study – Cincy Link

Researchers study potential benefits of boxing for Parkinson’s patients

cincylink — Fri, 07 Jul 2023 00:10:52 +0000

CHICAGO — For years, researchers have documented the therapeutic benefits of exercise for patients with neurological and movement disorders. Now, a pilot study shows that boxing may ease the symptoms of Parkinson’s.

About six years ago, retired firefighter Catherine Renar was having difficulty walking and developed pain in her feet.

“I was trying going from doctor to doctor, trying to figure out what was going on and nobody could quite figure it out,” she said.

It was Parkinson’s disease. The diagnosis for Renar, a former athlete, was something that redefined who she was as a person.

“I have come to terms with I am not as physically strong as I once was.”

She took up boxing as part of a Parkinson’s Foundation-funded pilot study on its impact on patients.

The program was modified specifically for people with stage two Parkinson’s—when patients have symptoms like tremors, rigidity and difficulty walking.

“No one's going to hit you in the head, and we don't expect you to hit anybody else in the head. So, that is really the difference here. And although it's a basic difference, it's an important difference,” said Dr. Deborah Hall, director of the Parkinson's Disease Center of Excellence.

The boxers were then followed for three months.

“We found was that they not only had improvement in their motor symptoms, which has been shown before again in similar pilot studies, but also they had improvement in non-motor symptoms, especially depression,” said study co-author Dr. Abhimanyu Mahajan an assistant professor of neurological sciences at Rush University Medical Center.

They also found decreases in anxiety, sleep problems and pain.

And while there have been studies on the benefits of community-based exercise programs on motor symptoms for Parkinson’s patients, less has been done on the impacts on non-motor symptoms.

“Parkinson's is actually a very widespread disorder, and it can cause problems with movement and tremor, but it can also cause these non-motor symptoms, which can be just as impactful and debilitating for people,” said Roshni Patel, the study’s co-author, and a neurologist at the Jessie Brown VA Medical Center.

“Every time I left there I was in a better mood,” said Renar.

She says she felt a difference after each session not just physically, but mentally and emotionally.

“You have to really concentrate on your moves. The change-up of movements stimulates the endorphins and the dopamine, which is what we're lacking in our brains. And so, by the end of it, you feel energized,” she said.

Researchers say they hope to do larger, longer-term studies that also target specific non-motor symptoms like apathy.

Source link

Study reveals health benefits of drinking black tea

cincylink — Tue, 04 Jul 2023 05:56:10 +0000

Video above: If you aren't sipping hibiscus tea, you're missing out on major health benefitsA warm cup of tea in your favorite mug can seem to heal the soul — and a new study finds it may be good for your body, too.Drinking two or more cups of black tea a day is associated with a lower risk of death from all causes, according to the study published Monday in Annals of Internal Medicine.The study looked at nearly 500,000 men and women ages 40 to 69 years old who participated in the UK Biobank, which houses in-depth genetic and health information, between 2006 and 2010. The database included information participants reported about their own tea drinking habits, such as frequency and what they added to their cup, according to the study.Some participants didn't drink black tea at all, but since the data came from the United Kingdom, there also were plenty of people who drank it regularly — and some who drank up to 10 cups a day, said lead study author Maki Inoue-Choi, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute in the U.S.Video below: Five tips for keeping your caffeine consumption in checkThe Biobank followed up about 10 years after the original survey, and researchers found that people who drank two or more cups of tea daily in the interim were less likely to have died from causes such as cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease and stroke, according to the study.The research is an exciting look into tea drinking habits, but there is still more work that needs to be done before recommending dietary changes, said Howard Sesso, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Sesso was not involved in the study. "The authors tried to control for other dietary factors, but tea drinkers typically differ from non-tea drinkers in other ways that would likely weaken these findings. We really need more randomized clinical trials testing tea intake," Sesso said in an email.What about the milk and sugar?For many tea drinkers, the process of making their tea is crucial.What temperature does the water need to be? Do you take it black? Do you add milk? Sugar? How much?If you can't imagine taking your tea black, don't worry just yet. There was no significant reduction in health benefits for those who added milk or sugar, according to the study. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the healthiest way to drink tea, though. Inoue-Choi said health experts strongly encourage limiting sugar and the saturated fats like those in milk.Should you change your drinking habits?Although it's hard to say for sure from the research so far, Inoue-Choi said there are some good reasons why black tea might be so beneficial."There are multiple possible mechanisms," she said. "Tea is rich in bioactive compounds ... They have the potential to decrease oxidated stress and inflammation. That could protect against health conditions such as cancer and heart disease."There has been plenty of research on the health benefits of green tea.Observational studies, like one from 2013, suggest that it could slow the growth of precancerous legions, while a 2014 study found that green tea consumption is associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline.Both black and green tea come from variations of the same plant, camellia sinensis, but little research before now has looked into the impacts of drinking black tea, Inoue-Choi said.Because of the lack of research, it may not be time to add black tea into your daily routine just yet, she added."Our findings may provide reassurance to people who already drink tea every day, but we don't recommend making decisions about whether people start drinking tea or change how much they are drinking right now," Inoue-Choi said.People shouldn't rely on the results from a single study for these kinds of changes, she said, and more research is needed to round out the findings."This study does not prove that tea intake reduces mortality, but it does suggest that if you are currently drinking tea — and especially black tea, which was the tea type of choice in the UK — you can continue to do so," Sesso said.

Video above: If you aren't sipping hibiscus tea, you're missing out on major health benefits

A warm cup of tea in your favorite mug can seem to heal the soul — and a new study finds it may be good for your body, too.

Drinking two or more cups of black tea a day is associated with a lower risk of death from all causes, according to the study published Monday in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study looked at nearly 500,000 men and women ages 40 to 69 years old who participated in the UK Biobank, which houses in-depth genetic and health information, between 2006 and 2010. The database included information participants reported about their own tea drinking habits, such as frequency and what they added to their cup, according to the study.

Some participants didn't drink black tea at all, but since the data came from the United Kingdom, there also were plenty of people who drank it regularly — and some who drank up to 10 cups a day, said lead study author Maki Inoue-Choi, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute in the U.S.

Video below: Five tips for keeping your caffeine consumption in check

The Biobank followed up about 10 years after the original survey, and researchers found that people who drank two or more cups of tea daily in the interim were less likely to have died from causes such as cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease and stroke, according to the study.

The research is an exciting look into tea drinking habits, but there is still more work that needs to be done before recommending dietary changes, said Howard Sesso, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Sesso was not involved in the study.

"The authors tried to control for other dietary factors, but tea drinkers typically differ from non-tea drinkers in other ways that would likely weaken these findings. We really need more randomized clinical trials testing tea intake," Sesso said in an email.

What about the milk and sugar?

For many tea drinkers, the process of making their tea is crucial.

What temperature does the water need to be? Do you take it black? Do you add milk? Sugar? How much?

If you can't imagine taking your tea black, don't worry just yet. There was no significant reduction in health benefits for those who added milk or sugar, according to the study.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's the healthiest way to drink tea, though. Inoue-Choi said health experts strongly encourage limiting sugar and the saturated fats like those in milk.

Should you change your drinking habits?

Although it's hard to say for sure from the research so far, Inoue-Choi said there are some good reasons why black tea might be so beneficial.

"There are multiple possible mechanisms," she said. "Tea is rich in bioactive compounds ... They have the potential to decrease oxidated stress and inflammation. That could protect against health conditions such as cancer and heart disease."

There has been plenty of research on the health benefits of green tea.

Observational studies, like one from 2013, suggest that it could slow the growth of precancerous legions, while a 2014 study found that green tea consumption is associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline.

Both black and green tea come from variations of the same plant, camellia sinensis, but little research before now has looked into the impacts of drinking black tea, Inoue-Choi said.

Because of the lack of research, it may not be time to add black tea into your daily routine just yet, she added.

"Our findings may provide reassurance to people who already drink tea every day, but we don't recommend making decisions about whether people start drinking tea or change how much they are drinking right now," Inoue-Choi said.

People shouldn't rely on the results from a single study for these kinds of changes, she said, and more research is needed to round out the findings.

"This study does not prove that tea intake reduces mortality, but it does suggest that if you are currently drinking tea — and especially black tea, which was the tea type of choice in the UK — you can continue to do so," Sesso said.

Source link

Night owls have higher risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, study says

cincylink — Mon, 03 Jul 2023 04:08:41 +0000

If you prefer to go to bed and get up later — a sleep chronotype known as being a night owl — you may be at higher risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease, a new study found.Night owls were more sedentary, had lower aerobic fitness levels and burned less fat at rest and while active than early birds in the study. Night owls were also more likely to be insulin-resistant, meaning their muscles required more insulin to be able to get the energy they need, according to the study published Monday in the journal Experimental Physiology."Insulin tells the muscles to be a sponge and absorb the glucose in the blood," said senior study author Steven Malin, an associate professor in the department of kinesiology and health at Rutgers University in New Jersey."Think about it like water from a water faucet: You turn the water on and a drop touches the sponge and is immediately absorbed," Malin said. "But if you're not exercising, engaging those muscles, it's like if that sponge was to sit for a couple days and get rock hard. A drop of water isn't going to make it soft again."If sleep chronotype is affecting how our bodies use insulin and impacting metabolism, then being a night owl might be useful in predicting a person's risk for heart disease and type 2 diabetes, Malin added."The study adds to what we know," said Dr. Phyllis Zee, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, who was not involved with the research."There is good evidence that being a late sleeper has been linked to a higher risk for metabolic and cardiovascular disease," said Zee, who is also a professor of neurology. "Several mechanisms have been proposed: sleep loss, circadian misalignment, eating later in the day and being exposed to less morning light and more evening light, which have all been shown to affect insulin sensitivity."Body clock and chronotypeAll humans have a circadian rhythm — an internal 24-hour body clock that regulates the release of the hormone melatonin to promote sleep and ceases production so that we wake. Our body clock also directs when we get hungry, when we feel most sluggish and when we feel peppy enough to exercise, among many other bodily functions.Traditionally, sunrise and nightfall regulated the human sleep-wake cycle. Daylight enters the eyes, travels to the brain and sets off a signal that suppresses melatonin production. When the sun goes down, the body clock turns melatonin production back on, and a few hours later sleep arrives.Your personal sleep chronotype, thought to be inherited, may alter that natural rhythm. If you're an innate early bird, your circadian rhythm releases melatonin much earlier than the norm, energizing you to become most active in the morning. In night owls, however, the internal body clock secretes melatonin much later, making early mornings sluggish and pushing peak activity and alertness later into the afternoon and evening.Sleep chronotype can have profound effects on productivity, school performance, social functioning and lifestyle habits, experts say. Early birds tend to perform better in school, and are more active throughout the day, which may partly explain why studies have found they have less risk of cardiovascular disease, Malin said.Evening types may take more risks, use more tobacco, alcohol and caffeine and are more likely to skip breakfast and eat more later in the day. In addition, research suggests "later chronotypes have higher body fat located more in the stomach or abdominal region, an area which many health professionals believe to be worse for our health," Malin said.Fat or carbs?Researchers classified 51 adults without heart disease or diabetes into morning or evening chronotypes, based on their natural sleep and wake preferences. During the study, the participants ate a controlled diet and fasted overnight while their activity levels were monitored for a week.The research team determined each person's body mass, body composition and fitness level and measured levels of insulin sensitivity. In addition, researchers looked at how each person's metabolism obtained most of their energy, either via fat or carbohydrates."Fat metabolism is important because we think if you can burn fat for energy that's going to help the muscle pick up the glucose in a more enduring fashion," Malin said.Burning fat can promote endurance and more physical and mental activity throughout the day. Carbohydrates, on the other hand, are what the body uses for intense physical activity. Carbs are burned more quickly, which is why many athletes carb-load in advance of a race or marathon.Results of the test showed early birds used more fat for energy at both rest and during exercise than night owls in the study, who used more carbohydrates as a source of fuel.There is a need for more research, Malin said, to confirm the findings and determine if the metabolic differences are due to the chronotype or a potential misalignment between a night owl's natural preference and the need to wake early due to the hours set by society for work and school.People who are continuously out of synch with their innate body clock are said to be in "social jet lag.""This extends beyond just diabetes or just heart disease," Malin said. "It may point to a bigger societal issue. How are we helping people who may be in misalignment? Are we as a society forcing people to behave in ways that might actually be putting them at risk?

If you prefer to go to bed and get up later — a sleep chronotype known as being a night owl — you may be at higher risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease, a new study found.

Night owls were more sedentary, had lower aerobic fitness levels and burned less fat at rest and while active than early birds in the study. Night owls were also more likely to be insulin-resistant, meaning their muscles required more insulin to be able to get the energy they need, according to the study published Monday in the journal Experimental Physiology.

"Insulin tells the muscles to be a sponge and absorb the glucose in the blood," said senior study author Steven Malin, an associate professor in the department of kinesiology and health at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

"Think about it like water from a water faucet: You turn the water on and a drop touches the sponge and is immediately absorbed," Malin said. "But if you're not exercising, engaging those muscles, it's like if that sponge was to sit for a couple days and get rock hard. A drop of water isn't going to make it soft again."

If sleep chronotype is affecting how our bodies use insulin and impacting metabolism, then being a night owl might be useful in predicting a person's risk for heart disease and type 2 diabetes, Malin added.

"The study adds to what we know," said Dr. Phyllis Zee, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, who was not involved with the research.

"There is good evidence that being a late sleeper has been linked to a higher risk for metabolic and cardiovascular disease," said Zee, who is also a professor of neurology. "Several mechanisms have been proposed: sleep loss, circadian misalignment, eating later in the day and being exposed to less morning light and more evening light, which have all been shown to affect insulin sensitivity."

Body clock and chronotype

All humans have a circadian rhythm — an internal 24-hour body clock that regulates the release of the hormone melatonin to promote sleep and ceases production so that we wake. Our body clock also directs when we get hungry, when we feel most sluggish and when we feel peppy enough to exercise, among many other bodily functions.

Traditionally, sunrise and nightfall regulated the human sleep-wake cycle. Daylight enters the eyes, travels to the brain and sets off a signal that suppresses melatonin production. When the sun goes down, the body clock turns melatonin production back on, and a few hours later sleep arrives.

Your personal sleep chronotype, thought to be inherited, may alter that natural rhythm. If you're an innate early bird, your circadian rhythm releases melatonin much earlier than the norm, energizing you to become most active in the morning. In night owls, however, the internal body clock secretes melatonin much later, making early mornings sluggish and pushing peak activity and alertness later into the afternoon and evening.

Sleep chronotype can have profound effects on productivity, school performance, social functioning and lifestyle habits, experts say. Early birds tend to perform better in school, and are more active throughout the day, which may partly explain why studies have found they have less risk of cardiovascular disease, Malin said.

Evening types may take more risks, use more tobacco, alcohol and caffeine and are more likely to skip breakfast and eat more later in the day. In addition, research suggests "later chronotypes have higher body fat located more in the stomach or abdominal region, an area which many health professionals believe to be worse for our health," Malin said.

Fat or carbs?

Researchers classified 51 adults without heart disease or diabetes into morning or evening chronotypes, based on their natural sleep and wake preferences. During the study, the participants ate a controlled diet and fasted overnight while their activity levels were monitored for a week.

The research team determined each person's body mass, body composition and fitness level and measured levels of insulin sensitivity. In addition, researchers looked at how each person's metabolism obtained most of their energy, either via fat or carbohydrates.

"Fat metabolism is important because we think if you can burn fat for energy that's going to help the muscle pick up the glucose in a more enduring fashion," Malin said.

Burning fat can promote endurance and more physical and mental activity throughout the day. Carbohydrates, on the other hand, are what the body uses for intense physical activity. Carbs are burned more quickly, which is why many athletes carb-load in advance of a race or marathon.

Results of the test showed early birds used more fat for energy at both rest and during exercise than night owls in the study, who used more carbohydrates as a source of fuel.

There is a need for more research, Malin said, to confirm the findings and determine if the metabolic differences are due to the chronotype or a potential misalignment between a night owl's natural preference and the need to wake early due to the hours set by society for work and school.

People who are continuously out of synch with their innate body clock are said to be in "social jet lag."

"This extends beyond just diabetes or just heart disease," Malin said. "It may point to a bigger societal issue. How are we helping people who may be in misalignment? Are we as a society forcing people to behave in ways that might actually be putting them at risk?

Source link

A common treatment for back and neck pain may not work, study suggests

cincylink — Thu, 29 Jun 2023 04:05:06 +0000

Opioid medications are one of the most typically prescribed treatments for the worldwide problem of low back pain — but they might not work, a new study has found.Experiencing pain in the neck and lower back is common. In fact, lower back pain is globally the leading contributor to years lived with disability, and neck pain is the fourth, according to an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Low back pain is defined as acute when symptoms last for up to six weeks, and chronic when the pain lasts for more than 12 weeks, according to the North American Spine Society (PDF).When it comes to treating this pain, physicians should cautiously limit patient use of opioids and restrict it to a short time period, the society's clinical guidelines state. Opioids for pain relief are recommended only once other pharmacological treatments haven't worked or if a person can't take them for personal reasons.Despite these guidelines and "there being no evidence of their efficacy in reducing pain, opioid pain relievers are still widely prescribed for people with lower back and neck pain in many countries," said Christine Lin, a professor at the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Sydney in Australia, in a news release. Lin is the senior author of the latest study published Wednesday in the journal The Lancet.Because of scarce research, the scientists studied the effectiveness and safety of using opioids to treat a small cohort of 310 people. The patients had sought help for neck or lower back pain from primary care clinics or hospitals in Sydney between February 2016 and March 2022. At the beginning of the study, participants were about age 44 on average and had experienced at least moderately painful neck or lower back pain or both for 12 weeks or less.The study participants were then randomly split into two groups: One group took a combination of naloxone and up to 20 micrograms of the opioid oxycodone per day for six weeks. Naloxone was used to prevent constipation, a common side effect of opioids, and therefore keep participants from figuring out which group they were in. The other group was instructed to take a placebo pill.Both groups were also given care tips from a doctor they were told to see weekly. The care involved the doctor reassuring them and advising them to stay active, avoid bed rest and, if required, avoid other treatments including nonopioids.The authors found that in terms of effects on back and neck pain, opioids weren't any more helpful than the placebo. Six weeks into treatment, the average pain score was 2.78 in the opioid group and 2.25 in the placebo group, a difference that increased over time. More people in the opioid group had ongoing pain at weeks 26 and 52 than in the placebo group.The authors also discovered that not only are opioids unlikely to alleviate back and neck pain, they also might cause harm even after short-term, sensible use.The opioid group had worse mental health scores and more reports of nausea, dizziness and constipation than the placebo group. "We also know that being prescribed opioid pain relievers even for a short period of time increases the risk of opioid misuse long term," Lin said in a news release.Opioids and painThe study authors and experts who weren't involved in the new study have theories on why opioids weren't found to be more helpful than the placebo.One possibility is that the back or neck pain of the opioid group could have had more underlying factors than the authors considered — factors that have been known to respond poorly to opioid treatment, experts said.The pain treated might have been more chronic, recurring pain than the type caused by acute injury, according to a commentary on the study by Dr. Mark D. Sullivan and Dr. Jane C. Ballantyne, who weren't involved in the study. Sullivan is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, and Ballantyne is a retired professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine, at the University of Washington."Participants were only required to have 1-month pain-free before their current episode of spinal pain," Sullivan and Ballantyne wrote. "If many of these participants had recurrent pain, this might account for the non-response to opioid therapy. Low back pain has been reported to transform over a year."Dr. John Finkenberg, a San Diego-based specialist in orthopedic spine surgery, said areas of pain in the neck and back sometimes need to be treated separately. He wasn't involved in the study."If somebody had both of these going on, they, quite frankly, will have a systemic-type issue going on, whether it be general arthritis or rheumatoid. So we have to be careful on the patients that come in with both," added Finkenberg, who is also president of the North American Spine Society.The authors didn't collect data on what care the doctors offered in follow-up appointments, so they didn't have details on whether the patients followed any advice or its impact. Additionally, only 57% of participants reported the extent to which they complied with taking the medication as prescribed. Of those, just over half took more than 80% of their prescriptions.Managing back and neck painGiven the findings that opioids have no benefits but do carry risk of harm, the authors think opioids shouldn't be recommended for treatment of acute neck or lower back pain."Instead, doctors should be encouraged to focus on patient-centered approaches that could include advice to stay active, and simple pain relievers," Lin said in the news release. "The good news is most people with acute low back pain and neck pain recover within 6 weeks naturally."The authors studied nonspecific back or neck pain, which is pain with an unknown cause. When doctors don't know the origin, Finkenberg contended that opioids should not be used as a first choice or a quick fix.Helpful alternatives to opioids include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, also called NSAIDS — such as ibuprofen, naproxen and celecoxib. A combination of an NSAID and a prescription muscle relaxer has been found to reduce pain and disability within a week, according to a February study.Range of motion exercises can also help. These include stretches to maintain or improve mobility.People with these pains should also "use their body as the barometer," Finkenberg said. If you're doing an activity and your body feels uncomfortable, don't push through the pain. Doing so could increasingly inflame the area, causing more pain and harm.If your pain and any weakness persist after three to four weeks, you "really need to go see a specialist because it's difficult to pick up these subtleties for why people have discomforts," Finkenberg said. "If the appropriate, advanced diagnostic tests are needed, it's better to get them earlier."

Opioid medications are one of the most typically prescribed treatments for the worldwide problem of low back pain — but they might not work, a new study has found.

Experiencing pain in the neck and lower back is common. In fact, lower back pain is globally the leading contributor to years lived with disability, and neck pain is the fourth, according to an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.

Low back pain is defined as acute when symptoms last for up to six weeks, and chronic when the pain lasts for more than 12 weeks, according to the North American Spine Society (PDF).

When it comes to treating this pain, physicians should cautiously limit patient use of opioids and restrict it to a short time period, the society's clinical guidelines state. Opioids for pain relief are recommended only once other pharmacological treatments haven't worked or if a person can't take them for personal reasons.

Despite these guidelines and "there being no evidence of their efficacy in reducing pain, opioid pain relievers are still widely prescribed for people with lower back and neck pain in many countries," said Christine Lin, a professor at the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Sydney in Australia, in a news release. Lin is the senior author of the latest study published Wednesday in the journal The Lancet.

Because of scarce research, the scientists studied the effectiveness and safety of using opioids to treat a small cohort of 310 people. The patients had sought help for neck or lower back pain from primary care clinics or hospitals in Sydney between February 2016 and March 2022. At the beginning of the study, participants were about age 44 on average and had experienced at least moderately painful neck or lower back pain or both for 12 weeks or less.

The study participants were then randomly split into two groups: One group took a combination of naloxone and up to 20 micrograms of the opioid oxycodone per day for six weeks. Naloxone was used to prevent constipation, a common side effect of opioids, and therefore keep participants from figuring out which group they were in. The other group was instructed to take a placebo pill.

Both groups were also given care tips from a doctor they were told to see weekly. The care involved the doctor reassuring them and advising them to stay active, avoid bed rest and, if required, avoid other treatments including nonopioids.

The authors found that in terms of effects on back and neck pain, opioids weren't any more helpful than the placebo. Six weeks into treatment, the average pain score was 2.78 in the opioid group and 2.25 in the placebo group, a difference that increased over time. More people in the opioid group had ongoing pain at weeks 26 and 52 than in the placebo group.

The authors also discovered that not only are opioids unlikely to alleviate back and neck pain, they also might cause harm even after short-term, sensible use.

The opioid group had worse mental health scores and more reports of nausea, dizziness and constipation than the placebo group. "We also know that being prescribed opioid pain relievers even for a short period of time increases the risk of opioid misuse long term," Lin said in a news release.

Opioids and pain

The study authors and experts who weren't involved in the new study have theories on why opioids weren't found to be more helpful than the placebo.

One possibility is that the back or neck pain of the opioid group could have had more underlying factors than the authors considered — factors that have been known to respond poorly to opioid treatment, experts said.

The pain treated might have been more chronic, recurring pain than the type caused by acute injury, according to a commentary on the study by Dr. Mark D. Sullivan and Dr. Jane C. Ballantyne, who weren't involved in the study. Sullivan is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, and Ballantyne is a retired professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine, at the University of Washington.

"Participants were only required to have 1-month pain-free before their current episode of spinal pain," Sullivan and Ballantyne wrote. "If many of these participants had recurrent pain, this might account for the non-response to opioid therapy. Low back pain has been reported to transform over a year."

Dr. John Finkenberg, a San Diego-based specialist in orthopedic spine surgery, said areas of pain in the neck and back sometimes need to be treated separately. He wasn't involved in the study.

"If somebody had both of these going on, they, quite frankly, will have a systemic-type issue going on, whether it be general arthritis or rheumatoid. So we have to be careful on the patients that come in with both," added Finkenberg, who is also president of the North American Spine Society.

The authors didn't collect data on what care the doctors offered in follow-up appointments, so they didn't have details on whether the patients followed any advice or its impact. Additionally, only 57% of participants reported the extent to which they complied with taking the medication as prescribed. Of those, just over half took more than 80% of their prescriptions.

Managing back and neck pain

Given the findings that opioids have no benefits but do carry risk of harm, the authors think opioids shouldn't be recommended for treatment of acute neck or lower back pain.

"Instead, doctors should be encouraged to focus on patient-centered approaches that could include advice to stay active, and simple pain relievers," Lin said in the news release. "The good news is most people with acute low back pain and neck pain recover within 6 weeks naturally."

The authors studied nonspecific back or neck pain, which is pain with an unknown cause. When doctors don't know the origin, Finkenberg contended that opioids should not be used as a first choice or a quick fix.

Helpful alternatives to opioids include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, also called NSAIDS — such as ibuprofen, naproxen and celecoxib. A combination of an NSAID and a prescription muscle relaxer has been found to reduce pain and disability within a week, according to a February study.

Range of motion exercises can also help. These include stretches to maintain or improve mobility.

People with these pains should also "use their body as the barometer," Finkenberg said. If you're doing an activity and your body feels uncomfortable, don't push through the pain. Doing so could increasingly inflame the area, causing more pain and harm.

If your pain and any weakness persist after three to four weeks, you "really need to go see a specialist because it's difficult to pick up these subtleties for why people have discomforts," Finkenberg said. "If the appropriate, advanced diagnostic tests are needed, it's better to get them earlier."

Source link

Mindfulness worked as well for anxiety as a drug, one study finds

cincylink — Sun, 25 Jun 2023 04:31:05 +0000

Mindfulness meditation worked as well as a standard drug for treating anxiety in the first head-to-head comparison.The study tested a widely used mindfulness program that includes 2 1/2 hours of classes weekly and 45 minutes of daily practice at home. Participants were randomly assigned to the program or daily use of a generic drug sold under the brand name Lexapro for depression and anxiety.After two months, anxiety as measured on a severity scale declined by about 30% in both groups and continued to decrease during the following four months. Study results, published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, are timely. In September, an influential U.S. health task force recommended routine anxiety screening for adults, and numerous reports suggest global anxiety rates have increased recently, related to worries over the pandemic, political and racial unrest, climate change and financial uncertainties.Anxiety disorders include social anxiety, generalized anxiety and panic attacks. Affected people are troubled by persistent and intrusive worries that interfere with their lives and relationships. In the U.S., anxiety disorders affect 40% of U.S. women at some point in their lives and more than 1 in 4 men, according to data cited in U.S. Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations.Mindfulness is a form of meditation that emphasizes focusing only on what's happening at the moment and dismissing intrusive thoughts. Sessions often start with breathing exercises. Next might be "body scans" — thinking about each body part systematically, head to toe. When worried thoughts intrude, participants learn to briefly acknowledge them but then dismiss them.Instead of ruminating over the troubling thought, "you say, 'I'm having this thought, let that go for now,''' said lead author Elizabeth Hoge, director of Georgetown University's Anxiety Disorders Research Program. With practice, "It changes the relationship people have with their own thoughts when not meditating." Previous studies have shown mindfulness works better than no treatment or at least as well as education or more formal behavior therapy in reducing anxiety, depression and other mental woes. But this is the first study to test it against a psychiatric drug, Hoge said, and the results could make insurers more likely to cover costs, which can run $300 to $500 for an 8-week session.The results were based on about 200 adults who completed the six-month study at medical centers in Washington, Boston and New York. Researchers used a psychiatric scale of 1 to 7, with the top number reflecting severe anxiety. The average score was about 4.5 for participants before starting treatment. It dropped to about 3 after two months, then dipped slightly in both groups at three months and six months. Hoge said the change was clinically meaningful, resulting in noticeable improvement in symptoms.Ten patients on the drug dropped out because of troublesome side effects possibly related to treatment, which included insomnia, nausea and fatigue. There were no dropouts for that reason in the mindfulness group, although 13 patients reported increased anxiety.The study "is reaffirming about how useful mindfulness can be when practiced effectively,'' said psychologist Sheehan Fisher, an associate professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine who was not involved in the study.Dr. Scott Krakower, a psychiatrist at Zucker Hillside Hospital in New York, said mindfulness treatments often work best for mildly anxious patients. He prescribes them with medication for patients with more severe anxiety.He noted that many people feel they don't have time for mindfulness meditation, especially in-person sessions like those studied. Whether similar results would be found with online training or phone apps is unknown, said Krakower, who also had no role in the study.Olga Cannistraro, a freelance writer in Keene, New Hampshire, participated in an earlier mindfulness study led by Hoge and says it taught her "to intervene in my own state of mind.''During a session, just acknowledging that she was feeling tension anywhere in her body helped calm her, she said. Cannistraro, 52, has generalized anxiety disorder and has never taken medication for it. She was a single mom working in sales during that earlier study — circumstances that made life particularly stressful, she said. She has since married, switched jobs, and feels less anxious though still uses mindfulness techniques.

Mindfulness meditation worked as well as a standard drug for treating anxiety in the first head-to-head comparison.

The study tested a widely used mindfulness program that includes 2 1/2 hours of classes weekly and 45 minutes of daily practice at home. Participants were randomly assigned to the program or daily use of a generic drug sold under the brand name Lexapro for depression and anxiety.

After two months, anxiety as measured on a severity scale declined by about 30% in both groups and continued to decrease during the following four months.

Study results, published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, are timely. In September, an influential U.S. health task force recommended routine anxiety screening for adults, and numerous reports suggest global anxiety rates have increased recently, related to worries over the pandemic, political and racial unrest, climate change and financial uncertainties.

Anxiety disorders include social anxiety, generalized anxiety and panic attacks. Affected people are troubled by persistent and intrusive worries that interfere with their lives and relationships. In the U.S., anxiety disorders affect 40% of U.S. women at some point in their lives and more than 1 in 4 men, according to data cited in U.S. Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations.

Mindfulness is a form of meditation that emphasizes focusing only on what's happening at the moment and dismissing intrusive thoughts. Sessions often start with breathing exercises. Next might be "body scans" — thinking about each body part systematically, head to toe. When worried thoughts intrude, participants learn to briefly acknowledge them but then dismiss them.

Instead of ruminating over the troubling thought, "you say, 'I'm having this thought, let that go for now,''' said lead author Elizabeth Hoge, director of Georgetown University's Anxiety Disorders Research Program. With practice, "It changes the relationship people have with their own thoughts when not meditating."

Previous studies have shown mindfulness works better than no treatment or at least as well as education or more formal behavior therapy in reducing anxiety, depression and other mental woes. But this is the first study to test it against a psychiatric drug, Hoge said, and the results could make insurers more likely to cover costs, which can run $300 to $500 for an 8-week session.

The results were based on about 200 adults who completed the six-month study at medical centers in Washington, Boston and New York. Researchers used a psychiatric scale of 1 to 7, with the top number reflecting severe anxiety. The average score was about 4.5 for participants before starting treatment. It dropped to about 3 after two months, then dipped slightly in both groups at three months and six months. Hoge said the change was clinically meaningful, resulting in noticeable improvement in symptoms.

Ten patients on the drug dropped out because of troublesome side effects possibly related to treatment, which included insomnia, nausea and fatigue. There were no dropouts for that reason in the mindfulness group, although 13 patients reported increased anxiety.

The study "is reaffirming about how useful mindfulness can be when practiced effectively,'' said psychologist Sheehan Fisher, an associate professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Scott Krakower, a psychiatrist at Zucker Hillside Hospital in New York, said mindfulness treatments often work best for mildly anxious patients. He prescribes them with medication for patients with more severe anxiety.

He noted that many people feel they don't have time for mindfulness meditation, especially in-person sessions like those studied. Whether similar results would be found with online training or phone apps is unknown, said Krakower, who also had no role in the study.

Olga Cannistraro, a freelance writer in Keene, New Hampshire, participated in an earlier mindfulness study led by Hoge and says it taught her "to intervene in my own state of mind.''

During a session, just acknowledging that she was feeling tension anywhere in her body helped calm her, she said.

Cannistraro, 52, has generalized anxiety disorder and has never taken medication for it. She was a single mom working in sales during that earlier study — circumstances that made life particularly stressful, she said. She has since married, switched jobs, and feels less anxious though still uses mindfulness techniques.

Source link

Researchers find dogs recognize people just by voice

cincylink — Sun, 20 Feb 2022 22:17:06 +0000

Researchers in Hungary say they've found that dogs can recognize their owners by their voice alone.

The dogs' owners were invited in on the study and were able to record their voices and use their voices in various parts of the study. The dogs had to choose from a distance and had to look for their owner who was hiding. The game lasted multiple rounds and the owner's voice was mixed in with the voices of 14 different strangers.

The study, done at Budapest's Eötvös Loránd University, found that after looking at 28 dogs, they determined that the animals were able to find their owner in 82% of cases.

A senior researcher at the Department of Ethology at Eötvös Loránd University told CNN, "Probably in a lot of cases dogs have to switch on their nose to find things and they don't just use it routinely all the time."

In the study it said, "Humans are highly skilled in extracting identity information from speech from an early age."

The study found that dogs have a high ability to recognize aspects of voice in humans, like pitch.

Tamás Faragó, a senior researcher at the Department of Ethology for the university said, "Of course, usually, the dogs meet in person with humans so that they can differentiate us by our looks, and also the smell, and they use all these things, but there are more and more research and technology going into this direction."

Source link

Could buying groceries online leave you missing key information? Here’s what one study found

cincylink — Thu, 20 Jan 2022 20:47:06 +0000

When COVID-19 broke out in the United States, one of the first corners of life that was upended was grocery shopping: The aisles stood bare as the public stocked up, and then people turned to online shopping to stay safe in their homes.But the transition online hasn't been seamless, according to a new study published Thursday.Packaged foods are required by federal regulations to have nutritional facts and ingredients available for consumers to review when they are shopping in brick-and-mortar grocery stores. But information for some products in many online grocery retailers was not listed anywhere, the study published in Public Health Nutrition found."I think it's a misconception that people don't read the food labels," said study co-author Jennifer Pomeranz, an assistant professor of public health policy and management at New York University School of Global Public Health. "People who have been diagnosed with a disease or told that they are at risk for disease, the elderly, people with children ... people with allergies. ... People read food labels for different reasons, and it's incredibly important for safety purposes."The study looked at 10 major national packaged products across nine online retailers at the start of 2021 and found that nutritional facts and ingredient lists were not included at all for almost 11% of products across retailers. In products that contained them, 63% did not disclose the presence of common food allergens, according to the study.The United States Food and Drug Administration specifies what information needs to be available to consumers. That includes serving sizes, calories, added sugars, allergens, ingredients, and daily values of sodium, sugar, carbohydrates, fats and protein."I would argue that not disclosing the nutrition facts panel and the ingredients list, including allergens, is an unfair or deceptive act," Pomeranz said.There is a limitation to the study in that the sample size is small, said Wendy White, industry manager for food and beverage at Georgia Institute of Technology, who was not affiliated with the study. White added that the small sample could limit the ability of the research to give an accurate look at the state of online nutritional information.Keeping up with COVID-19In a world where people are growing more conscientious about what is in their food, Pomeranz speculates that leaving out nutritional information is a strategy to sell packaged foods.But White thinks the issue is more logistical than strategic."The pandemic changed everything for everyone," White said. "It really expedited the growth of (online) sales in a way no one could have anticipated, and so all of a sudden this became a forefront issue."She added, "This is an excuse like any other, but I really do think with the pandemic a lot of retailers were caught unaware, and they really had to put together their online e-commerce platforms very, very quickly."For a company looking to get a lot of products to many people quickly, it's a lot easier to put a picture of the packaging online than it is to make sure all the information is easily accessible, White explained.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is responsible for regulating labeling practices, and though White said the agency has taken steps to address the online information gap, it may take time."I think, the FDA, they are definitely taking steps to correct this gap that we currently have in some types of online food sales, but unfortunately the speed at which the FDA can create and then enforce regulations is notably slow," she said.In the past, the FDA has recommended that online nutritional information be similar to its in-store counterpart, but "we acknowledge that most of our labeling requirements pre-date online sales practices," said FDA spokesperson Courtney Rhodes. The agency has been learning more about online labeling to inform recommendations and discussed the issue at an E-Commerce Summit in October."The FDA anticipates engaging further with stakeholders on the issue to inform next steps," Rhodes said.People need to knowWhether for an allergy, diabetes, hypertension or even just being mindful of health, White said many people are cautious about what they eat."Understanding what is in a product, especially a formulated product, is vital to a lot of consumers out there," White said.The U.S. has rules and regulations about how companies disclose nutritional information, which shows both what ingredients are in the food and how much of potentially harmful elements like sodium and sugar are in a serving."The American consumer has become very used to being able to access this information very easily. They're used to going to the supermarket, picking up that can, looking at the label and understanding exactly what is in that product," White said.While policy on a national level might be slow going, the public can promote transparency from online grocery retailers with where they choose to spend their money, Pomeranz said."Online retailers have the ability to track our purchases and what we search for online, so it's important for people to know that they're not shopping on a blank slate," she said. "With that knowledge, it's worth looking around for retailers who do provide the information."Pomeranz added, "It's becoming even more of a hot topic for younger consumers, and so obviously they may have a lot of spending power. So, it would be worth it for retailers to compete on that transparency aspect."

When COVID-19 broke out in the United States, one of the first corners of life that was upended was grocery shopping: The aisles stood bare as the public stocked up, and then people turned to online shopping to stay safe in their homes.

But the transition online hasn't been seamless, according to a new study published Thursday.

Packaged foods are required by federal regulations to have nutritional facts and ingredients available for consumers to review when they are shopping in brick-and-mortar grocery stores. But information for some products in many online grocery retailers was not listed anywhere, the study published in Public Health Nutrition found.

"I think it's a misconception that people don't read the food labels," said study co-author Jennifer Pomeranz, an assistant professor of public health policy and management at New York University School of Global Public Health. "People who have been diagnosed with a disease or told that they are at risk for disease, the elderly, people with children ... people with allergies. ... People read food labels for different reasons, and it's incredibly important for safety purposes."

The study looked at 10 major national packaged products across nine online retailers at the start of 2021 and found that nutritional facts and ingredient lists were not included at all for almost 11% of products across retailers. In products that contained them, 63% did not disclose the presence of common food allergens, according to the study.

The United States Food and Drug Administration specifies what information needs to be available to consumers. That includes serving sizes, calories, added sugars, allergens, ingredients, and daily values of sodium, sugar, carbohydrates, fats and protein.

"I would argue that not disclosing the nutrition facts panel and the ingredients list, including allergens, is an unfair or deceptive act," Pomeranz said.

There is a limitation to the study in that the sample size is small, said Wendy White, industry manager for food and beverage at Georgia Institute of Technology, who was not affiliated with the study. White added that the small sample could limit the ability of the research to give an accurate look at the state of online nutritional information.

Keeping up with COVID-19

In a world where people are growing more conscientious about what is in their food, Pomeranz speculates that leaving out nutritional information is a strategy to sell packaged foods.

But White thinks the issue is more logistical than strategic.

"The pandemic changed everything for everyone," White said. "It really expedited the growth of (online) sales in a way no one could have anticipated, and so all of a sudden this became a forefront issue."

She added, "This is an excuse like any other, but I really do think with the pandemic a lot of retailers were caught unaware, and they really had to put together their online e-commerce platforms very, very quickly."

For a company looking to get a lot of products to many people quickly, it's a lot easier to put a picture of the packaging online than it is to make sure all the information is easily accessible, White explained.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is responsible for regulating labeling practices, and though White said the agency has taken steps to address the online information gap, it may take time.

"I think, the FDA, they are definitely taking steps to correct this gap that we currently have in some types of online food sales, but unfortunately the speed at which the FDA can create and then enforce regulations is notably slow," she said.

In the past, the FDA has recommended that online nutritional information be similar to its in-store counterpart, but "we acknowledge that most of our labeling requirements pre-date online sales practices," said FDA spokesperson Courtney Rhodes. The agency has been learning more about online labeling to inform recommendations and discussed the issue at an E-Commerce Summit in October.

"The FDA anticipates engaging further with stakeholders on the issue to inform next steps," Rhodes said.

People need to know

Whether for an allergy, diabetes, hypertension or even just being mindful of health, White said many people are cautious about what they eat.

"Understanding what is in a product, especially a formulated product, is vital to a lot of consumers out there," White said.

The U.S. has rules and regulations about how companies disclose nutritional information, which shows both what ingredients are in the food and how much of potentially harmful elements like sodium and sugar are in a serving.

"The American consumer has become very used to being able to access this information very easily. They're used to going to the supermarket, picking up that can, looking at the label and understanding exactly what is in that product," White said.

While policy on a national level might be slow going, the public can promote transparency from online grocery retailers with where they choose to spend their money, Pomeranz said.

"Online retailers have the ability to track our purchases and what we search for online, so it's important for people to know that they're not shopping on a blank slate," she said. "With that knowledge, it's worth looking around for retailers who do provide the information."

Pomeranz added, "It's becoming even more of a hot topic for younger consumers, and so obviously they may have a lot of spending power. So, it would be worth it for retailers to compete on that transparency aspect."

Source link

Kids infected at day care spread coronavirus at home

cincylink — Sun, 17 Oct 2021 04:59:33 +0000

NEW YORK (AP) — A new report underscores that kids can bring the new coronavirus home from day care and infect relatives.

The study released Friday comes from researchers in Utah and at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It focused on three outbreaks in Salt Lake City child care facilities between April and July. The study concluded 12 children caught the coronavirus at the facilities.

They then spread it to at least 12 of the 46 parents or siblings that they came in contact at home.

Scientists already know children can spread the virus. One infectious diseases researcher says the study “definitively indicates — in a way that previous studies have struggled to do — the potential for transmission to family members,” said William Hanage, a Harvard University infectious diseases researcher.

The findings don’t mean that schools and child-care programs need to close, but it does confirm that the virus can spread within those places and then be brought home by kids.

So, masks, disinfection and social distancing are needed. And people who work in such facilities have to be careful and get tested if they think they may be infected, experts said.

Source link

Unvaccinated adults are 11 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than those vaccinated, CDC data shows

cincylink — Sat, 16 Oct 2021 04:08:10 +0000

Throughout August, the risk of dying from COVID-19 was 11 times higher for unvaccinated adults than for fully vaccinated adults in the United States, according to new data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Unvaccinated adults faced a six times higher risk of testing positive for COVID-19 throughout the month, and in the last week of August, the risk of being hospitalized was nearly 19 times higher for unvaccinated adults than fully vaccinated adults.Related video above: FDA panel endorses booster for Johnson & Johnson vaccineSome states and local jurisdictions have recently started publishing COVID-19 case, death and hospitalization rates by vaccination status on their own dashboards, and the CDC has been working with health departments to link case surveillance data with immunization information systems for their own analysis.While the CDC analysis is not fully comprehensive, the data published late Thursday is the first federal look at COVID-19 risks by vaccination status made publicly available with plans for regular updates.Case data by vaccination status is available from 14 states in all regions of the United States, as well as New York City and Seattle's King County, representing about 30% of the total U.S. population. Death data is available from all but one of those jurisdictions, and hospitalization data is from a different set of 13 states.The CDC data shows that the risk of death from COVID-19 for unvaccinated adults has dipped in recent weeks as the pace of new cases drops across the country. By the last week of August, COVID-19 death rates among unvaccinated adults were about 30% lower than they were in the first week of the month, dropping from an incidence rate of 13 deaths per 100,000 people to about 9 deaths per 100,000 people.But since April, the risk for fully vaccinated adults has never been higher than 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people.Last week, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky noted that there are still pockets of unvaccinated people in the U.S. who are not protected against the virus."The virus isn't stupid," she said. "It's going to go there."While the risk of cases and deaths have dropped, the CDC data also shows that the rate of hospitalizations among unvaccinated adults has continued to climb, up more than 80% from the first week in August to the last.Risk ratios vary by age group. For example, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations among adults under the age of 50 is about 15 times higher for unvaccinated people than for fully vaccinated people. For those aged 50 to 64, the hospitalization rate is 31 times higher for unvaccinated people, and for those aged 65 and older, the hospitalization rate is 16 times higher for unvaccinated people."Getting vaccinated for COVID-19 reduces the risk of getting COVID-19 and helps protect you from severe illness even if you do get COVID-19," according to the CDC. The agency is leading studies to continue to monitor vaccine effectiveness and breakthrough cases over time.A Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis from Wednesday estimates that there were more than 90,000 preventable COVID-19 deaths among unvaccinated adults over the past three months, with more than half of them occurring in September alone.After falling to the seventh leading cause of death in July, COVID-19 surged back to the second leading cause of death in September, according to KFF. Only heart disease killed more people than COVID-19 in the U.S. in September, and COVID-19 was the top cause of death for adults age 35 to 54 in both August and September."With the rapid uptake in vaccinations in the months when vaccines first became widely available, COVID-19 deaths fell sharply," according to KFF. "However, with the more infectious COVID-19 Delta variant, insufficient vaccination rates, and local and state governments easing up social distancing restrictions, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths increased again."

Throughout August, the risk of dying from COVID-19 was 11 times higher for unvaccinated adults than for fully vaccinated adults in the United States, according to new data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Unvaccinated adults faced a six times higher risk of testing positive for COVID-19 throughout the month, and in the last week of August, the risk of being hospitalized was nearly 19 times higher for unvaccinated adults than fully vaccinated adults.

Related video above: FDA panel endorses booster for Johnson & Johnson vaccine

Some states and local jurisdictions have recently started publishing COVID-19 case, death and hospitalization rates by vaccination status on their own dashboards, and the CDC has been working with health departments to link case surveillance data with immunization information systems for their own analysis.

While the CDC analysis is not fully comprehensive, the data published late Thursday is the first federal look at COVID-19 risks by vaccination status made publicly available with plans for regular updates.

Case data by vaccination status is available from 14 states in all regions of the United States, as well as New York City and Seattle's King County, representing about 30% of the total U.S. population. Death data is available from all but one of those jurisdictions, and hospitalization data is from a different set of 13 states.

The CDC data shows that the risk of death from COVID-19 for unvaccinated adults has dipped in recent weeks as the pace of new cases drops across the country. By the last week of August, COVID-19 death rates among unvaccinated adults were about 30% lower than they were in the first week of the month, dropping from an incidence rate of 13 deaths per 100,000 people to about 9 deaths per 100,000 people.

But since April, the risk for fully vaccinated adults has never been higher than 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people.

Last week, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky noted that there are still pockets of unvaccinated people in the U.S. who are not protected against the virus.

"The virus isn't stupid," she said. "It's going to go there."

While the risk of cases and deaths have dropped, the CDC data also shows that the rate of hospitalizations among unvaccinated adults has continued to climb, up more than 80% from the first week in August to the last.

Risk ratios vary by age group. For example, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations among adults under the age of 50 is about 15 times higher for unvaccinated people than for fully vaccinated people. For those aged 50 to 64, the hospitalization rate is 31 times higher for unvaccinated people, and for those aged 65 and older, the hospitalization rate is 16 times higher for unvaccinated people.

"Getting vaccinated for COVID-19 reduces the risk of getting COVID-19 and helps protect you from severe illness even if you do get COVID-19," according to the CDC. The agency is leading studies to continue to monitor vaccine effectiveness and breakthrough cases over time.

A Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis from Wednesday estimates that there were more than 90,000 preventable COVID-19 deaths among unvaccinated adults over the past three months, with more than half of them occurring in September alone.

After falling to the seventh leading cause of death in July, COVID-19 surged back to the second leading cause of death in September, according to KFF. Only heart disease killed more people than COVID-19 in the U.S. in September, and COVID-19 was the top cause of death for adults age 35 to 54 in both August and September.

"With the rapid uptake in vaccinations in the months when vaccines first became widely available, COVID-19 deaths fell sharply," according to KFF. "However, with the more infectious COVID-19 Delta variant, insufficient vaccination rates, and local and state governments easing up social distancing restrictions, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths increased again."

Source link

New study suggests COVID-19 antibodies might protect from reinfection for at least 6 months

cincylink — Sat, 09 Oct 2021 04:57:33 +0000

A recent study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that antibodies might protect people who've already had COVID-19 from being reinfected for at least six months.

Researchers looked at 12,541 healthcare workers at Oxford University Hospitals in the United Kingdom and were followed for up to 31 weeks.

In the study, researchers investigated the incidences of COVID-19 infection by conducting polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests on the healthcare workers who had tested positive and negative, including both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases.

The study results showed that 11,364 did not have antibody levels, and 1,265 had positive results, which also included 88 healthcare workers in whom seroconversion occurred during follow-up. A total of 223 anti-spike–negative health care workers had a positive PCR test (1.09 per 10,000 days at risk), up to 100 during screening were found to be asymptomatic, and 123 were to have symptoms, the study found.

Researchers said that individuals who had anti-spike antibodies had no symptomatic infections.

Source link

Stopping your antidepressant may lead to relapse, according to a new study. Here’s what to do

cincylink — Sat, 02 Oct 2021 04:19:41 +0000

Over half of people with chronic depression who attempted to stop their antidepressant medication relapsed into depression by the end of a year, compared to those who did not stop medicating, according to a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial released Wednesday.The research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that "quality-of-life measures and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and medication withdrawal were generally worse in patients who discontinued their antidepressant therapy."Interestingly, the study did find a small percentage of people were able to successfully stop their antidepressant without having another depressive episode."Some people can stop their medication without relapse, although at present, we cannot identify who those people are," said coauthor Gemma Lewis, a professor of psychiatric epidemiology at University College London."I think we can be very cheered by the findings," said coauthor Dr. Tony Kendrick, a professor of primary care at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom."This is really good evidence to support a patient's own decisions — in discussion with their doctor or other prescriber — about whether they should continue antidepressants or not," Kendrick said. "Both courses of action are reasonable."Antidepressants for life?When people slip into depression for the first time, current practice is to continue antidepressants between four to nine months after remission of their depression, said Dr. Jonathan Alpert, chair of the American Psychiatric Association's Council on Research, who was not involved in the study.Remission is defined as a two-month period with no signs of major depression such as sadness and a reduced interest or pleasure in life."In my own practice, if the patient has a first episode of depression, and particularly if it was triggered by a life event — death of a loved one, failed business — then I try my best to get patients into remission (and) then I treat for a minimum of six months after they achieve remission," said Dr. Jeffrey Jackson, a professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, who studies depression."If they stay in remission for those six months, then we can consider slowly tapering off the antidepressants — with the person carefully monitoring their own depressive symptoms," Jackson added. Jackson, who was not involved in the study, wrote an accompanying editorial published in NEJM.Unfortunately, the danger of another bout of depression later in life is high, said Alpert, who is also the chair of psychiatry at Montefiore Health System in the Bronx."If one has had one episode of depression, the chances of a second episode sometime during one's lifetime is 50%," he said. "If somebody has already had two depressions, the chances of a third are even higher — over 75% of people who have had two or more depressions will have another."Science has long known that people with recurrent depression have the most difficulty coming off antidepressants and the most likelihood of relapse when they do, Alpert added."For patients who have had three or more depressive episodes, I generally plan to treat them for life," Jackson said.Addressing out-of-date researchMuch of the research done on long-term effectiveness of antidepressants is old and limited, so the study was designed to fill that gap in knowledge, the study authors said."Many people are taking long-term antidepressants, and the evidence to advise them whether to continue maintenance or discontinue is poor," Lewis said.The study recruited 478 people from 150 primary care practices in the U.K. Each person had experienced at least two depressive episodes or had been on antidepressant medication for two years or more. All felt well enough to stop taking their medication."This is the largest study that's been done in a real-world primary care setting," said Alpert."That's important because most patients with depression are managed by their primary care provider," Jackson said. "Most primary care providers only refer to psychiatrists if the patients are suicidal, homicidal, psychotic, bipolar or not responding to therapy."Only people taking maintenance dosages of four antidepressants were included in the study: citalopram (Celexa), fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), and mirtazapine (Remeron). Other popular antidepressants, such as escitalopram (Lexapro), were not included due to the greater likelihood of severe withdrawal symptoms, the authors said.All medications and the lactose placebo in the study were packaged identically in unmarked bottles so that both patients and researchers were blinded to the contents.Half of the group was given reduced dosages of their antidepressant over a two-month period; by the beginning of the third month, all were taking placebo. The other half of the group continued to take their normal dose of antidepressant.At the end of 52 weeks of follow-up, 56% of the people who had been weaned off their antidepressant had relapsed into depression, compared to 39% of the people who continued their medications."The patients who stopped their antidepressants experienced a relapse sooner than the patients who stayed on their antidepressants," Lewis said.Symptoms of depression and anxiety were higher in the group who discontinued their medications as well, she added. But could those have been withdrawal symptoms instead?"It's not always that easy to tell," Kendrick said. "If somebody's starting to get anxious, if they're starting to have sleep disturbances or are starting to feel low. Is that depression coming back? Or is it withdrawal symptoms?"Regardless of the source of the symptoms, a number of people exited the trial even though they did not know if they were on medication or placebo."It was clear that they voted with their feet," Alpert said. "When they weren't doing as well, they were more likely to drop out of the trial and more likely to resume medications."Long-term useThe study results did provide some insight into the benefits of long-term use of antidepressants, Kendrick said."It's reassuring to know that antidepressants people are taking long term do seem to be benefiting them, and this is not something that they're taking unnecessarily," he said.There are side effects to many medications, such as weight gain and sexual dysfunction, "so we try to choose antidepressants and adjust the dose for a given person that they tolerate the best and have the fewest side effects," Alpert said."However, to the very best we know, there are no long-term consequences, such as increased risk of cancer, stroke, heart disease or liver problems by virtue of being on antidepressants," he added.If you do decide to taper, do it slowly and add psychological therapy, which studies have shown "can help prevent the risk of relapse," Kendrick added."The latest guidelines are suggesting that you should take some weeks to come off antidepressants," he said. "If you're getting withdrawal symptoms and finding it difficult, you might need to take months to come off them."What else can be done?Antidepressants are, of course, not the only treatment for depression. There are many things people can do to improve their depressive symptoms while on medication or reduce the likelihood of a relapse once weaned off an antidepressant, Alpert said.Physical activity is key. "It looks like even relatively moderate amounts of activity, like a brisk walk several times a week, can help in the treatment of depression and also help in relapse prevention," he said.Social connections are important, too. Making an effort not to be isolated, by reaching out to others for social support, makes a difference, as do activities that are meaningful and rewarding, Alpert said."Community activities, volunteer activities, seem to be important in helping with depression," he said. "When people are pursuing goals that are meaningful to them, that's also helpful."Evidence-based psychotherapy works. "People who opt to taper off their medications have a greater chance at staying well if they're pursuing certain forms of psychotherapy that have been shown in studies to be effective," Alpert said.Cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT, has been widely studied and considered to be comparable in effectiveness to antidepressants for depression. It's often used in conjunction with medication for people whose symptoms do not improve on antidepressants alone.The therapy focuses on a person's thought process, attempting to interrupt false or negative thoughts about oneself and others that can lead to a depressive mood. Instead, people are encouraged to substitute healthier, more positive thoughts, which can improve self-image and behavior."It's not quite like lying on the couch and free associating," Alpert said. "There's specifics like homework assignments and skills that people acquire."Acceptance and commitment therapy, or ACT, uses a similar approach, Alpert said, with more of a focus on accepting negative thoughts and discarding them."Rather than changing your thoughts, you accept the idea that they're just thoughts, they're not the same as reality, and they are not who I am," Alpert explained. "Realizing that thoughts like 'I'm not good enough' and so on are just thoughts, and learning how to push those thoughts away."Interpersonal psychotherapy or IPT, focuses on changes in one's life that has to do with interpersonal relationships, Alpert said."Interpersonal therapy has to do a lot with relationships like losses or transitions in one's role with others ... and then working on those, like how can you go ahead with a life worth living and adapt to or will make the best of those transitions," he said.Therapists will often tell patients about the different approaches, as one may be a "better match to where they are in their lives and the things that they're dealing with," he added. "There are many things that people can do in addition to medications."

Over half of people with chronic depression who attempted to stop their antidepressant medication relapsed into depression by the end of a year, compared to those who did not stop medicating, according to a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial released Wednesday.

The research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that "quality-of-life measures and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and medication withdrawal were generally worse in patients who discontinued their antidepressant therapy."

Interestingly, the study did find a small percentage of people were able to successfully stop their antidepressant without having another depressive episode.

"Some people can stop their medication without relapse, although at present, we cannot identify who those people are," said coauthor Gemma Lewis, a professor of psychiatric epidemiology at University College London.

"I think we can be very cheered by the findings," said coauthor Dr. Tony Kendrick, a professor of primary care at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom.

"This is really good evidence to support a patient's own decisions — in discussion with their doctor or other prescriber — about whether they should continue antidepressants or not," Kendrick said. "Both courses of action are reasonable."

Antidepressants for life?

When people slip into depression for the first time, current practice is to continue antidepressants between four to nine months after remission of their depression, said Dr. Jonathan Alpert, chair of the American Psychiatric Association's Council on Research, who was not involved in the study.

Remission is defined as a two-month period with no signs of major depression such as sadness and a reduced interest or pleasure in life.

"In my own practice, if the patient has a first episode of depression, and particularly if it was triggered by a life event — death of a loved one, failed business — then I try my best to get patients into remission (and) then I treat for a minimum of six months after they achieve remission," said Dr. Jeffrey Jackson, a professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, who studies depression.

"If they stay in remission for those six months, then we can consider slowly tapering off the antidepressants — with the person carefully monitoring their own depressive symptoms," Jackson added. Jackson, who was not involved in the study, wrote an accompanying editorial published in NEJM.

Unfortunately, the danger of another bout of depression later in life is high, said Alpert, who is also the chair of psychiatry at Montefiore Health System in the Bronx.

"If one has had one episode of depression, the chances of a second episode sometime during one's lifetime is 50%," he said. "If somebody has already had two depressions, the chances of a third are even higher — over 75% of people who have had two or more depressions will have another."

Science has long known that people with recurrent depression have the most difficulty coming off antidepressants and the most likelihood of relapse when they do, Alpert added.

"For patients who have had three or more depressive episodes, I generally plan to treat them for life," Jackson said.

Addressing out-of-date research

Much of the research done on long-term effectiveness of antidepressants is old and limited, so the study was designed to fill that gap in knowledge, the study authors said.

"Many people are taking long-term antidepressants, and the evidence to advise them whether to continue maintenance or discontinue is poor," Lewis said.

The study recruited 478 people from 150 primary care practices in the U.K. Each person had experienced at least two depressive episodes or had been on antidepressant medication for two years or more. All felt well enough to stop taking their medication.

"This is the largest study that's been done in a real-world primary care setting," said Alpert.

"That's important because most patients with depression are managed by their primary care provider," Jackson said. "Most primary care providers only refer to psychiatrists if the patients are suicidal, homicidal, psychotic, bipolar or not responding to therapy."

Only people taking maintenance dosages of four antidepressants were included in the study: citalopram (Celexa), fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), and mirtazapine (Remeron). Other popular antidepressants, such as escitalopram (Lexapro), were not included due to the greater likelihood of severe withdrawal symptoms, the authors said.

All medications and the lactose placebo in the study were packaged identically in unmarked bottles so that both patients and researchers were blinded to the contents.

Half of the group was given reduced dosages of their antidepressant over a two-month period; by the beginning of the third month, all were taking placebo. The other half of the group continued to take their normal dose of antidepressant.

At the end of 52 weeks of follow-up, 56% of the people who had been weaned off their antidepressant had relapsed into depression, compared to 39% of the people who continued their medications.

"The patients who stopped their antidepressants experienced a relapse sooner than the patients who stayed on their antidepressants," Lewis said.

Symptoms of depression and anxiety were higher in the group who discontinued their medications as well, she added. But could those have been withdrawal symptoms instead?

"It's not always that easy to tell," Kendrick said. "If somebody's starting to get anxious, if they're starting to have sleep disturbances or are starting to feel low. Is that depression coming back? Or is it withdrawal symptoms?"

Regardless of the source of the symptoms, a number of people exited the trial even though they did not know if they were on medication or placebo.

"It was clear that they voted with their feet," Alpert said. "When they weren't doing as well, they were more likely to drop out of the trial and more likely to resume medications."

Long-term use

The study results did provide some insight into the benefits of long-term use of antidepressants, Kendrick said.

"It's reassuring to know that antidepressants people are taking long term do seem to be benefiting them, and this is not something that they're taking unnecessarily," he said.

There are side effects to many medications, such as weight gain and sexual dysfunction, "so we try to choose antidepressants and adjust the dose for a given person that they tolerate the best and have the fewest side effects," Alpert said.

"However, to the very best we know, there are no long-term consequences, such as increased risk of cancer, stroke, heart disease or liver problems by virtue of being on antidepressants," he added.

If you do decide to taper, do it slowly and add psychological therapy, which studies have shown "can help prevent the risk of relapse," Kendrick added.

"The latest guidelines are suggesting that you should take some weeks to come off antidepressants," he said. "If you're getting withdrawal symptoms and finding it difficult, you might need to take months to come off them."

What else can be done?

Antidepressants are, of course, not the only treatment for depression. There are many things people can do to improve their depressive symptoms while on medication or reduce the likelihood of a relapse once weaned off an antidepressant, Alpert said.

Physical activity is key. "It looks like even relatively moderate amounts of activity, like a brisk walk several times a week, can help in the treatment of depression and also help in relapse prevention," he said.

Social connections are important, too. Making an effort not to be isolated, by reaching out to others for social support, makes a difference, as do activities that are meaningful and rewarding, Alpert said.

"Community activities, volunteer activities, seem to be important in helping with depression," he said. "When people are pursuing goals that are meaningful to them, that's also helpful."

Evidence-based psychotherapy works. "People who opt to taper off their medications have a greater chance at staying well if they're pursuing certain forms of psychotherapy that have been shown in studies to be effective," Alpert said.

Cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT, has been widely studied and considered to be comparable in effectiveness to antidepressants for depression. It's often used in conjunction with medication for people whose symptoms do not improve on antidepressants alone.

The therapy focuses on a person's thought process, attempting to interrupt false or negative thoughts about oneself and others that can lead to a depressive mood. Instead, people are encouraged to substitute healthier, more positive thoughts, which can improve self-image and behavior.

"It's not quite like lying on the couch and free associating," Alpert said. "There's specifics like homework assignments and skills that people acquire."

Acceptance and commitment therapy, or ACT, uses a similar approach, Alpert said, with more of a focus on accepting negative thoughts and discarding them.

"Rather than changing your thoughts, you accept the idea that they're just thoughts, they're not the same as reality, and they are not who I am," Alpert explained. "Realizing that thoughts like 'I'm not good enough' and so on are just thoughts, and learning how to push those thoughts away."

Interpersonal psychotherapy or IPT, focuses on changes in one's life that has to do with interpersonal relationships, Alpert said.

"Interpersonal therapy has to do a lot with relationships like losses or transitions in one's role with others ... and then working on those, like how can you go ahead with a life worth living and adapt to or will make the best of those transitions," he said.

Therapists will often tell patients about the different approaches, as one may be a "better match to where they are in their lives and the things that they're dealing with," he added. "There are many things that people can do in addition to medications."

Source link

Lifting more weights could work wonders for your sleep quality, new study suggests

cincylink — Thu, 30 Sep 2021 05:38:38 +0000

don't fret. You're more than likely picked up some bad winter slumber habits. But springs here and we're here to help. Here are some ways to improve your sleeping habits First tip Set rigid bed and wake up times. Your brain can only produce 6 to 8 hours of quality sleep. Sleeping in has the potential to cause mood swings, low energy levels and even effect critical thinking according to ink. Going outdoors and exposing yourself to sunlight helps reset your internal clock. The goal is to expose yourself to natural outdoor light for 15 to 60 minutes per day, so you can be in good mental shape. Combat time Mayo Clinic suggests physical activity promotes a good night's rest, however avoided close to bedtime as it may take some time to wind down before you can sleep. Also, be aware of your diet. Too much caffeine or eating right before bedtime will fragment your sleep. It takes a few hours for caffeine toe wear off or to digest food, and will more than likely provide discomfort throughout the night.

Lifting more weights could work wonders for your sleep quality, new study suggests

Updated: 9:07 AM EST Jan 2, 2021

It’s all too easy to get stuck in a cycle of not being able to fall asleep at night — or struggling to stay asleep — and then feeling groggy the next morning. In fact, 1 in 4 Americans experience insomnia each year and 70 million Americans suffer from some sort of sleep disorder. So, if you’re struggling with sleep issues, you’re definitely not alone. However, the takeaway from a new study in Preventive Medicine Reports says that adding some strength training into your routine during the day can actually help improve your quality of sleep. Researchers looked at over 23,000 adults in Germany, collecting data on their weekly frequency of resistance exercise and sleep quality. They found that any muscle-strengthening done during a typical week was associated with a reduced prevalence of sleep rated as “poor” or “very poor.” These associations remained after adjusting for other factors like high body mass index, chronic disease, age, and smoking.Also, there was no evidence of a dose-dependent relationship, which means more was not necessarily better. Those who did resistance training just once a week had a similar, favorable association in sleep quality to those who did this type of training more often, even those who strength-trained five times a week.“There is strong scientific evidence that exercise is associated with better sleep quality, but most of that evidence is based solely on aerobic exercise,” lead study author Jason Bennie, Ph.D., associate professor in physical activity epidemiology at University of Southern Queensland in Australia, said. “Our study was the first to describe the associations between muscle-strengthening exercise and sleep quality, especially among a large population sample.” One limitation to the study is that the study’s results were based on participants self-reporting the amount of strength training they did, which is much less precise than direct observation. But even if participants in this research were overestimating, the fact is that resistance training on a regular basis still helps in a breadth of ways, including helping you get more, better sleep, according to W. Chris Winter, M.D., president of Charlottesville Neurology and Sleep Medicine, and author of The Sleep Solution. “Compared to lighter exercise like a leisurely run, strength training tends to create a bigger surge of adenosine,” he said.Adenosine is a molecule that, when broken down during the digestive process, becomes adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is responsible for intercellular energy exchange. When ATP is naturally depleted through activity, it breaks back down into adenosine and at that point, tends to cause drowsiness. Having a larger amount of adenosine through strength training can streamline this process and create more of a drive to sleep, said Winter.Other potential explanations, said Bennie, are enhanced glucose and lipid metabolism, reduced high blood pressure, and fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression — which all are likely to be beneficial for sleep quality. “The bottom line is that exercise impacts sleep, and this study is good reinforcement of that message,” Winter said.

It’s all too easy to get stuck in a cycle of not being able to fall asleep at night — or struggling to stay asleep — and then feeling groggy the next morning. In fact, 1 in 4 Americans experience insomnia each year and 70 million Americans suffer from some sort of sleep disorder. So, if you’re struggling with sleep issues, you’re definitely not alone.

However, the takeaway from a new study in Preventive Medicine Reports says that adding some strength training into your routine during the day can actually help improve your quality of sleep.

Researchers looked at over 23,000 adults in Germany, collecting data on their weekly frequency of resistance exercise and sleep quality. They found that any muscle-strengthening done during a typical week was associated with a reduced prevalence of sleep rated as “poor” or “very poor.” These associations remained after adjusting for other factors like high body mass index, chronic disease, age, and smoking.

Also, there was no evidence of a dose-dependent relationship, which means more was not necessarily better. Those who did resistance training just once a week had a similar, favorable association in sleep quality to those who did this type of training more often, even those who strength-trained five times a week.

“There is strong scientific evidence that exercise is associated with better sleep quality, but most of that evidence is based solely on aerobic exercise,” lead study author Jason Bennie, Ph.D., associate professor in physical activity epidemiology at University of Southern Queensland in Australia, said. “Our study was the first to describe the associations between muscle-strengthening exercise and sleep quality, especially among a large population sample.”

One limitation to the study is that the study’s results were based on participants self-reporting the amount of strength training they did, which is much less precise than direct observation.

But even if participants in this research were overestimating, the fact is that resistance training on a regular basis still helps in a breadth of ways, including helping you get more, better sleep, according to W. Chris Winter, M.D., president of Charlottesville Neurology and Sleep Medicine, and author of The Sleep Solution.

“Compared to lighter exercise like a leisurely run, strength training tends to create a bigger surge of adenosine,” he said.

Adenosine is a molecule that, when broken down during the digestive process, becomes adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is responsible for intercellular energy exchange. When ATP is naturally depleted through activity, it breaks back down into adenosine and at that point, tends to cause drowsiness.

Having a larger amount of adenosine through strength training can streamline this process and create more of a drive to sleep, said Winter.

Other potential explanations, said Bennie, are enhanced glucose and lipid metabolism, reduced high blood pressure, and fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression — which all are likely to be beneficial for sleep quality.

“The bottom line is that exercise impacts sleep, and this study is good reinforcement of that message,” Winter said.

Source link

Sexual assault tied to later brain damage in women, study says

cincylink — Thu, 23 Sep 2021 04:18:53 +0000

Video above: Six women share how #MeToo changed their livesWomen who have been sexually assaulted have a higher risk of developing a type of brain damage that has been linked to cognitive decline, dementia and stroke, a new study found."It could be either childhood sexual abuse or adult sexual assault," said study author Rebecca Thurston, a professor and director of the Women's Biobehavioral Health Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health."Based upon population data, most women have their sexual assaults when they are in early adolescence and early adulthood," she added, "so these are likely early experiences that we're seeing the marks of later in life."Physical manifestationsThe new study, presented Thursday at the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society, adds to a growing body of research on the long-term impact of sexual assault on the body and the mind."We need to keep our attention on this issue of sexual violence against women and not let it fall off the radar screen of society, because it continues to be a major women's health issue," Thurston said.Prior studies have found sexual trauma to be linked to higher levels of triglycerides and blood pressure in midlife, and a three-fold greater risk of developing carotid plaque, all key risk factors for heart disease.In addition, a 2018 study Thurston conducted found women who reported prior sexual assault were three times more likely to experience depression and twice as likely to have elevated anxiety and insomnia than women without a history of sexual trauma.Depression, anxiety and sleep disorders are all linked to poorer health outcomes, including heart disease, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.CDC statistics also show more than 1 in 3 women in the U.S. (and 1 in 4 men) experience sexual assault at least once in their lifetimes. Considering the widespread impact, Thurston said physicians should be asking their patients about any prior sexual trauma, and then carefully monitoring the woman's cardiovascular risk as she ages. Women who have been sexually traumatized should also feel empowered to speak up and tell their doctors, she added."Absolutely share this information with your health care providers," Thurston said. "This is not your fault, so please share what you are comfortable with disclosing. It's important information that has implications for your physical health and your emotional well-being."Looking at the brainThe new study, which will publish soon in the journal Brain Imaging and Behavior, looked for signs of white matter hyperintensities in the brain scans of 145 midlife women with no prior history of cardiovascular disease, stroke or dementia. However, 68% of participants had experienced trauma, and for 23% of the women, that trauma was sexual assault.White matter hyperintensities, which show up as small spots of white on MRIs, are markers of disruptions in blood flow that have left damage in the brain."Using brain imaging, we found that women with a history of sexual assault have greater white matter hyperintensities in the brain, which is an indicator of small vessel disease that has been linked to stroke, dementia, cognitive decline and mortality," Thurston said.The study controlled for other diseases and conditions that would affect the development of white matter hyperintensities, such as age, hypertension, smoking and diabetes. The study also controlled for emotional disorders, including depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms.The increase in white matter hyperintensities "wasn't explained by these subjective symptoms of distress," Thurston said. "It's almost like your body has a memory that may not be fully manifesting through psychological symptoms. The sexual assault also leaves footprints of the trauma in our brains and our bodies."

Video above: Six women share how #MeToo changed their lives

Women who have been sexually assaulted have a higher risk of developing a type of brain damage that has been linked to cognitive decline, dementia and stroke, a new study found.

"It could be either childhood sexual abuse or adult sexual assault," said study author Rebecca Thurston, a professor and director of the Women's Biobehavioral Health Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health.

"Based upon population data, most women have their sexual assaults when they are in early adolescence and early adulthood," she added, "so these are likely early experiences that we're seeing the marks of later in life."

Physical manifestations

The new study, presented Thursday at the annual meeting of the North American Menopause Society, adds to a growing body of research on the long-term impact of sexual assault on the body and the mind.

"We need to keep our attention on this issue of sexual violence against women and not let it fall off the radar screen of society, because it continues to be a major women's health issue," Thurston said.

Prior studies have found sexual trauma to be linked to higher levels of triglycerides and blood pressure in midlife, and a three-fold greater risk of developing carotid plaque, all key risk factors for heart disease.

In addition, a 2018 study Thurston conducted found women who reported prior sexual assault were three times more likely to experience depression and twice as likely to have elevated anxiety and insomnia than women without a history of sexual trauma.

Depression, anxiety and sleep disorders are all linked to poorer health outcomes, including heart disease, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC statistics also show more than 1 in 3 women in the U.S. (and 1 in 4 men) experience sexual assault at least once in their lifetimes. Considering the widespread impact, Thurston said physicians should be asking their patients about any prior sexual trauma, and then carefully monitoring the woman's cardiovascular risk as she ages.

Women who have been sexually traumatized should also feel empowered to speak up and tell their doctors, she added.

"Absolutely share this information with your health care providers," Thurston said. "This is not your fault, so please share what you are comfortable with disclosing. It's important information that has implications for your physical health and your emotional well-being."

Looking at the brain

The new study, which will publish soon in the journal Brain Imaging and Behavior, looked for signs of white matter hyperintensities in the brain scans of 145 midlife women with no prior history of cardiovascular disease, stroke or dementia. However, 68% of participants had experienced trauma, and for 23% of the women, that trauma was sexual assault.

White matter hyperintensities, which show up as small spots of white on MRIs, are markers of disruptions in blood flow that have left damage in the brain.

"Using brain imaging, we found that women with a history of sexual assault have greater white matter hyperintensities in the brain, which is an indicator of small vessel disease that has been linked to stroke, dementia, cognitive decline and mortality," Thurston said.

The study controlled for other diseases and conditions that would affect the development of white matter hyperintensities, such as age, hypertension, smoking and diabetes. The study also controlled for emotional disorders, including depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms.

The increase in white matter hyperintensities "wasn't explained by these subjective symptoms of distress," Thurston said. "It's almost like your body has a memory that may not be fully manifesting through psychological symptoms. The sexual assault also leaves footprints of the trauma in our brains and our bodies."

Source link

Vitamin C, zinc don’t lessen COVID-19 symptoms, study finds

cincylink — Sun, 15 Aug 2021 05:28:50 +0000

Can vitamin C and zinc help you fight off COVID-19?No, not even at high doses, according to the first randomized clinical trial to test the two supplements under medical supervision.Despite the popular use of vitamin C and zinc to fight off or lessen the severity of viral colds and flu, the new study, published Friday in JAMA Network Open, found the two supplements were of no benefit to people isolating at home with COVID-19.In fact, the findings were so unimpressive that the study was stopped early."Unfortunately, these 2 supplements failed to live up to their hype," wrote Dr. Erin Michos of John Hopkins and Houston Methodist's Dr. Miguel Cainzos-Achirica, in an accompanying editorial.The clinical trial gave high doses of each supplement alone and in combination to one of three groups of 214 adults who were recovering at home. A fourth group got standard care, such as rest, hydration and fever-reducing medications, but no supplements."High-dose zinc gluconate (zinc), ascorbic acid (vitamin C), or both supplements did not reduce SARS-CoV-2 symptoms," according to Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Dr. Milind Desai and a team from Cleveland Clinic.The high doses, however, did cause some unpleasant side effects for patients taking the supplements."More adverse effects (nausea, diarrhea and stomach cramps) were reported in the supplement groups than in the usual care group," wrote Michos, an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Cainzos-Achirica, an assistant professor of preventive cardiology at Houston Methodist.Popular supplementsMany Americans turn to vitamin C and zinc supplements to fight off viral colds and flu.Vitamin C is a recognized antioxidant and plays an essential role in supporting the immune system. Even though it has not been shown to prevent illness, other research has found vitamin C can shorten colds by 8% in adults and 14% in kids.Using vitamin C after cold symptoms start, however, doesn't appear to be helpful, according to the National Institutes of Health.Zinc may help a cell's ability to fight infection, the study said, "while there is evidence that zinc deficiency increases pro-inflammatory cytokines and decreases the production of antibodies."But what does that mean in real life? If taken within 24 hours of the very first signs of a cold, zinc may reduce the length of a cold by only one day, a review of 13 studies found.There is a down side, too. Taking over 2,000 milligrams of vitamin C a day can cause heartburn, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and headaches. The average daily recommended amount of vitamin C is 75 milligrams for adult women and 90 milligrams for men.Over 40 milligrams of zinc each day can cause dry mouth, nausea, loss of appetite and diarrhea, plus it can have a nasty metallic taste.Long-term users can have "low copper levels, lower immunity, and low levels of HDL cholesterol (the 'good' cholesterol)," according to the NIH. In 2009, the FDA warned the public against using zinc nasal sprays because they were linked to more than 100 cases of loss of smell.Research continuesScientists are continuing to explore the use of vitamins and supplements in the treatment of COVID-19.Randomized trials are currently underway to see if vitamin D supplements can help — in addition to supporting healthy bone growth, vitamin D has anti-inflammatory properties.Researchers in the U.S. and China are using intravenous doses of vitamin C to determine if it might help people with respiratory failure severe enough to be put on a ventilator.And more studies are in progress to see if COVID-19 can be prevented by supplements such as vitamins C and D and zinc.Based on this study, however, the use of vitamin C and zinc to shorten the duration of COVID-19 appears to be useless.

Can vitamin C and zinc help you fight off COVID-19?

No, not even at high doses, according to the first randomized clinical trial to test the two supplements under medical supervision.

Despite the popular use of vitamin C and zinc to fight off or lessen the severity of viral colds and flu, the new study, published Friday in JAMA Network Open, found the two supplements were of no benefit to people isolating at home with COVID-19.

In fact, the findings were so unimpressive that the study was stopped early.

"Unfortunately, these 2 supplements failed to live up to their hype," wrote Dr. Erin Michos of John Hopkins and Houston Methodist's Dr. Miguel Cainzos-Achirica, in an accompanying editorial.

The clinical trial gave high doses of each supplement alone and in combination to one of three groups of 214 adults who were recovering at home. A fourth group got standard care, such as rest, hydration and fever-reducing medications, but no supplements.

"High-dose zinc gluconate (zinc), ascorbic acid (vitamin C), or both supplements did not reduce SARS-CoV-2 symptoms," according to Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Dr. Milind Desai and a team from Cleveland Clinic.

The high doses, however, did cause some unpleasant side effects for patients taking the supplements.

"More adverse effects (nausea, diarrhea and stomach cramps) were reported in the supplement groups than in the usual care group," wrote Michos, an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Cainzos-Achirica, an assistant professor of preventive cardiology at Houston Methodist.

Popular supplements

Many Americans turn to vitamin C and zinc supplements to fight off viral colds and flu.

Vitamin C is a recognized antioxidant and plays an essential role in supporting the immune system. Even though it has not been shown to prevent illness, other research has found vitamin C can shorten colds by 8% in adults and 14% in kids.

Using vitamin C after cold symptoms start, however, doesn't appear to be helpful, according to the National Institutes of Health.

Zinc may help a cell's ability to fight infection, the study said, "while there is evidence that zinc deficiency increases pro-inflammatory cytokines and decreases the production of antibodies."

But what does that mean in real life? If taken within 24 hours of the very first signs of a cold, zinc may reduce the length of a cold by only one day, a review of 13 studies found.

There is a down side, too. Taking over 2,000 milligrams of vitamin C a day can cause heartburn, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and headaches. The average daily recommended amount of vitamin C is 75 milligrams for adult women and 90 milligrams for men.

Over 40 milligrams of zinc each day can cause dry mouth, nausea, loss of appetite and diarrhea, plus it can have a nasty metallic taste.

Long-term users can have "low copper levels, lower immunity, and low levels of HDL cholesterol (the 'good' cholesterol)," according to the NIH. In 2009, the FDA warned the public against using zinc nasal sprays because they were linked to more than 100 cases of loss of smell.

Research continues

Scientists are continuing to explore the use of vitamins and supplements in the treatment of COVID-19.

Randomized trials are currently underway to see if vitamin D supplements can help — in addition to supporting healthy bone growth, vitamin D has anti-inflammatory properties.

Researchers in the U.S. and China are using intravenous doses of vitamin C to determine if it might help people with respiratory failure severe enough to be put on a ventilator.

And more studies are in progress to see if COVID-19 can be prevented by supplements such as vitamins C and D and zinc.

Based on this study, however, the use of vitamin C and zinc to shorten the duration of COVID-19 appears to be useless.

Source link

COVID-19 vaccines may prevent infection and not just symptoms, study suggests

cincylink — Sat, 07 Aug 2021 05:18:17 +0000

Related video above: Doctor answers COVID-19 vaccine questionsHealth experts have said that data so far has shown that COVID-19 vaccines prevent symptoms of the virus — but a new study suggests that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines may also prevent infections.A team at the Mayo Clinic health system looked at more than 31,000 people across four states who had received at least one dose of either vaccine — and found their vaccines were upwards of 80% effective in preventing infection 36 days after the first dose.Vaccine efficacy was 75% 15 days after the first dose, and appeared 89% effective from 36 days after the second dose, according to the research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.Despite a backlog in inoculations due to harsh winter weather that has gripped much of the U.S., officials have been pressing to vaccinate Americans before what appear to be more transmissible variants, which they fear could reverse the progress in terms of lowering cases and hospitalizations.More than 59 million vaccine doses have so far been administered in the U.S., according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.But Dr. Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said Friday that the U.S. is unlikely to achieve herd immunity for the virus before the winter."We know COVID is really seasonal, so when the next winter rolls around, we need to have a much higher level of protection to stop COVID in its tracks than we are likely to achieve," he said.Herd immunity doesn't take effect until 80% or more of the population has immunity, either through infection or vaccination. And the new variants may complicate the picture, Murray said. If people can be reinfected with the new variants, the pandemic may take off again.Though officials hope to have vaccines widely distributed by the end of the summer, President Biden said Friday that issues like weather, mutating strains and manufacturing delays make it hard to nail down a timeline."I believe we're on the road, I promise you. I know we'll run into bumps. It's not going to be easy here to the end, but we're going to beat this. We're going to beat this," he said while visiting a Pfizer facility in Michigan.Too risky to give single doses, Fauci saysOne way to protect more people quickly, some experts suggest, is to prioritize administering first doses of the vaccine.Dr. Ashish Jha, Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, advocated Friday for U.S. officials to consider delaying the second dose."Would that really be a problem, because if we could do that, we could vaccinate a lot more high-risk people, quickly...Everybody needs a second dose, but I think we can do it in a way that's still safe and get a lot more people protected," Jha told CNN.But Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Friday that a single-dose plan would be too risky.Fauci said he worried that if large numbers of people got a single shot and had less than optimal immune responses, they could be exposed to the virus and start incubating viral mutations. In theory, new variants could arise, he said."We will stick with the scientifically documented efficacy and optimal response of a prime followed by a boost with the mRNA vaccines," Fauci told a White House briefing.Jha, for his part, said he agreed that everybody needed a second dose, "I think the question is, right now we wait four weeks between first and second dose. What if we went six weeks or eight weeks or 10 weeks — not much longer than that."School can reopen now matter the virus' spread, CDC director saysIn the hopes of returning to some sense of normalcy, a priority to many families and officials has been allowing students to resume in-person learning.And CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Friday that given the right precautions, schools may open no matter how much virus is spreading in the community.As of Tuesday, CNN analysis indicated about 90% of children live in so-called red zones under the CDC's guidance — meaning there is a high level of community spread of the virus. But even in those conditions, schools can safely reopen if they take precautions, Walensky told a White House briefing.The CDC has said schools can reopen if they make sure they are mitigating the risk of spread with universal mask use, measures to keep children and staff six feet apart, frequent cleaning and disinfection and testing and contact tracing.The CDC director's assurances came as Fauci announced that the U.S. should have vaccine safety data for high school-age kids by the beginning of fall.Companies are just starting tests of younger age groups but have been testing their vaccines on 12- to 17-year-olds, Fauci told a White House briefing. Safety data for younger children will likely not be available until early next year, he said.Vaccine hesitancy not an excuse for inequitiesMeanwhile, vaccine trials and distribution have shed light on inequities in the medical field.People of color have been vastly underrepresented in U.S.-based vaccine trials for the last decade, according to a new study released Friday by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Harvard, Emory and other institutions.The study found that white people made up the majority, or 78%, of participants in trials conducted between June 2011 and June 2020.The study, published in the JAMA Network Open, comes as the nation grapples with a pandemic that has disproportionately impacted people of color. Health care leaders are working to combat vaccine distrust among Black and brown people, saying the shot is the key to preventing further devastating in their communities.But that hesitancy should not be an excuse for officials to explain away racial disparities in vaccination, Fauci said."It's that we've got to really extend ourselves into the community to get the access to minority populations that they don't have," Fauci said in an interview with MSNBC.

CNN —

Related video above: Doctor answers COVID-19 vaccine questions

Health experts have said that data so far has shown that COVID-19 vaccines prevent symptoms of the virus — but a new study suggests that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines may also prevent infections.

A team at the Mayo Clinic health system looked at more than 31,000 people across four states who had received at least one dose of either vaccine — and found their vaccines were upwards of 80% effective in preventing infection 36 days after the first dose.

Vaccine efficacy was 75% 15 days after the first dose, and appeared 89% effective from 36 days after the second dose, according to the research, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

Despite a backlog in inoculations due to harsh winter weather that has gripped much of the U.S., officials have been pressing to vaccinate Americans before what appear to be more transmissible variants, which they fear could reverse the progress in terms of lowering cases and hospitalizations.

More than 59 million vaccine doses have so far been administered in the U.S., according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But Dr. Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said Friday that the U.S. is unlikely to achieve herd immunity for the virus before the winter.

"We know COVID is really seasonal, so when the next winter rolls around, we need to have a much higher level of protection to stop COVID in its tracks than we are likely to achieve," he said.

Herd immunity doesn't take effect until 80% or more of the population has immunity, either through infection or vaccination. And the new variants may complicate the picture, Murray said. If people can be reinfected with the new variants, the pandemic may take off again.

Though officials hope to have vaccines widely distributed by the end of the summer, President Biden said Friday that issues like weather, mutating strains and manufacturing delays make it hard to nail down a timeline.

"I believe we're on the road, I promise you. I know we'll run into bumps. It's not going to be easy here to the end, but we're going to beat this. We're going to beat this," he said while visiting a Pfizer facility in Michigan.

Too risky to give single doses, Fauci says

One way to protect more people quickly, some experts suggest, is to prioritize administering first doses of the vaccine.

Dr. Ashish Jha, Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, advocated Friday for U.S. officials to consider delaying the second dose.

"Would that really be a problem, because if we could do that, we could vaccinate a lot more high-risk people, quickly...Everybody needs a second dose, but I think we can do it in a way that's still safe and get a lot more people protected," Jha told CNN.

But Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Friday that a single-dose plan would be too risky.

Fauci said he worried that if large numbers of people got a single shot and had less than optimal immune responses, they could be exposed to the virus and start incubating viral mutations. In theory, new variants could arise, he said.

"We will stick with the scientifically documented efficacy and optimal response of a prime followed by a boost with the mRNA vaccines," Fauci told a White House briefing.

Jha, for his part, said he agreed that everybody needed a second dose, "I think the question is, right now we wait four weeks between first and second dose. What if we went six weeks or eight weeks or 10 weeks — not much longer than that."

School can reopen now matter the virus' spread, CDC director says

In the hopes of returning to some sense of normalcy, a priority to many families and officials has been allowing students to resume in-person learning.

And CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Friday that given the right precautions, schools may open no matter how much virus is spreading in the community.

As of Tuesday, CNN analysis indicated about 90% of children live in so-called red zones under the CDC's guidance — meaning there is a high level of community spread of the virus. But even in those conditions, schools can safely reopen if they take precautions, Walensky told a White House briefing.

The CDC has said schools can reopen if they make sure they are mitigating the risk of spread with universal mask use, measures to keep children and staff six feet apart, frequent cleaning and disinfection and testing and contact tracing.

The CDC director's assurances came as Fauci announced that the U.S. should have vaccine safety data for high school-age kids by the beginning of fall.

Companies are just starting tests of younger age groups but have been testing their vaccines on 12- to 17-year-olds, Fauci told a White House briefing. Safety data for younger children will likely not be available until early next year, he said.

Vaccine hesitancy not an excuse for inequities

Meanwhile, vaccine trials and distribution have shed light on inequities in the medical field.

People of color have been vastly underrepresented in U.S.-based vaccine trials for the last decade, according to a new study released Friday by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Harvard, Emory and other institutions.

The study found that white people made up the majority, or 78%, of participants in trials conducted between June 2011 and June 2020.

The study, published in the JAMA Network Open, comes as the nation grapples with a pandemic that has disproportionately impacted people of color. Health care leaders are working to combat vaccine distrust among Black and brown people, saying the shot is the key to preventing further devastating in their communities.

But that hesitancy should not be an excuse for officials to explain away racial disparities in vaccination, Fauci said.

"It's that we've got to really extend ourselves into the community to get the access to minority populations that they don't have," Fauci said in an interview with MSNBC.

Source link

Moderna data shows 93% efficacy six months after second dose

cincylink — Fri, 06 Aug 2021 04:19:51 +0000

Related video above: Moderna working to have COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 5 by early fallModerna has released its latest findings from a third-phase study of patients receiving its COVID-19 vaccine.According to a release from the company, the data shows 93% efficacy six months after the second dose. The Massachusetts-based company also said a study in its second phase "induced robust antibody responses" against the gamma, beta and delta variants of COVID-19 for three booster candidates. The company has submitted this data to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. The company also has ongoing efficacy studies for adolescents aged 12 to 17 and for pediatric patients age 6 months to 11 years old.

Related video above: Moderna working to have COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 5 by early fall

Moderna has released its latest findings from a third-phase study of patients receiving its COVID-19 vaccine.

According to a release from the company, the data shows 93% efficacy six months after the second dose.

The Massachusetts-based company also said a study in its second phase "induced robust antibody responses" against the gamma, beta and delta variants of COVID-19 for three booster candidates. The company has submitted this data to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

The company also has ongoing efficacy studies for adolescents aged 12 to 17 and for pediatric patients age 6 months to 11 years old.

Source link

Researchers examining spike in deaths that were not COVID-related

cincylink — Fri, 30 Jul 2021 04:07:17 +0000

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans continue to contract COVID-19, mainly among those who are not vaccinated.

"We can't say anymore, ‘Well, it's the old people who are going to die.’ It's young people now who are coming in very sick," said Dr. Paul Holtom, an epidemiologist with USC Medical Center.

Yet, there is another group that researchers are just now beginning to look at: deaths not necessarily directly related to the virus.

“In other words, COVID was not on their death certificate,” said Sheldon Jacobson, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

He and others analyzed all of the U.S. deaths that occurred in 2020 during the nine-month period when no COVID-19 vaccine was available yet. They found deaths not caused by the virus rose by 40%, but it goes deeper than that.

For people ages 15 to 24, compared to the previous five years, there was an 18% increase. That’s 42,000 more deaths not directly related to COVID-19. Most of the impact was felt by men, who made up three-quarters of the deaths in that age group.

“Men have been harder hit than women during this pandemic, especially in excess deaths not related to COVID,” Jacobson said.

Why? Researchers are still awaiting the release of more 2020 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for analysis, but there are some theories.

“There was a recent report that there was a 30% increase in opioid overdoses since that from last year,” Jacobson said. “Yet, COVID-19 is not directly associated with that, although it could have indirectly precipitated it.”

While the number of deaths not directly linked to COVID-19 increased for some age groups, it decreased for another: young children.

For children four years of age and under, compared to the past five years, there was a decrease in the number of deaths during the pandemic: 2,000 fewer. Lifestyle changes for many during the pandemic may be part of the reason why.

“Because of the societal changes: more people staying at home, less opportunities for accidents, either in vehicles, swimming accidents, drownings, which are very common for this age group, we did not see these deaths occur,” Jacobson said. “So, in some sense, the environment made it protective.”

However, researchers say there is one thing that the data showed overall.

“The hidden message from this analysis is that vaccination is so important. And you may say, ‘why is that true?’ And the reason is that the vaccines provide the most reliable approach to reduce the hospitalization and fatality risk,” Jacobson said. “We can get back to a society that we had prepared to make and all of these excess deaths should go away.”

It is a post-COVID society the world has yet to reach.

Source link

New study shows growing development in areas at risk for natural disasters

cincylink — Mon, 12 Jul 2021 04:27:17 +0000

From wildfires to hurricanes, natural disasters can destroy entire towns.

“We’re just putting structures in harm's way, and harm's way is becoming a broader and broader area,” the Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research and Environmental Sciences at CU Boulder, Waleed Abdalati, said.

Beachfront properties, cabins in the mountains, houses below sea level all exist in potentially risky areas.

“Who doesn't want to look at the ocean? So there's a lot of development right up to the edge of the water, and over time that edge of the water is creeping inward,” Abdalati said.

Sometimes where we build doesn't necessarily mean forever. In fact, more often than not, our homes and offices are in the path of potentially devastating natural disasters.

“57 percent of structures are in only 31 percent of the area which is these hazard hot spots,” Matthew Rossi, a research scientist at Earthlab at CU Boulder, said. He also was one of the authors of a new study looking at the risks of where we’ve developed over the years.

The study details the areas they investigated and the risks that exist in those spots.

“We were looking at using structure level data, so the building that is constructed in hazard hotspots, and asking 'Are we preferentially building in those places?'” Rossi explained.

The answer is yes. The study found growth rates in hotspots exceed the national trend.

“We actually are preferentially building in these hazardous zones,” he said.

They looked at earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes, floods, and hurricane wind speeds. These are all events that Jeff Schlegelmilch with the National Center for Disaster Preparedness is familiar with.

“We have a lot of structures, a lot of aspects of modern society that are in harm's way,” Schlegelmilch said.

He said he sees an increase in the frequency of these disastrous events as well.

“Looking backward doesn't tell us everything we need to know moving forward. The kind of hazards we’re exposed to, the aging infrastructure we have, it's all entering into a changing world with more extreme events,” Schlegelmilch said. “If 2020 weren’t known for COVID, it would be known as another record-breaking year of billion-dollar weather-related disasters.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration keep data on the impact these events have.

From 1980 to 2021, floods cost an average of $3.6 billion a year, wildfires $2.5 billion. The average cost for all disasters every year is around $45.4 billion.

“You have the convergence of development, increased vulnerability from sinking land, and increased vulnerability from climate change,” Abdalati said. He’s been watching the earth change from space his entire career.

“We’re living in a changing world, we’re living in a changing environment, and that changing environment brings with it risk. And it’s critical for our success as a society that we understand those risks, and we do what we can to mitigate those risks,” he said.

For example, wildfires.

“We see increases in the number of fires over the last few decades, and we see increases in the areas burned by those fires,” he explained.

As we continue to develop land and experience a changing pattern of weather events, Schlegelmilch said it’s important that people stay informed of where they’re at and the risks they face.

“We have to prepare for a world where this is more normal, not more of an outlier, and prepare for those scenarios,” Schlegelmilch said.

“I think it actually helps local and regional planners to think about how they might reframe some of the questions they've always been asking when developing in hazardous zones,” Rossi said.

Source link

New research shows vitamin D deficiency may increase risk for addiction

cincylink — Sun, 04 Jul 2021 04:08:20 +0000

Amy Daeschel is a woman in long-term recovery.

"What that means to me is I haven’t found it necessary to use a drink or a drug since August 23, 2017,” Daeschel said.

Daeschel had a successful life until she had multiple foot surgeries at the age of 37. She was prescribed oxycontin for pain.

“Five of them, 30 milligrams a day, and this went on for a year and a half," Daeschel said. "And I had built a strong dependency upon this medication. It turned into an addiction when I started treating emotional trauma. My mother had committed suicide, I was going through a divorce, had domestic violence, I mean everything just hit me at once.”

Once the doctor found out about her addiction, she was cut off. So, she turned to the streets.

“That first $10 bag of heroin came and it was over. Within two months, I had lost everything."

She says it wasn’t until she hit rock bottom that she was able to turn her life around. A state-run addiction operation offered her treatment. She’s been sober since. Unfortunately, that hasn't the case for a lot of others across the country.

Julie Burns is the CEO of Rize Massachusetts Foundation – a statewide independent nonprofit focused on ending the opioid overdose crisis.

“In recent months, the opioid crisis has definitely taken a turn for the worse," Burns said. "COVID definitely caused an uptick in fatal overdoses, primarily caused by the isolation with stay-at-home orders and people couldn’t get access to treatment. They found themselves using alone or using in places where somebody wasn’t checking on them.”

Once somebody’s addicted, it is ridiculously challenging to stop.

“Addiction is a disease of the brain," Burns said. "Opioids change the receptor patterns in your brain and it’s a clinical diagnosis. It’s recognized by the DSM so it’s not debatable that it’s a disease, it’s definitely a disease, and it can be treated.”

Researchers are hard at work trying to find new ways to treat people, researchers like Dr. David Fisher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. He's the chair of dermatology and the director of the melanoma program.

Knowing that UV radiation from the sun stimulates the production of both vitamin D and endorphins in our bodies, Dr. Fisher wanted to study if there is a relationship between vitamin D and opioid response. Opioids also trigger the release of endorphins.

“There’s something paradoxical about the idea that we would have evolved a response that leads us to seek the exposure to the most common carcinogen in our environment – which is ultraviolet radiation," Dr. Fisher said. "Why would that exist? And we predicted or we hypothesized that vitamin D could be a perfect explanation for this.”

His team took lab mice and made them vitamin D deficient. Then they measured their response to either UV radiation or opiates. Their hypothesis that a vitamin D deficiency may increase the risk for opiate addiction held true.

“The dependency was exaggerated; the withdrawal symptoms were exaggerated," Dr. Fisher said. "Even pain control – lower doses of morphine were producing fourfold the magnitude of benefits. Very, very large differences if there was vitamin D deficiency present. Whereas if we corrected the vitamin D level or had normal vitamin D levels, then the responses were much weaker to the opiates.”

Dr. Fisher says this research is still new and they need to validate their findings in a human clinical trial. If nothing changes, his research could help doctors be more aware as they’re prescribing opiates.

“Some of those patients have trouble getting off and ultimately become addicted," Dr. Fisher said. "Could it be that if we identify those patients if they’re vitamin D deficient and just correct the vitamin D deficiency, perhaps that would lower the risk of becoming addicted in the first place.”

In the meantime, Daeschel says she plans to continue her advocacy work to end the stigmas surrounding addiction.

"I’ve got massive scars on my arm," Daeschel said. "And people ask me all the time ‘what happened?’ I’ll look them straight in the face and I’ll go ‘heroin’ and their face, they’re just shocked and tell me ‘oh I could never see you doing that.’ And I’m like ‘but that’s the reality of it. Addiction is so close to home. Somebody’s mother, somebody’s brother, father, sister, uncle, whatever.’”

She wants people to know that recovery is possible and there are many different pathways to get there.

“You will find a freedom that you never knew existed,” Daeschel said.

Source link

Coronavirus can invade cells in the mouth, scientists find

cincylink — Thu, 01 Jul 2021 04:48:18 +0000

A new study has found evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, infects the cells in the mouth including the salivary glands — which may explain some COVID-19 symptoms such as loss of taste and dry mouth.The findings of the study led by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill also “point to the possibility that the mouth plays a role in transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to the lungs or digestive system via saliva laden with the virus from infected oral cells,” according to a press release.The study, published in Nature Medicine, focused on discovering where SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva comes from as it is well established that people diagnosed with COVID-19 contain high levels of the virus in their saliva.People with COVID-19 who have respiratory symptoms may have the virus in their saliva from nasal drainage of sputum coughed up from the lungs, the release states, but the researchers said it may not explain how the virus gets into the saliva of people who lack those symptoms.Blake Warner, lead study author and assistant clinical director and chief of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), said in the release that “based on the data from our laboratories, we suspected at least some of the virus in saliva could be coming from infected tissues in the mouth itself.”To investigate this, scientists surveyed oral tissue collected from healthy people in order to identify mouth regions susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The vulnerable cells contained ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules that have instructions for making “entry proteins” or “doorways” that the virus needs to be able to get into the cells and infect it.RNA for two key entry proteins known as the ACE2 receptor and the TMPRSS2 enzyme were found in cells of the salivary glands and in tissues lining the oral cavity, which indicated “increased vulnerability because the virus is thought to need both entry proteins to gain access to cells,” the release states.Warner said that those factors are similar to the ones found in regions known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as the lining of the nasal passage and upper airways.The next step for the researchers after confirming that parts of the mouth are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 was to look for evidence of infection in oral tissue samples from people with COVID-19. In samples collected at the NIH from COVID-19 patients who had died, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in “just over half” of the salivary glands examined. Researchers also found the specific sequences of RNA that indicated cells were actively making new copies of the virus in a living person who had acute COVID-19.The study further found that salivary gland tissue infected with SARS-CoV-2 could be the source of the virus in saliva. In people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19, cells shed from the mouth into saliva were found to have the RNA entry proteins and SARS-CoV-2 RNA.In order to determine whether virus found in saliva is infectious, researchers took saliva from eight people with asymptomatic COVID-19 and exposed it to healthy cells grown in a dish.Saliva from two of the eight subjects led to infection of the healthy cells – raising the possibility that asymptomatic COVID-19 patients might transmit infectious SARS-CoV-2 to others through saliva, according to the study.A final aspect of the study was to explore the relationship between oral symptoms of COVID-19 and virus in saliva. Researchers collected saliva from a group of 35 volunteers with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19. Of the 27 people who were experiencing oral symptoms, those with the virus in their saliva were more likely to report loss of taste and smell, suggesting that oral infection might underlie oral symptoms of COVID-19.The study’s findings suggest that the mouth, via infected oral tissue cells, plays a bigger role in SARS-CoV-2 infections than previously thought.“When infected saliva is swallowed or tiny particles of it are inhaled, we think it can potentially transmit SARS-CoV-2 further into our throats, our lungs, or even our lungs,” said Kevin Byrd, second author of the study and assistant professor in dentistry at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, in the release.The researchers hope to confirm their findings in a larger group of people and to determine the exact nature of the part the mouth plays in SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission, according to the release."By revealing a potentially underappreciated role for the oral cavity in SARS-CoV-2 infection, our study could open up new investigative avenues leading to a better understanding of the course of infection and disease. Such information could also inform interventions to combat the virus and alleviate oral symptoms of COVID-19," Warner said.

A new study has found evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, infects the cells in the mouth including the salivary glands — which may explain some COVID-19 symptoms such as loss of taste and dry mouth.

The findings of the study led by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill also “point to the possibility that the mouth plays a role in transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to the lungs or digestive system via saliva laden with the virus from infected oral cells,” according to a press release.

The study, published in Nature Medicine, focused on discovering where SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva comes from as it is well established that people diagnosed with COVID-19 contain high levels of the virus in their saliva.

People with COVID-19 who have respiratory symptoms may have the virus in their saliva from nasal drainage of sputum coughed up from the lungs, the release states, but the researchers said it may not explain how the virus gets into the saliva of people who lack those symptoms.

Blake Warner, lead study author and assistant clinical director and chief of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), said in the release that “based on the data from our laboratories, we suspected at least some of the virus in saliva could be coming from infected tissues in the mouth itself.”

To investigate this, scientists surveyed oral tissue collected from healthy people in order to identify mouth regions susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The vulnerable cells contained ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules that have instructions for making “entry proteins” or “doorways” that the virus needs to be able to get into the cells and infect it.

RNA for two key entry proteins known as the ACE2 receptor and the TMPRSS2 enzyme were found in cells of the salivary glands and in tissues lining the oral cavity, which indicated “increased vulnerability because the virus is thought to need both entry proteins to gain access to cells,” the release states.

Warner said that those factors are similar to the ones found in regions known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as the lining of the nasal passage and upper airways.

The next step for the researchers after confirming that parts of the mouth are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 was to look for evidence of infection in oral tissue samples from people with COVID-19. In samples collected at the NIH from COVID-19 patients who had died, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in “just over half” of the salivary glands examined. Researchers also found the specific sequences of RNA that indicated cells were actively making new copies of the virus in a living person who had acute COVID-19.

The study further found that salivary gland tissue infected with SARS-CoV-2 could be the source of the virus in saliva. In people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19, cells shed from the mouth into saliva were found to have the RNA entry proteins and SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

In order to determine whether virus found in saliva is infectious, researchers took saliva from eight people with asymptomatic COVID-19 and exposed it to healthy cells grown in a dish.

Saliva from two of the eight subjects led to infection of the healthy cells – raising the possibility that asymptomatic COVID-19 patients might transmit infectious SARS-CoV-2 to others through saliva, according to the study.

A final aspect of the study was to explore the relationship between oral symptoms of COVID-19 and virus in saliva. Researchers collected saliva from a group of 35 volunteers with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19. Of the 27 people who were experiencing oral symptoms, those with the virus in their saliva were more likely to report loss of taste and smell, suggesting that oral infection might underlie oral symptoms of COVID-19.

The study’s findings suggest that the mouth, via infected oral tissue cells, plays a bigger role in SARS-CoV-2 infections than previously thought.

“When infected saliva is swallowed or tiny particles of it are inhaled, we think it can potentially transmit SARS-CoV-2 further into our throats, our lungs, or even our lungs,” said Kevin Byrd, second author of the study and assistant professor in dentistry at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, in the release.

The researchers hope to confirm their findings in a larger group of people and to determine the exact nature of the part the mouth plays in SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission, according to the release.

"By revealing a potentially underappreciated role for the oral cavity in SARS-CoV-2 infection, our study could open up new investigative avenues leading to a better understanding of the course of infection and disease. Such information could also inform interventions to combat the virus and alleviate oral symptoms of COVID-19," Warner said.

Source link

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine 100% effective in adolescents, company says

cincylink — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 04:57:57 +0000

Related video above: Pfizer vaccine trial begins with young childrenThe Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has been found to be 100% effective in adolescents, who showed “very high antibody” responses, exceeding the antibody responses in vaccinated adults, the company announced Wednesday.In study participants aged 12 to 15 years old with or without prior evidence of COVID-19 infection, the vaccine demonstrated 100% real efficacy, Pfizer said.“We share the urgency to expand the use of our vaccine to additional populations and are encouraged by the clinical trial data from adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15,” said Albert Bourla, chairman and chief executive officer of Pfizer. Pfizer plans to submit the data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the coming weeks for a requested amendment to the vaccine’s emergency use authorization, with the hope of starting to vaccinate the age group before the start of the next school year. The trial enrolled 2,260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age. In the trial, 18 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus none in the vaccinated group. It's a small study, that hasn't yet been published, so another important piece of evidence is how well the shots revved up the kids’ immune systems. Researchers reported high levels of virus-fighting antibodies, somewhat higher than were seen in studies of young adults.Kids had side effects similar to young adults, the company said. The main side effects are pain, fever, chills and fatigue, particularly after the second dose. The study will continue to track participants for two years for more information about long-term protection and safety.Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech in the coming weeks plan to ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European regulators to allow emergency use of the shots starting at age 12.In the company statement, Bourla also expressed “the hope of starting to vaccinate this age group before the start of the next school year" in the United States.All participants in the trial will continue to be monitored for long-term protection and safety for an additional two years after their second dose. Last week, the company dosed the first healthy children in the study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in children 6 months to 11 years old. Pfizer isn’t the only company seeking to lower the age limit for its vaccine. Results also are expected soon from a U.S. study of Moderna’s vaccine in 12- to 17-year-olds.But in a sign that the findings were promising, the FDA already allowed both companies to begin U.S. studies in children 11 and younger, working their way to as young as 6-month-old.AstraZeneca last month began a study of its vaccine among 6- to 17-year-olds in Britain. Johnson & Johnson is planning its own pediatric studies. And in China, Sinovac recently announced it has submitted preliminary data to Chinese regulators showing its vaccine is safe in children as young as 3.While most COVID-19 vaccines being used globally were first tested in tens of thousands of adults, pediatric studies won’t need to be nearly as large. Scientists have safety information from those studies and from subsequent vaccinations in millions more adults.One key question is the dosage: Pfizer gave the 12-and-older participants the same dose adults receive, while testing different doses in younger children.It's not clear how quickly the FDA would act on Pfizer's request to allow vaccination starting at age 12. Another question is when the country would have enough supply of shots — and people to get them into adolescents' arms — to let kids start getting in line.Supplies are set to steadily increase over the spring and summer, at the same time states are opening vaccinations to younger, healthier adults who until now haven't had a turn.Children represent about 13% of COVID-19 cases documented in the U.S. And while children are far less likely than adults to get seriously ill, at least 268 have died from COVID-19 in the U.S. alone and more than 13,500 have been hospitalized, according to a tally by the American Academy of Pediatrics. That’s more than die from the flu in an average year. Additionally, a small number have developed a serious inflammatory condition linked to the coronavirus.Caleb Chung, who turns 13 later this week, agreed to volunteer after his father, a Duke University pediatrician, presented the option. He doesn't know if he received the vaccine or a placebo.“Usually I’m just at home doing online school and there’s not much I can really do to fight back against the virus,” Caleb said in a recent interview. The study “was really somewhere that I could actually help out.”His father, Dr. Richard Chung, said he’s proud of his son and all the other children volunteering for the needle pricks, blood tests and other tasks a study entails.“We need kids to do these trials so that kids can get protected. Adults can’t do that for them,” Chung said.The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related video above: Pfizer vaccine trial begins with young children

The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has been found to be 100% effective in adolescents, who showed “very high antibody” responses, exceeding the antibody responses in vaccinated adults, the company announced Wednesday.

In study participants aged 12 to 15 years old with or without prior evidence of COVID-19 infection, the vaccine demonstrated 100% real efficacy, Pfizer said.

“We share the urgency to expand the use of our vaccine to additional populations and are encouraged by the clinical trial data from adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15,” said Albert Bourla, chairman and chief executive officer of Pfizer.

Pfizer plans to submit the data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the coming weeks for a requested amendment to the vaccine’s emergency use authorization, with the hope of starting to vaccinate the age group before the start of the next school year.

The trial enrolled 2,260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age. In the trial, 18 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus none in the vaccinated group.

It's a small study, that hasn't yet been published, so another important piece of evidence is how well the shots revved up the kids’ immune systems. Researchers reported high levels of virus-fighting antibodies, somewhat higher than were seen in studies of young adults.

Kids had side effects similar to young adults, the company said. The main side effects are pain, fever, chills and fatigue, particularly after the second dose. The study will continue to track participants for two years for more information about long-term protection and safety.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech in the coming weeks plan to ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European regulators to allow emergency use of the shots starting at age 12.

In the company statement, Bourla also expressed “the hope of starting to vaccinate this age group before the start of the next school year" in the United States.

All participants in the trial will continue to be monitored for long-term protection and safety for an additional two years after their second dose.

Last week, the company dosed the first healthy children in the study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in children 6 months to 11 years old.

Pfizer isn’t the only company seeking to lower the age limit for its vaccine. Results also are expected soon from a U.S. study of Moderna’s vaccine in 12- to 17-year-olds.

But in a sign that the findings were promising, the FDA already allowed both companies to begin U.S. studies in children 11 and younger, working their way to as young as 6-month-old.

AstraZeneca last month began a study of its vaccine among 6- to 17-year-olds in Britain. Johnson & Johnson is planning its own pediatric studies. And in China, Sinovac recently announced it has submitted preliminary data to Chinese regulators showing its vaccine is safe in children as young as 3.

While most COVID-19 vaccines being used globally were first tested in tens of thousands of adults, pediatric studies won’t need to be nearly as large. Scientists have safety information from those studies and from subsequent vaccinations in millions more adults.

One key question is the dosage: Pfizer gave the 12-and-older participants the same dose adults receive, while testing different doses in younger children.

It's not clear how quickly the FDA would act on Pfizer's request to allow vaccination starting at age 12. Another question is when the country would have enough supply of shots — and people to get them into adolescents' arms — to let kids start getting in line.

Supplies are set to steadily increase over the spring and summer, at the same time states are opening vaccinations to younger, healthier adults who until now haven't had a turn.

Children represent about 13% of COVID-19 cases documented in the U.S. And while children are far less likely than adults to get seriously ill, at least 268 have died from COVID-19 in the U.S. alone and more than 13,500 have been hospitalized, according to a tally by the American Academy of Pediatrics. That’s more than die from the flu in an average year. Additionally, a small number have developed a serious inflammatory condition linked to the coronavirus.

Caleb Chung, who turns 13 later this week, agreed to volunteer after his father, a Duke University pediatrician, presented the option. He doesn't know if he received the vaccine or a placebo.

“Usually I’m just at home doing online school and there’s not much I can really do to fight back against the virus,” Caleb said in a recent interview. The study “was really somewhere that I could actually help out.”

His father, Dr. Richard Chung, said he’s proud of his son and all the other children volunteering for the needle pricks, blood tests and other tasks a study entails.

“We need kids to do these trials so that kids can get protected. Adults can’t do that for them,” Chung said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source link

Study shows the risk of dying spikes in diabetics with sleep issues

cincylink — Sun, 20 Jun 2021 04:19:09 +0000

CHICAGO, Ill. — We know that not getting enough sleep is bad for your health. But a new study finds that a subset of those who have trouble sleeping have a much higher risk of dying because of it. The nine-year study could be a wake-up call for people not taking their slumber seriously enough.

It’s a simple question: "Do you have trouble falling asleep at night or do you wake up in the middle of the night?" The answer, according to new research, could help indicate your risk of dying.

“We were really interested to see whether people who reported having trouble sleeping, trouble falling asleep, or waking up a lot during the night were more likely to die,” said Dr. Kristen Knutson, a Northwestern University neurology professor specializing in sleep medicine and corresponding author of the new study.

“This is a large study in the U.K., about half a million people, where they collected a lot of information at the beginning and they've been following them over time, particularly for their deaths by collecting death certificates,” said Knutson.

In collaboration with the University of Surrey, researchers found that over a nine-year period, sleep issues could subtract years from your life expectancy.

“They were about 13% more likely to die than people who did not have trouble falling or staying asleep,” said Knutson.

That finding was even more pronounced among people with diabetes. Participants were 87% more likely to die from any cause, such as car accidents or heart attack during the study follow-up period, compared to people without diabetes or sleep disturbances.

“There's difficulty sleeping, being comfortable, symptoms-related or diabetes can disturb their sleep. So, there's a lot of reasons why someone with diabetes. Might have sleep disturbances,” said Knutson.

Researchers believe it is the first study to combine insomnia and diabetes to look at mortality risk, a serious issue in the U.S.

According to the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 30 million Americans have diabetes, the seventh leading cause of death. It’s estimated that of those with type 2 diabetes, half struggle with sleep problems due to unstable sugar levels during the night.

“There are a lot of symptoms people pay close attention to, like pain, for example,” said Knutson. “We just want to add sleep to that list of symptoms that are taken seriously, and you report and discuss with your doctor to understand what's going on.”

It’s a potentially deadly combination that, if addressed correctly, could add years to your life.

Source link

Many people infected with COVID-19 have long-term mental health symptoms

cincylink — Thu, 17 Jun 2021 04:48:37 +0000

A new study shows many people infected with COVID-19 have long-term mental health symptoms.Researchers are finding about one in three COVID-19 survivors had neurological or psychological issues long after getting sick.The study was published in the journal, Lancet Psychiatry. It is the largest study of its kind, involving the medical records of more than 200,000 COVID-19 patients.The most common diagnosis was anxiety, found in 17% of those treated for COVID-19, followed by mood disorders, found in 14% of patients.The neurological effects are most severe in hospitalized patients but still exist in those that experienced more mild symptoms.Researchers found that those with COVID had a 44% increased risk for neurological and psychiatric illness compared to people recovering from the flu.Professor of Psychiatry, Neurology, & Neuroscience, Dr. Henry Nasrallah, calls the findings unsurprising because many viruses do cause an inflammatory response to the brain, which can trigger things like depression, anxiety, PTSD etc.He said out of the total number of patients that developed a brain disorder, 20% already had one before, while the other 13% did not.Doctors said these findings just reiterate how crucial it is to keep seeing your primary care provider even after you've recovered from COVID-19.

CINCINNATI —

A new study shows many people infected with COVID-19 have long-term mental health symptoms.

Researchers are finding about one in three COVID-19 survivors had neurological or psychological issues long after getting sick.

The study was published in the journal, Lancet Psychiatry. It is the largest study of its kind, involving the medical records of more than 200,000 COVID-19 patients.

The most common diagnosis was anxiety, found in 17% of those treated for COVID-19, followed by mood disorders, found in 14% of patients.

The neurological effects are most severe in hospitalized patients but still exist in those that experienced more mild symptoms.

Researchers found that those with COVID had a 44% increased risk for neurological and psychiatric illness compared to people recovering from the flu.

Professor of Psychiatry, Neurology, & Neuroscience, Dr. Henry Nasrallah, calls the findings unsurprising because many viruses do cause an inflammatory response to the brain, which can trigger things like depression, anxiety, PTSD etc.

He said out of the total number of patients that developed a brain disorder, 20% already had one before, while the other 13% did not.

Doctors said these findings just reiterate how crucial it is to keep seeing your primary care provider even after you've recovered from COVID-19.

Source link

Study examines pandemic’s impact on suicidal thoughts

cincylink — Fri, 11 Jun 2021 04:07:04 +0000

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Aside from the infectious disease nature of COVID-19, there is also a mental strain the virus is placing on people the world over.

Depression is at the top of the list.

“People took a depression screening to get a sense about how they were being impacted by the pandemic,” said Paul Gionfriddo, president of Mental Health America (MHA).

MHA is a nonprofit that provided mental health screening for more than 2.5 million people all across the country in 2020. Then, they analyzed the data collected.

“We looked at suicidal thinking and self-harm thinking and discovered that 38% of the people who had taken a screening indicated that they had suicidal or self-harm thinking on more than half the days of the week,” Gionfriddo said.

Because of the sheer number of people who participated in the screening, Mental Health America was able to delve into the numbers by location.

Their findings showed the states with the highest number of people with thoughts of suicide were California, Texas, and Florida.

Those findings were not necessarily surprising, considering their large populations.

However, when they looked at the highest percentage of the population contemplating suicide, less populated, more rural states, Alaska, Wyoming, and Alabama jumped to the top spots.

“All the changes, all this destructive disruptions to their lives have had an effect, and we can't overlook this,” Gionfriddo said.

The findings went deeper, to county-by-county levels.

The study found those with the highest percentage of people contemplating suicide included large counties, including Bexar County, Texas, where San Antonio is; Clark County, Nevada, where Las Vegas is; and Riverside County, California, east of Los Angeles.

It also included smaller counties, like Carroll and Whitley counties in Kentucky and Switzerland County, Indiana.

“Even in these small counties that may not have the wherewithal or get the attention, there is a very deep-seated need in even those counties,” said Ann Hartry, a vice president with the pharmaceutical company Lundbeck, which helped fund the independently conducted MHA study. “When I saw these numbers, they are daunting. They are scary. But I think it's a really important view of reality that we gain so that we can actually start to step up and step into it and find even more to do about it.”

That includes using $130 billion in available federal stimulus money, among other funding, for local solutions.

“Then, you have the opportunity in a local area or in a state area to use some of these new block grant dollars that are coming from the federal government,” Gionfriddo said. “We can build a system for everybody, that would serve the needs of everybody, at the earliest possible stages.”

An average of 45,000 people die by suicide in the U.S. every year. If you or someone you know is in need of help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 or click here to go to their website.

Source link