiative, the federal government’s long COVID research program. These symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, loss of or change in smell or taste, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Still, patients with long COVID seeking help also face the “disability con,” a term coined by the second author of the NEJM article, Doron Dorfman, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, N.J.

“Nowadays, when people think disability, they immediately think fraud,” he said.

Prof. Dorfman thinks the perception that many people are faking disabilities to gain an unfair advantage is the biggest barrier for anyone seeking help. The disability system is “preventing people who deserve legal rights from actually obtaining them,” he said.

He urged doctors to believe their patients. One way is to try to “translate the person’s narrative into medical language.”

His coauthor Dr. Berger did not agree with the argument that doctors cannot diagnose without tests.

“Any clinician knows that lab tests are not everything,” he said. “There are conditions that don’t have specific biomarkers that we diagnose all the time.” He cited acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections as examples.

Benefits lawyers have taken note of the complexities for people with long COVID who seek help through the ADA and federal disability program.

One law firm noted: “The government safety net is not designed to help an emerging disease with no clear diagnosis or treatment plans. Insurance carriers are denying claims, and long-term disability benefits are being denied.”

About 16 million working-age Americans have long COVID, according to an update of a 2022 report by the Brookings Institute. Up to 4 million of these people are out of work because of the condition, the study found. The research is based on newly collected U.S. Census Bureau data that show 24% of those with long COVID report “significant activity limitations.”

Dr. Ely said he sees progress in this area. Many of these issues have come up at the committee convened by the National Academy of Science to look at the working definition of long COVID. NAS, a Washington research group, held a public meeting on their findings on June 22.
 

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