Feature

The pelvic autonomic nerves are responsible for the neurogenic control of the rectum and bladder and for sexual arousal. Over the past 30 years, different nerve-sparing techniques have been recommended and adopted to minimize risk of urinary or rectal dysfunction and incontinence, as well as sexual dysfunction, in radical surgery for rectal and early cervical cancer without compromising surgical outcome.

As the treatment of deep infiltrative endometriosis has become more aggressive and radical, it is certainly feasible to consider nerve-sparing techniques at the time of dissection and endometriosis excision to minimize the known risk of urinary, rectal, and sexual dysfunction. Interestingly, because endometriosis generally follows an asymmetric distribution, effect on bladder function is not as problematic as it is in the case of cancer surgery.

Early innovators include Dr. Marc Possover from Switzerland and Dr. Marcello Ceccaroni from Italy. Both physicians are superior pelvic neuroanatomists. Both describe meticulous and extensive dissection of the nerves of the pelvis at the time of excision of deep infiltrative endometriosis. Unfortunately, their techniques would appear to be beyond the scope of even the most experienced excisional surgeons.

A simplified approach to nerve sparing at the time of excision of deep infiltrative endometriosis has been developed by our guest author, Dr. Nucelio Lemos, in collaboration with physicians at the University of Bologna and the University of Cambridge. By using the hypogastric nerves as the landmark, they have developed a more surgeon friendly and less radical approach to nerve sparing at the time of deep infiltrative endometriosis surgery.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of both Dr. Lemos and his fellow in advanced gynecologic surgery, Dr. Meghan McGrattan, from Mount Sinai and Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. Dr. McGrattan drew the anatomic illustrations that accompany Dr. Lemos’ description of the new technique.

Dr. Lemos is associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto. He specializes in pelvic pain, pelvic floor dysfunction, pelvic organ prolapse, endometriosis, and neuropelveology. Dr. Lemos is a founding member and second vice president of the International Society of Neuropelveology. In addition, Dr. Lemos started the Pelvic Functional Surgery and Neuropelveology Clinic in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of Mount Sinai and Women’s College Hospitals, Toronto.

It is a pleasure and honor to welcome Dr. Lemos and Dr. McGrattan to this addition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.
 

Dr. Miller is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, department of clinical sciences, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Ill. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

The pelvic autonomic nerves are responsible for the neurogenic control of the rectum and bladder and for sexual arousal. Over the past 30 years, different nerve-sparing techniques have been recommended and adopted to minimize risk of urinary or rectal dysfunction and incontinence, as well as sexual dysfunction, in radical surgery for rectal and early cervical cancer without compromising surgical outcome.

As the treatment of deep infiltrative endometriosis has become more aggressive and radical, it is certainly feasible to consider nerve-sparing techniques at the time of dissection and endometriosis excision to minimize the known risk of urinary, rectal, and sexual dysfunction. Interestingly, because endometriosis generally follows an asymmetric distribution, effect on bladder function is not as problematic as it is in the case of cancer surgery.

Early innovators include Dr. Marc Possover from Switzerland and Dr. Marcello Ceccaroni from Italy. Both physicians are superior pelvic neuroanatomists. Both describe meticulous and extensive dissection of the nerves of the pelvis at the time of excision of deep infiltrative endometriosis. Unfortunately, their techniques would appear to be beyond the scope of even the most experienced excisional surgeons.

A simplified approach to nerve sparing at the time of excision of deep infiltrative endometriosis has been developed by our guest author, Dr. Nucelio Lemos, in collaboration with physicians at the University of Bologna and the University of Cambridge. By using the hypogastric nerves as the landmark, they have developed a more surgeon friendly and less radical approach to nerve sparing at the time of deep infiltrative endometriosis surgery.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of both Dr. Lemos and his fellow in advanced gynecologic surgery, Dr. Meghan McGrattan, from Mount Sinai and Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. Dr. McGrattan drew the anatomic illustrations that accompany Dr. Lemos’ description of the new technique.

Dr. Lemos is associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto. He specializes in pelvic pain, pelvic floor dysfunction, pelvic organ prolapse, endometriosis, and neuropelveology. Dr. Lemos is a founding member and second vice president of the International Society of Neuropelveology. In addition, Dr. Lemos started the Pelvic Functional Surgery and Neuropelveology Clinic in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of Mount Sinai and Women’s College Hospitals, Toronto.

It is a pleasure and honor to welcome Dr. Lemos and Dr. McGrattan to this addition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.
 

Dr. Miller is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, department of clinical sciences, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Ill. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

The pelvic autonomic nerves are responsible for the neurogenic control of the rectum and bladder and for sexual arousal. Over the past 30 years, different nerve-sparing techniques have been recommended and adopted to minimize risk of urinary or rectal dysfunction and incontinence, as well as sexual dysfunction, in radical surgery for rectal and early cervical cancer without compromising surgical outcome.

As the treatment of deep infiltrative endometriosis has become more aggressive and radical, it is certainly feasible to consider nerve-sparing techniques at the time of dissection and endometriosis excision to minimize the known risk of urinary, rectal, and sexual dysfunction. Interestingly, because endometriosis generally follows an asymmetric distribution, effect on bladder function is not as problematic as it is in the case of cancer surgery.

Early innovators include Dr. Marc Possover from Switzerland and Dr. Marcello Ceccaroni from Italy. Both physicians are superior pelvic neuroanatomists. Both describe meticulous and extensive dissection of the nerves of the pelvis at the time of excision of deep infiltrative endometriosis. Unfortunately, their techniques would appear to be beyond the scope of even the most experienced excisional surgeons.

A simplified approach to nerve sparing at the time of excision of deep infiltrative endometriosis has been developed by our guest author, Dr. Nucelio Lemos, in collaboration with physicians at the University of Bologna and the University of Cambridge. By using the hypogastric nerves as the landmark, they have developed a more surgeon friendly and less radical approach to nerve sparing at the time of deep infiltrative endometriosis surgery.

For this edition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery, I have enlisted the assistance of both Dr. Lemos and his fellow in advanced gynecologic surgery, Dr. Meghan McGrattan, from Mount Sinai and Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. Dr. McGrattan drew the anatomic illustrations that accompany Dr. Lemos’ description of the new technique.

Dr. Lemos is associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Toronto. He specializes in pelvic pain, pelvic floor dysfunction, pelvic organ prolapse, endometriosis, and neuropelveology. Dr. Lemos is a founding member and second vice president of the International Society of Neuropelveology. In addition, Dr. Lemos started the Pelvic Functional Surgery and Neuropelveology Clinic in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of Mount Sinai and Women’s College Hospitals, Toronto.

It is a pleasure and honor to welcome Dr. Lemos and Dr. McGrattan to this addition of the Master Class in Gynecologic Surgery.
 

Dr. Miller is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, department of clinical sciences, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Ill. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An early setback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An early setback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An early setback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Susan Snead used to live in an apartment complex for older adults. The complex had a nice dayroom, and neighbors would knock on her door every now and then to check in.

But despite not being lonely, Ms. Snead, 89, did live alone in downtown Charleston, S.C. Eventually, that became dangerous.

“I fell a few times,” she says. “I had to call somebody to come and get me up.”

Sometimes help would come from the apartment complex’s office. Sometimes it came with a police escort.

Over time, needing to make those calls became a burden. Making and keeping appointments with her doctor, something she had to do regularly, as she has diabetes, got harder, too.

“It kind of wore me out,” she says. “Like you’re going up a hill.”

As she was beginning to accept she could no longer live alone, Ms. Snead, an Air Force veteran, learned about a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs called Medical Foster Home.

Medical foster homes are privately owned homes in which a licensed caregiver lives with and supervises residents around the clock. Caregivers help aging veterans with activities of daily living like bathing, cooking, making and getting to appointments, getting dressed, and taking daily medication.

Caregivers can take care of up to three residents in their home at a time. While most residents are veterans, caregivers sometimes care for non-veteran residents, such as a veteran’s spouse or a caregiver’s family member.

Veterans typically pay about $1,500 to $3,000 out-of-pocket per month for the service, depending on location.

According to the VA, the concept of medical foster homes has been around since 1999, when VA hospitals across the country began reaching out to people willing to provide live-in care for veterans. The option is led by local VA hospitals, which approve caregivers and provide administrative services. There are now 517 medical foster homes, the VA says.

Much like other residential care facilities, medical foster homes get regular inspections for safety, nutrition, and more.

In 2019, Ms. Snead signed up for the program. She expected to be cared for, but she found a sense of family with her caregiver, Wilhelmina Brown, and another veteran in the home.

Ms. Brown started taking care of people – but not necessarily veterans – in 1997 when her grandmother was unable to care for herself, she says.

“My grandmama carried me to church every Sunday, she carried me to the beach – everywhere she went, she took me with her,” Ms. Brown says. As her grandmother got older, “I said, ‘I’m going to take care of her in my home.’ ”

Caring for others must come from the heart, Ms. Brown says.

She cooks her residents’ meals three times a day with dietary restrictions in mind, washes their dishes, does their laundry, remembers birthdays, and plans little parties.

“That’s my family,” Ms. Brown says.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended the world – but at the same time, it highlighted the advantages of the medical foster home model.

Home-based primary care keeps veterans out of nursing homes – something that became particularly important as COVID-19 hit nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Caregivers in the system were also able to help veterans, often living in rural areas, pivot and adapt to telehealth during a time of crisis.

One study, published in the journal Geriatrics, set out to identify how medical foster homes were able to deliver safe, effective health care during the early stages of the pandemic.

Researchers interviewed 37 VA care providers at 16 rural medical foster home programs across the country. The interviews took place between December 2020 and February 2021. They found medical foster home caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers communicated to move office visits to the home, helped veterans navigate telehealth, advocated to get veterans vaccinated in-home, and relied on each other to fight social isolation.

Caregivers also adapted quickly to telehealth, according to Leah Haverhals, PhD, a health research scientist and communications director for the Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran Centered and Value Driven Care, who led the study.

Most veterans in the foster home program are older and find new technology difficult to use.

Caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers were largely new to the technology, too.

While the study found that most veterans and caregivers preferred in-person care, they were able to work together to make the best of telehealth.

“That speaks to the nature of the care being given, being able to pivot in a crisis like that,” Dr. Haverhals says.

If caregivers didn’t already have computers or telehealth-compatible devices, the VA provided iPads that would connect to the internet using cellular signals. According to the study, this helped to overcome connectivity issues that may have caused problems in rural areas.

Ms. Snead says Ms. Brown helped a lot with her telehealth calls.

“If we had to do things over the phone or with video, she was able to set that up to work with the person on the other end. She knows a lot about that stuff – about computers and things like that,” Ms. Snead says, adding that she hadn’t worked with computers since retirement in 1998.

Telehealth helped health care providers identify infections and quickly prescribe antibiotics to veterans in rural areas and provide other care that was more safely delivered in private homes.

“The findings from our study highlighted that when working together for the common goal of keeping vulnerable populations like veterans in MFHs [medical foster homes] safe during times of crisis, adaptation and collaboration facilitated the ongoing provision of high-quality care,” Dr. Haverhals’s group wrote. “Such collaboration has been shown to be critical in recent research in the United States on supporting older adults during the pandemic.”

Cari Levy, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a co-author of the study, specializes in palliative and telenursing home care for the VA.

Dr. Levy, who has worked for the VA for about 20 years, says how medical foster homes provided care during the pandemic carries lessons for civilian clinics. One of the most important lessons, she says, is that medical professionals will need to provide more care where people are, especially in populations that are too sick to get to the clinic.

“For years, there was all this hope that telehealth would expand,” but it took a pandemic to authorize approval from federal agencies to explode, she says. “I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn’t have telehealth. Fortunately, it was the right time to be able to flip a switch.”

Crisis aside, Dr. Levy says her dream would be for health care providers to do more home-based care. The model allows people to preserve the relational aspects of medicine, which can counteract a lot of the moral injury and burnout in the field, she says, adding:

“I see this as the kind of medicine many people intended to do when they got into medicine.”

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

Susan Snead used to live in an apartment complex for older adults. The complex had a nice dayroom, and neighbors would knock on her door every now and then to check in.

But despite not being lonely, Ms. Snead, 89, did live alone in downtown Charleston, S.C. Eventually, that became dangerous.

“I fell a few times,” she says. “I had to call somebody to come and get me up.”

Sometimes help would come from the apartment complex’s office. Sometimes it came with a police escort.

Over time, needing to make those calls became a burden. Making and keeping appointments with her doctor, something she had to do regularly, as she has diabetes, got harder, too.

“It kind of wore me out,” she says. “Like you’re going up a hill.”

As she was beginning to accept she could no longer live alone, Ms. Snead, an Air Force veteran, learned about a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs called Medical Foster Home.

Medical foster homes are privately owned homes in which a licensed caregiver lives with and supervises residents around the clock. Caregivers help aging veterans with activities of daily living like bathing, cooking, making and getting to appointments, getting dressed, and taking daily medication.

Caregivers can take care of up to three residents in their home at a time. While most residents are veterans, caregivers sometimes care for non-veteran residents, such as a veteran’s spouse or a caregiver’s family member.

Veterans typically pay about $1,500 to $3,000 out-of-pocket per month for the service, depending on location.

According to the VA, the concept of medical foster homes has been around since 1999, when VA hospitals across the country began reaching out to people willing to provide live-in care for veterans. The option is led by local VA hospitals, which approve caregivers and provide administrative services. There are now 517 medical foster homes, the VA says.

Much like other residential care facilities, medical foster homes get regular inspections for safety, nutrition, and more.

In 2019, Ms. Snead signed up for the program. She expected to be cared for, but she found a sense of family with her caregiver, Wilhelmina Brown, and another veteran in the home.

Ms. Brown started taking care of people – but not necessarily veterans – in 1997 when her grandmother was unable to care for herself, she says.

“My grandmama carried me to church every Sunday, she carried me to the beach – everywhere she went, she took me with her,” Ms. Brown says. As her grandmother got older, “I said, ‘I’m going to take care of her in my home.’ ”

Caring for others must come from the heart, Ms. Brown says.

She cooks her residents’ meals three times a day with dietary restrictions in mind, washes their dishes, does their laundry, remembers birthdays, and plans little parties.

“That’s my family,” Ms. Brown says.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended the world – but at the same time, it highlighted the advantages of the medical foster home model.

Home-based primary care keeps veterans out of nursing homes – something that became particularly important as COVID-19 hit nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Caregivers in the system were also able to help veterans, often living in rural areas, pivot and adapt to telehealth during a time of crisis.

One study, published in the journal Geriatrics, set out to identify how medical foster homes were able to deliver safe, effective health care during the early stages of the pandemic.

Researchers interviewed 37 VA care providers at 16 rural medical foster home programs across the country. The interviews took place between December 2020 and February 2021. They found medical foster home caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers communicated to move office visits to the home, helped veterans navigate telehealth, advocated to get veterans vaccinated in-home, and relied on each other to fight social isolation.

Caregivers also adapted quickly to telehealth, according to Leah Haverhals, PhD, a health research scientist and communications director for the Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran Centered and Value Driven Care, who led the study.

Most veterans in the foster home program are older and find new technology difficult to use.

Caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers were largely new to the technology, too.

While the study found that most veterans and caregivers preferred in-person care, they were able to work together to make the best of telehealth.

“That speaks to the nature of the care being given, being able to pivot in a crisis like that,” Dr. Haverhals says.

If caregivers didn’t already have computers or telehealth-compatible devices, the VA provided iPads that would connect to the internet using cellular signals. According to the study, this helped to overcome connectivity issues that may have caused problems in rural areas.

Ms. Snead says Ms. Brown helped a lot with her telehealth calls.

“If we had to do things over the phone or with video, she was able to set that up to work with the person on the other end. She knows a lot about that stuff – about computers and things like that,” Ms. Snead says, adding that she hadn’t worked with computers since retirement in 1998.

Telehealth helped health care providers identify infections and quickly prescribe antibiotics to veterans in rural areas and provide other care that was more safely delivered in private homes.

“The findings from our study highlighted that when working together for the common goal of keeping vulnerable populations like veterans in MFHs [medical foster homes] safe during times of crisis, adaptation and collaboration facilitated the ongoing provision of high-quality care,” Dr. Haverhals’s group wrote. “Such collaboration has been shown to be critical in recent research in the United States on supporting older adults during the pandemic.”

Cari Levy, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a co-author of the study, specializes in palliative and telenursing home care for the VA.

Dr. Levy, who has worked for the VA for about 20 years, says how medical foster homes provided care during the pandemic carries lessons for civilian clinics. One of the most important lessons, she says, is that medical professionals will need to provide more care where people are, especially in populations that are too sick to get to the clinic.

“For years, there was all this hope that telehealth would expand,” but it took a pandemic to authorize approval from federal agencies to explode, she says. “I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn’t have telehealth. Fortunately, it was the right time to be able to flip a switch.”

Crisis aside, Dr. Levy says her dream would be for health care providers to do more home-based care. The model allows people to preserve the relational aspects of medicine, which can counteract a lot of the moral injury and burnout in the field, she says, adding:

“I see this as the kind of medicine many people intended to do when they got into medicine.”

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

Susan Snead used to live in an apartment complex for older adults. The complex had a nice dayroom, and neighbors would knock on her door every now and then to check in.

But despite not being lonely, Ms. Snead, 89, did live alone in downtown Charleston, S.C. Eventually, that became dangerous.

“I fell a few times,” she says. “I had to call somebody to come and get me up.”

Sometimes help would come from the apartment complex’s office. Sometimes it came with a police escort.

Over time, needing to make those calls became a burden. Making and keeping appointments with her doctor, something she had to do regularly, as she has diabetes, got harder, too.

“It kind of wore me out,” she says. “Like you’re going up a hill.”

As she was beginning to accept she could no longer live alone, Ms. Snead, an Air Force veteran, learned about a program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs called Medical Foster Home.

Medical foster homes are privately owned homes in which a licensed caregiver lives with and supervises residents around the clock. Caregivers help aging veterans with activities of daily living like bathing, cooking, making and getting to appointments, getting dressed, and taking daily medication.

Caregivers can take care of up to three residents in their home at a time. While most residents are veterans, caregivers sometimes care for non-veteran residents, such as a veteran’s spouse or a caregiver’s family member.

Veterans typically pay about $1,500 to $3,000 out-of-pocket per month for the service, depending on location.

According to the VA, the concept of medical foster homes has been around since 1999, when VA hospitals across the country began reaching out to people willing to provide live-in care for veterans. The option is led by local VA hospitals, which approve caregivers and provide administrative services. There are now 517 medical foster homes, the VA says.

Much like other residential care facilities, medical foster homes get regular inspections for safety, nutrition, and more.

In 2019, Ms. Snead signed up for the program. She expected to be cared for, but she found a sense of family with her caregiver, Wilhelmina Brown, and another veteran in the home.

Ms. Brown started taking care of people – but not necessarily veterans – in 1997 when her grandmother was unable to care for herself, she says.

“My grandmama carried me to church every Sunday, she carried me to the beach – everywhere she went, she took me with her,” Ms. Brown says. As her grandmother got older, “I said, ‘I’m going to take care of her in my home.’ ”

Caring for others must come from the heart, Ms. Brown says.

She cooks her residents’ meals three times a day with dietary restrictions in mind, washes their dishes, does their laundry, remembers birthdays, and plans little parties.

“That’s my family,” Ms. Brown says.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended the world – but at the same time, it highlighted the advantages of the medical foster home model.

Home-based primary care keeps veterans out of nursing homes – something that became particularly important as COVID-19 hit nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Caregivers in the system were also able to help veterans, often living in rural areas, pivot and adapt to telehealth during a time of crisis.

One study, published in the journal Geriatrics, set out to identify how medical foster homes were able to deliver safe, effective health care during the early stages of the pandemic.

Researchers interviewed 37 VA care providers at 16 rural medical foster home programs across the country. The interviews took place between December 2020 and February 2021. They found medical foster home caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers communicated to move office visits to the home, helped veterans navigate telehealth, advocated to get veterans vaccinated in-home, and relied on each other to fight social isolation.

Caregivers also adapted quickly to telehealth, according to Leah Haverhals, PhD, a health research scientist and communications director for the Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran Centered and Value Driven Care, who led the study.

Most veterans in the foster home program are older and find new technology difficult to use.

Caregivers, coordinators, and health care providers were largely new to the technology, too.

While the study found that most veterans and caregivers preferred in-person care, they were able to work together to make the best of telehealth.

“That speaks to the nature of the care being given, being able to pivot in a crisis like that,” Dr. Haverhals says.

If caregivers didn’t already have computers or telehealth-compatible devices, the VA provided iPads that would connect to the internet using cellular signals. According to the study, this helped to overcome connectivity issues that may have caused problems in rural areas.

Ms. Snead says Ms. Brown helped a lot with her telehealth calls.

“If we had to do things over the phone or with video, she was able to set that up to work with the person on the other end. She knows a lot about that stuff – about computers and things like that,” Ms. Snead says, adding that she hadn’t worked with computers since retirement in 1998.

Telehealth helped health care providers identify infections and quickly prescribe antibiotics to veterans in rural areas and provide other care that was more safely delivered in private homes.

“The findings from our study highlighted that when working together for the common goal of keeping vulnerable populations like veterans in MFHs [medical foster homes] safe during times of crisis, adaptation and collaboration facilitated the ongoing provision of high-quality care,” Dr. Haverhals’s group wrote. “Such collaboration has been shown to be critical in recent research in the United States on supporting older adults during the pandemic.”

Cari Levy, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a co-author of the study, specializes in palliative and telenursing home care for the VA.

Dr. Levy, who has worked for the VA for about 20 years, says how medical foster homes provided care during the pandemic carries lessons for civilian clinics. One of the most important lessons, she says, is that medical professionals will need to provide more care where people are, especially in populations that are too sick to get to the clinic.

“For years, there was all this hope that telehealth would expand,” but it took a pandemic to authorize approval from federal agencies to explode, she says. “I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn’t have telehealth. Fortunately, it was the right time to be able to flip a switch.”

Crisis aside, Dr. Levy says her dream would be for health care providers to do more home-based care. The model allows people to preserve the relational aspects of medicine, which can counteract a lot of the moral injury and burnout in the field, she says, adding:

“I see this as the kind of medicine many people intended to do when they got into medicine.”

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

The term schizophrenia carries an incredible load with it.

It is not just a moniker for a serious mental condition but also a tool to support discrimination, shame, and condemnation, as multiple recent studies and surveys have shown.

The evidence suggests that many of the insensitivities of decades and centuries past, though certainly much improved, can still linger today. And when stigma is attached to a condition or status, it creates additional burdens on the people who are already enduring the challenges of their diagnosis.

There is a growing movement among patients and mental health experts to change the name of this complex condition because of both the added onus it places on patients and the fact that it’s simply clinically inaccurate. Opponents argue that the change will not create the sought-after results but instead, will just usher old negative attitudes into a new world.
 

Why the name change?

Recent research and literature suggest that it is time to change the name schizophrenia to reflect a more accurate description of the condition and to reduce the stigma it carries. The term schizophrenia translates to “split mind,” which is misleading from the start. Mental health experts, people who live with the syndrome, and their advocates believe that changing the term to one that is more closely descriptive of the condition can lead to a more tolerant, understanding public.

In 2021, the Consumer Advisory Board at the Psychosis Research Program of the Massachusetts Mental Health Center Public Psychiatry Division of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center created a project to collect feedback from key stakeholders about the possibility of a name change. The survey was given to people with lived experience of mental illness and their family members, clinicians, researchers, government officials, and the general public. The results showed that nearly 75% of the people surveyed were ready to embrace a name change.

Matcheri S. Keshavan, MD, and Raquelle I. Mesholam-Gately, PhD, are two of the 13 authors of this study. In an interview, the researchers explained how the study was handled and what the results mean to them.

“About 5 years ago, we were all talking about this idea of renaming schizophrenia. I began thinking that first of all, it doesn’t accurately describe what the condition is, and there’s a lot of stigma associated with the word. We also discussed that the name ‘schizophrenia’ has been changed in several other Asian countries, and there have been some benefits associated with those changes, including people being more comfortable with seeking out care,” said Dr. Mesholam-Gately, psychologist and assistant professor of psychology in the department of psychiatry at Harvard University, Boston.

“We reviewed the literature that was out there already and then we put together a survey that we could give to a broad sample of stakeholders, including people with lived experiences, to get a sense of how stigmatizing they thought the word schizophrenia was and whether they feel that the name schizophrenia should be changed. Then we listed some alternate names for schizophrenia and asked how people felt about those alternate names,” continued Dr. Mesholam-Gately.

The alternative names that received the most support were “altered perception syndrome,” “psychosis spectrum syndrome,” and “neuro-emotional integration disorder.” Dr. Keshavan, a clinical psychiatrist and academic head of psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess, said diagnostic name changes have been adopted before in the field and have led to effective results.

“There are several examples in mental health that have gone through this change. For example, autism has been changed to autism spectrum disorder. Manic depressive [disorder] has been changed to bipolar disorder. Mental retardation has been changed to intellectual disability. And those kinds of changes have led to positive benefits and reducing stigma. People are willing to come in for care. For those reasons, we wanted to get the thinking started.”
 

The burden of stigma

The stigma associated with schizophrenia and mental illness in general is as palpable as it is detrimental. Having a mental illness is one thing, but the stigma of carrying such a label is an additional load that individuals must carry as well. Not only does a person with schizophrenia have to manage their symptoms and treatment, both medical and behavioral, but they also must dodge negative attitudes, misinformation, and discrimination that comes from an uneducated or judgmental public. This can lead to different forms of stigma – like self-stigma and label avoidance.

In a recent blog published by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Casey Clabough, a person who lives with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, explained that people who have this serious mental illness can suffer from the backlash of the stigma. He explains that people with schizophrenia can misinterpret reality and behave in ways that the general public doesn’t understand or accept. As a result, they are labeled “crazy,” the public grows fearful of them, and they retreat to social isolation.

The stigma surrounding mental illness is perpetuated from several sources. Media and pop culture inaccurately portray schizophrenia as an out-of-control condition that makes someone prone to violence and more likely to commit crimes. In actuality, people living with schizophrenia are at increased risk of becoming victims of violence. One study found that people with schizophrenia are at least 14 times more likely to be victims of a violent crime than to be arrested for one.
 

A history of changes

The term “schizophrenia” is actually the result of a name change from over 100 years ago. The condition was first identified as a mental illness by Emil Kraepelin, MD, a German psychiatrist who studied the pathogenesis of neurologic and psychiatric disorders. In his studies of dementia in young adults, Dr. Kraepelin labeled the symptoms of what we now call schizophrenia as “dementia praecox,” or early dementia.

In 1908, a Swiss professor named Paul Eugen Bleuler, MD, challenged the accuracy of the term “dementia praecox” at a meeting of the German Psychiatric Association in Berlin. During this meeting, Dr. Bleuler argued that the term schizophrenia comes closer to describing the splitting of psychic functioning. Dr. Bleuler explained how schizophrenia has primary and secondary symptoms. The four primary symptoms (the four As) are:

• Abnormal associations
• Autistic behavior and thinking
• Abnormal affect
• Ambivalence

According to Dr. Bleuler, if an individual lacks adaptive capacity and support, these primary symptoms could lead to more pronounced secondary symptoms, such as social withdraw, hallucinations, and delusions.

In later years, more research has been done to gain a greater understanding of the illness. Kurt Schneider, a German psychiatrist, presented a group of select symptoms for diagnosing schizophrenia as First Rank Symptoms (FRS) in 1959. These symptoms may be experienced by people with psychosis.

The problem here is twofold. One, people who have bipolar disorder may also suffer from similar symptoms, which leads to problem number two: misdiagnosis. An examination of a collection of 21 studies on FRS used as a tool for schizophrenia diagnosis showed that FRS misdiagnosed almost 20% of individuals as having schizophrenia when, in fact, they didn’t have the illness.
 

A rose by any other name still smells sweet

There is apprehension about the name change from some mental health experts; not all respondents to the survey felt that a name change would help with stigma. Concerns range from potential confusion among medical professionals to changing the name prematurely before the newest revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, to having trouble applying for insurance coverages.

“There is a stigma, and people will have [negative] attitudes towards people with schizophrenia,” said William Carpenter, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. “That is going to occur no matter what kind of name you put to it. But the name itself sounds like you’ve been told you have the worst of all mental illnesses. Or you’re never going to get over this, which may be incorrect. So there’s self-stigma, and it’s based on these kinds of feelings.”

University of Maryland School of Medicine

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

The term schizophrenia carries an incredible load with it.

It is not just a moniker for a serious mental condition but also a tool to support discrimination, shame, and condemnation, as multiple recent studies and surveys have shown.

The evidence suggests that many of the insensitivities of decades and centuries past, though certainly much improved, can still linger today. And when stigma is attached to a condition or status, it creates additional burdens on the people who are already enduring the challenges of their diagnosis.

There is a growing movement among patients and mental health experts to change the name of this complex condition because of both the added onus it places on patients and the fact that it’s simply clinically inaccurate. Opponents argue that the change will not create the sought-after results but instead, will just usher old negative attitudes into a new world.
 

Why the name change?

Recent research and literature suggest that it is time to change the name schizophrenia to reflect a more accurate description of the condition and to reduce the stigma it carries. The term schizophrenia translates to “split mind,” which is misleading from the start. Mental health experts, people who live with the syndrome, and their advocates believe that changing the term to one that is more closely descriptive of the condition can lead to a more tolerant, understanding public.

In 2021, the Consumer Advisory Board at the Psychosis Research Program of the Massachusetts Mental Health Center Public Psychiatry Division of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center created a project to collect feedback from key stakeholders about the possibility of a name change. The survey was given to people with lived experience of mental illness and their family members, clinicians, researchers, government officials, and the general public. The results showed that nearly 75% of the people surveyed were ready to embrace a name change.

Matcheri S. Keshavan, MD, and Raquelle I. Mesholam-Gately, PhD, are two of the 13 authors of this study. In an interview, the researchers explained how the study was handled and what the results mean to them.

“About 5 years ago, we were all talking about this idea of renaming schizophrenia. I began thinking that first of all, it doesn’t accurately describe what the condition is, and there’s a lot of stigma associated with the word. We also discussed that the name ‘schizophrenia’ has been changed in several other Asian countries, and there have been some benefits associated with those changes, including people being more comfortable with seeking out care,” said Dr. Mesholam-Gately, psychologist and assistant professor of psychology in the department of psychiatry at Harvard University, Boston.

“We reviewed the literature that was out there already and then we put together a survey that we could give to a broad sample of stakeholders, including people with lived experiences, to get a sense of how stigmatizing they thought the word schizophrenia was and whether they feel that the name schizophrenia should be changed. Then we listed some alternate names for schizophrenia and asked how people felt about those alternate names,” continued Dr. Mesholam-Gately.

The alternative names that received the most support were “altered perception syndrome,” “psychosis spectrum syndrome,” and “neuro-emotional integration disorder.” Dr. Keshavan, a clinical psychiatrist and academic head of psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess, said diagnostic name changes have been adopted before in the field and have led to effective results.

“There are several examples in mental health that have gone through this change. For example, autism has been changed to autism spectrum disorder. Manic depressive [disorder] has been changed to bipolar disorder. Mental retardation has been changed to intellectual disability. And those kinds of changes have led to positive benefits and reducing stigma. People are willing to come in for care. For those reasons, we wanted to get the thinking started.”
 

The burden of stigma

The stigma associated with schizophrenia and mental illness in general is as palpable as it is detrimental. Having a mental illness is one thing, but the stigma of carrying such a label is an additional load that individuals must carry as well. Not only does a person with schizophrenia have to manage their symptoms and treatment, both medical and behavioral, but they also must dodge negative attitudes, misinformation, and discrimination that comes from an uneducated or judgmental public. This can lead to different forms of stigma – like self-stigma and label avoidance.

In a recent blog published by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Casey Clabough, a person who lives with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, explained that people who have this serious mental illness can suffer from the backlash of the stigma. He explains that people with schizophrenia can misinterpret reality and behave in ways that the general public doesn’t understand or accept. As a result, they are labeled “crazy,” the public grows fearful of them, and they retreat to social isolation.

The stigma surrounding mental illness is perpetuated from several sources. Media and pop culture inaccurately portray schizophrenia as an out-of-control condition that makes someone prone to violence and more likely to commit crimes. In actuality, people living with schizophrenia are at increased risk of becoming victims of violence. One study found that people with schizophrenia are at least 14 times more likely to be victims of a violent crime than to be arrested for one.
 

A history of changes

The term “schizophrenia” is actually the result of a name change from over 100 years ago. The condition was first identified as a mental illness by Emil Kraepelin, MD, a German psychiatrist who studied the pathogenesis of neurologic and psychiatric disorders. In his studies of dementia in young adults, Dr. Kraepelin labeled the symptoms of what we now call schizophrenia as “dementia praecox,” or early dementia.

In 1908, a Swiss professor named Paul Eugen Bleuler, MD, challenged the accuracy of the term “dementia praecox” at a meeting of the German Psychiatric Association in Berlin. During this meeting, Dr. Bleuler argued that the term schizophrenia comes closer to describing the splitting of psychic functioning. Dr. Bleuler explained how schizophrenia has primary and secondary symptoms. The four primary symptoms (the four As) are:

• Abnormal associations
• Autistic behavior and thinking
• Abnormal affect
• Ambivalence

According to Dr. Bleuler, if an individual lacks adaptive capacity and support, these primary symptoms could lead to more pronounced secondary symptoms, such as social withdraw, hallucinations, and delusions.

In later years, more research has been done to gain a greater understanding of the illness. Kurt Schneider, a German psychiatrist, presented a group of select symptoms for diagnosing schizophrenia as First Rank Symptoms (FRS) in 1959. These symptoms may be experienced by people with psychosis.

The problem here is twofold. One, people who have bipolar disorder may also suffer from similar symptoms, which leads to problem number two: misdiagnosis. An examination of a collection of 21 studies on FRS used as a tool for schizophrenia diagnosis showed that FRS misdiagnosed almost 20% of individuals as having schizophrenia when, in fact, they didn’t have the illness.
 

A rose by any other name still smells sweet

There is apprehension about the name change from some mental health experts; not all respondents to the survey felt that a name change would help with stigma. Concerns range from potential confusion among medical professionals to changing the name prematurely before the newest revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, to having trouble applying for insurance coverages.

“There is a stigma, and people will have [negative] attitudes towards people with schizophrenia,” said William Carpenter, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. “That is going to occur no matter what kind of name you put to it. But the name itself sounds like you’ve been told you have the worst of all mental illnesses. Or you’re never going to get over this, which may be incorrect. So there’s self-stigma, and it’s based on these kinds of feelings.”

University of Maryland School of Medicine

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

The term schizophrenia carries an incredible load with it.

It is not just a moniker for a serious mental condition but also a tool to support discrimination, shame, and condemnation, as multiple recent studies and surveys have shown.

The evidence suggests that many of the insensitivities of decades and centuries past, though certainly much improved, can still linger today. And when stigma is attached to a condition or status, it creates additional burdens on the people who are already enduring the challenges of their diagnosis.

There is a growing movement among patients and mental health experts to change the name of this complex condition because of both the added onus it places on patients and the fact that it’s simply clinically inaccurate. Opponents argue that the change will not create the sought-after results but instead, will just usher old negative attitudes into a new world.
 

Why the name change?

Recent research and literature suggest that it is time to change the name schizophrenia to reflect a more accurate description of the condition and to reduce the stigma it carries. The term schizophrenia translates to “split mind,” which is misleading from the start. Mental health experts, people who live with the syndrome, and their advocates believe that changing the term to one that is more closely descriptive of the condition can lead to a more tolerant, understanding public.

In 2021, the Consumer Advisory Board at the Psychosis Research Program of the Massachusetts Mental Health Center Public Psychiatry Division of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center created a project to collect feedback from key stakeholders about the possibility of a name change. The survey was given to people with lived experience of mental illness and their family members, clinicians, researchers, government officials, and the general public. The results showed that nearly 75% of the people surveyed were ready to embrace a name change.

Matcheri S. Keshavan, MD, and Raquelle I. Mesholam-Gately, PhD, are two of the 13 authors of this study. In an interview, the researchers explained how the study was handled and what the results mean to them.

“About 5 years ago, we were all talking about this idea of renaming schizophrenia. I began thinking that first of all, it doesn’t accurately describe what the condition is, and there’s a lot of stigma associated with the word. We also discussed that the name ‘schizophrenia’ has been changed in several other Asian countries, and there have been some benefits associated with those changes, including people being more comfortable with seeking out care,” said Dr. Mesholam-Gately, psychologist and assistant professor of psychology in the department of psychiatry at Harvard University, Boston.

“We reviewed the literature that was out there already and then we put together a survey that we could give to a broad sample of stakeholders, including people with lived experiences, to get a sense of how stigmatizing they thought the word schizophrenia was and whether they feel that the name schizophrenia should be changed. Then we listed some alternate names for schizophrenia and asked how people felt about those alternate names,” continued Dr. Mesholam-Gately.

The alternative names that received the most support were “altered perception syndrome,” “psychosis spectrum syndrome,” and “neuro-emotional integration disorder.” Dr. Keshavan, a clinical psychiatrist and academic head of psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess, said diagnostic name changes have been adopted before in the field and have led to effective results.

“There are several examples in mental health that have gone through this change. For example, autism has been changed to autism spectrum disorder. Manic depressive [disorder] has been changed to bipolar disorder. Mental retardation has been changed to intellectual disability. And those kinds of changes have led to positive benefits and reducing stigma. People are willing to come in for care. For those reasons, we wanted to get the thinking started.”
 

The burden of stigma

The stigma associated with schizophrenia and mental illness in general is as palpable as it is detrimental. Having a mental illness is one thing, but the stigma of carrying such a label is an additional load that individuals must carry as well. Not only does a person with schizophrenia have to manage their symptoms and treatment, both medical and behavioral, but they also must dodge negative attitudes, misinformation, and discrimination that comes from an uneducated or judgmental public. This can lead to different forms of stigma – like self-stigma and label avoidance.

In a recent blog published by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Casey Clabough, a person who lives with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, explained that people who have this serious mental illness can suffer from the backlash of the stigma. He explains that people with schizophrenia can misinterpret reality and behave in ways that the general public doesn’t understand or accept. As a result, they are labeled “crazy,” the public grows fearful of them, and they retreat to social isolation.

The stigma surrounding mental illness is perpetuated from several sources. Media and pop culture inaccurately portray schizophrenia as an out-of-control condition that makes someone prone to violence and more likely to commit crimes. In actuality, people living with schizophrenia are at increased risk of becoming victims of violence. One study found that people with schizophrenia are at least 14 times more likely to be victims of a violent crime than to be arrested for one.
 

A history of changes

The term “schizophrenia” is actually the result of a name change from over 100 years ago. The condition was first identified as a mental illness by Emil Kraepelin, MD, a German psychiatrist who studied the pathogenesis of neurologic and psychiatric disorders. In his studies of dementia in young adults, Dr. Kraepelin labeled the symptoms of what we now call schizophrenia as “dementia praecox,” or early dementia.

In 1908, a Swiss professor named Paul Eugen Bleuler, MD, challenged the accuracy of the term “dementia praecox” at a meeting of the German Psychiatric Association in Berlin. During this meeting, Dr. Bleuler argued that the term schizophrenia comes closer to describing the splitting of psychic functioning. Dr. Bleuler explained how schizophrenia has primary and secondary symptoms. The four primary symptoms (the four As) are:

• Abnormal associations
• Autistic behavior and thinking
• Abnormal affect
• Ambivalence

According to Dr. Bleuler, if an individual lacks adaptive capacity and support, these primary symptoms could lead to more pronounced secondary symptoms, such as social withdraw, hallucinations, and delusions.

In later years, more research has been done to gain a greater understanding of the illness. Kurt Schneider, a German psychiatrist, presented a group of select symptoms for diagnosing schizophrenia as First Rank Symptoms (FRS) in 1959. These symptoms may be experienced by people with psychosis.

The problem here is twofold. One, people who have bipolar disorder may also suffer from similar symptoms, which leads to problem number two: misdiagnosis. An examination of a collection of 21 studies on FRS used as a tool for schizophrenia diagnosis showed that FRS misdiagnosed almost 20% of individuals as having schizophrenia when, in fact, they didn’t have the illness.
 

A rose by any other name still smells sweet

There is apprehension about the name change from some mental health experts; not all respondents to the survey felt that a name change would help with stigma. Concerns range from potential confusion among medical professionals to changing the name prematurely before the newest revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, to having trouble applying for insurance coverages.

“There is a stigma, and people will have [negative] attitudes towards people with schizophrenia,” said William Carpenter, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. “That is going to occur no matter what kind of name you put to it. But the name itself sounds like you’ve been told you have the worst of all mental illnesses. Or you’re never going to get over this, which may be incorrect. So there’s self-stigma, and it’s based on these kinds of feelings.”

University of Maryland School of Medicine

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

There’s little doubt that long COVID is real. Even as doctors and federal agencies struggle to define the syndrome, hospitals and health care systems are opening long COVID specialty treatment programs. As of July 25, there’s at least one long COVID center in almost every state – 48 out of 50, according to the patient advocacy group Survivor Corps.

Among the biggest challenges will be treating the mental health effects of long COVID. Well after people recover from acute COVID infections, they can still have a wide range of lingering symptoms, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and PTSD.

courtesy Oregon Health & Science University

Specialized centers will be tackling these problems even as the United States struggles to deal with mental health needs.

One study of COVID patients found more than one-third of them had symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTSD 3-6 months after their initial infection. Another analysis of 30 previous studies of long COVID patients found roughly one in eight of them had severe depression – and that the risk was similar regardless of whether people were hospitalized for COVID-19.

“Many of these symptoms can emerge months into the course of long COVID illness,” said Jordan Anderson, DO, a neuropsychiatrist who sees patients at the Long COVID-19 Program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Psychological symptoms are often made worse by physical setbacks like extreme fatigue and by challenges of working, caring for children, and keeping up with daily routines, he said.

“This impact is not only severe, but also chronic for many,” he said.

Like dozens of hospitals around the country, Oregon Health & Science opened its center for long COVID as it became clear that more patients would need help for ongoing physical and mental health symptoms. Today, there’s at least one long COVID center – sometimes called post-COVID care centers or clinics – in every state but Kansas and South Dakota, Survivor Corps said.

Many long COVID care centers aim to tackle both physical and mental health symptoms, said Tracy Vannorsdall, PhD, a neuropsychologist with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team program. One goal at Hopkins is to identify patients with psychological issues that might otherwise get overlooked.

A sizable minority of patients at the Johns Hopkins center – up to about 35% – report mental health problems that they didn’t have until after they got COVID-19, Dr. Vannorsdall says. The most common mental health issues providers see are depression, anxiety, and trauma-related distress.

“Routine assessment is key,” Dr. Vannorsdall said. “If patients are not asked about their mental health symptoms, they may not spontaneously report them to their provider due to fear of stigma or simply not appreciating that there are effective treatments available for these issues.”

Fear that doctors won’t take symptoms seriously is common, says Heather Murray MD, a senior instructor in psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Many patients worry their physicians, loved ones, and society will not believe them or will minimize their symptoms and suffering,” said Dr. Murray, who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

Diagnostic tests in long COVID patients often don’t have conclusive results, which can lead doctors and patients themselves to question whether symptoms are truly “physical versus psychosomatic,” she said. “It is important that providers believe their patients and treat their symptoms, even when diagnostic tests are unrevealing.”
 

Growing mental health crisis

Patients often find their way to academic treatment centers after surviving severe COVID-19 infections. But a growing number of long COVID patients show up at these centers after milder cases. These patients were never hospitalized for COVID-19 but still have persistent symptoms like fatigue, thinking problems, and mood disorders.

Among the major challenges is a shortage of mental health care providers to meet the surging need for care since the start of the pandemic. Around the world, anxiety and depression surged 25% during the first year of the pandemic, according to the World Health Organization.

In the United States, 40% of adults report feelings of anxiety and depression, and one in three high school students have feelings of sadness and hopelessness, according to a March 2022 statement from the White House.

Despite this surging need for care, almost half of Americans live in areas with a severe shortage of mental health care providers, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. As of 2019, the United States had a shortage of about 6,790 mental health providers. Since then, the shortage has worsened; it’s now about 7,500 providers.

“One of the biggest challenges for hospitals and clinics in treating mental health disorders in long COVID is the limited resources and long wait times to get in for evaluations and treatment,” said Nyaz Didehbani, PhD, a neuropsychologist who treats long COVID patients at the COVID Recover program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

These delays can lead to worse outcomes, Dr. Didehbani said. “Additionally, patients do not feel that they are being heard, as many providers are not aware of the mental health impact and relationship with physical and cognitive symptoms.” .

Even when doctors recognize that psychological challenges are common with long COVID, they still have to think creatively to come up with treatments that meet the unique needs of these patients, said Thida Thant, MD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

“There are at least two major factors that make treating psychological issues in long COVID more complex: The fact that the pandemic is still ongoing and still so divisive throughout society, and the fact that we don’t know a single best way to treat all symptoms of long COVID,” she said.

Some common treatments for anxiety and depression, like psychotherapy and medication, can be used for long COVID patients with these conditions. But another intervention that can work wonders for many people with mood disorders – exercise – doesn’t always work for long COVID patients. That’s because many of them struggle with physical challenges like chronic fatigue and what’s known as postexertional malaise, or a worsening of symptoms after even limited physical effort.

“While we normally encourage patients to be active, have a daily routine, and to engage in physical activity as part of their mental health treatment, some long COVID patients find that their symptoms worsen after increased activity,” Dr. Vannorsdall said.

Patients who are able to reach long COVID care centers are much more apt to get mental health problems diagnosed and treated, doctors at many programs around the country agree. But many patients hardest hit by the pandemic – the poor and racial and ethnic minorities – are also less likely to have ready access to hospitals that offer these programs, said Dr. Anderson.

“Affluent, predominantly White populations are showing up in these clinics, while we know that non-White populations have disproportionally high rates of acute infection, hospitalization, and death related to the virus,” he said.

Clinics are also concentrated in academic medical centers and in urban areas, limiting options for people in rural communities who may have to drive for hours to access care, Dr. Anderson said.

“Even before long COVID, we already knew that many people live in areas where there simply aren’t enough mental health services available,” said John Zulueta, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago who provides mental health evaluations at the UI Health Post-COVID Clinic.

“As more patients develop mental health issues associated with long COVID, it’s going to put more stress on an already stressed system,” he said.

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

There’s little doubt that long COVID is real. Even as doctors and federal agencies struggle to define the syndrome, hospitals and health care systems are opening long COVID specialty treatment programs. As of July 25, there’s at least one long COVID center in almost every state – 48 out of 50, according to the patient advocacy group Survivor Corps.

Among the biggest challenges will be treating the mental health effects of long COVID. Well after people recover from acute COVID infections, they can still have a wide range of lingering symptoms, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and PTSD.

courtesy Oregon Health & Science University

Specialized centers will be tackling these problems even as the United States struggles to deal with mental health needs.

One study of COVID patients found more than one-third of them had symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTSD 3-6 months after their initial infection. Another analysis of 30 previous studies of long COVID patients found roughly one in eight of them had severe depression – and that the risk was similar regardless of whether people were hospitalized for COVID-19.

“Many of these symptoms can emerge months into the course of long COVID illness,” said Jordan Anderson, DO, a neuropsychiatrist who sees patients at the Long COVID-19 Program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Psychological symptoms are often made worse by physical setbacks like extreme fatigue and by challenges of working, caring for children, and keeping up with daily routines, he said.

“This impact is not only severe, but also chronic for many,” he said.

Like dozens of hospitals around the country, Oregon Health & Science opened its center for long COVID as it became clear that more patients would need help for ongoing physical and mental health symptoms. Today, there’s at least one long COVID center – sometimes called post-COVID care centers or clinics – in every state but Kansas and South Dakota, Survivor Corps said.

Many long COVID care centers aim to tackle both physical and mental health symptoms, said Tracy Vannorsdall, PhD, a neuropsychologist with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team program. One goal at Hopkins is to identify patients with psychological issues that might otherwise get overlooked.

A sizable minority of patients at the Johns Hopkins center – up to about 35% – report mental health problems that they didn’t have until after they got COVID-19, Dr. Vannorsdall says. The most common mental health issues providers see are depression, anxiety, and trauma-related distress.

“Routine assessment is key,” Dr. Vannorsdall said. “If patients are not asked about their mental health symptoms, they may not spontaneously report them to their provider due to fear of stigma or simply not appreciating that there are effective treatments available for these issues.”

Fear that doctors won’t take symptoms seriously is common, says Heather Murray MD, a senior instructor in psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Many patients worry their physicians, loved ones, and society will not believe them or will minimize their symptoms and suffering,” said Dr. Murray, who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

Diagnostic tests in long COVID patients often don’t have conclusive results, which can lead doctors and patients themselves to question whether symptoms are truly “physical versus psychosomatic,” she said. “It is important that providers believe their patients and treat their symptoms, even when diagnostic tests are unrevealing.”
 

Growing mental health crisis

Patients often find their way to academic treatment centers after surviving severe COVID-19 infections. But a growing number of long COVID patients show up at these centers after milder cases. These patients were never hospitalized for COVID-19 but still have persistent symptoms like fatigue, thinking problems, and mood disorders.

Among the major challenges is a shortage of mental health care providers to meet the surging need for care since the start of the pandemic. Around the world, anxiety and depression surged 25% during the first year of the pandemic, according to the World Health Organization.

In the United States, 40% of adults report feelings of anxiety and depression, and one in three high school students have feelings of sadness and hopelessness, according to a March 2022 statement from the White House.

Despite this surging need for care, almost half of Americans live in areas with a severe shortage of mental health care providers, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. As of 2019, the United States had a shortage of about 6,790 mental health providers. Since then, the shortage has worsened; it’s now about 7,500 providers.

“One of the biggest challenges for hospitals and clinics in treating mental health disorders in long COVID is the limited resources and long wait times to get in for evaluations and treatment,” said Nyaz Didehbani, PhD, a neuropsychologist who treats long COVID patients at the COVID Recover program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

These delays can lead to worse outcomes, Dr. Didehbani said. “Additionally, patients do not feel that they are being heard, as many providers are not aware of the mental health impact and relationship with physical and cognitive symptoms.” .

Even when doctors recognize that psychological challenges are common with long COVID, they still have to think creatively to come up with treatments that meet the unique needs of these patients, said Thida Thant, MD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

“There are at least two major factors that make treating psychological issues in long COVID more complex: The fact that the pandemic is still ongoing and still so divisive throughout society, and the fact that we don’t know a single best way to treat all symptoms of long COVID,” she said.

Some common treatments for anxiety and depression, like psychotherapy and medication, can be used for long COVID patients with these conditions. But another intervention that can work wonders for many people with mood disorders – exercise – doesn’t always work for long COVID patients. That’s because many of them struggle with physical challenges like chronic fatigue and what’s known as postexertional malaise, or a worsening of symptoms after even limited physical effort.

“While we normally encourage patients to be active, have a daily routine, and to engage in physical activity as part of their mental health treatment, some long COVID patients find that their symptoms worsen after increased activity,” Dr. Vannorsdall said.

Patients who are able to reach long COVID care centers are much more apt to get mental health problems diagnosed and treated, doctors at many programs around the country agree. But many patients hardest hit by the pandemic – the poor and racial and ethnic minorities – are also less likely to have ready access to hospitals that offer these programs, said Dr. Anderson.

“Affluent, predominantly White populations are showing up in these clinics, while we know that non-White populations have disproportionally high rates of acute infection, hospitalization, and death related to the virus,” he said.

Clinics are also concentrated in academic medical centers and in urban areas, limiting options for people in rural communities who may have to drive for hours to access care, Dr. Anderson said.

“Even before long COVID, we already knew that many people live in areas where there simply aren’t enough mental health services available,” said John Zulueta, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago who provides mental health evaluations at the UI Health Post-COVID Clinic.

“As more patients develop mental health issues associated with long COVID, it’s going to put more stress on an already stressed system,” he said.

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

There’s little doubt that long COVID is real. Even as doctors and federal agencies struggle to define the syndrome, hospitals and health care systems are opening long COVID specialty treatment programs. As of July 25, there’s at least one long COVID center in almost every state – 48 out of 50, according to the patient advocacy group Survivor Corps.

Among the biggest challenges will be treating the mental health effects of long COVID. Well after people recover from acute COVID infections, they can still have a wide range of lingering symptoms, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and PTSD.

courtesy Oregon Health & Science University

Specialized centers will be tackling these problems even as the United States struggles to deal with mental health needs.

One study of COVID patients found more than one-third of them had symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTSD 3-6 months after their initial infection. Another analysis of 30 previous studies of long COVID patients found roughly one in eight of them had severe depression – and that the risk was similar regardless of whether people were hospitalized for COVID-19.

“Many of these symptoms can emerge months into the course of long COVID illness,” said Jordan Anderson, DO, a neuropsychiatrist who sees patients at the Long COVID-19 Program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Psychological symptoms are often made worse by physical setbacks like extreme fatigue and by challenges of working, caring for children, and keeping up with daily routines, he said.

“This impact is not only severe, but also chronic for many,” he said.

Like dozens of hospitals around the country, Oregon Health & Science opened its center for long COVID as it became clear that more patients would need help for ongoing physical and mental health symptoms. Today, there’s at least one long COVID center – sometimes called post-COVID care centers or clinics – in every state but Kansas and South Dakota, Survivor Corps said.

Many long COVID care centers aim to tackle both physical and mental health symptoms, said Tracy Vannorsdall, PhD, a neuropsychologist with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team program. One goal at Hopkins is to identify patients with psychological issues that might otherwise get overlooked.

A sizable minority of patients at the Johns Hopkins center – up to about 35% – report mental health problems that they didn’t have until after they got COVID-19, Dr. Vannorsdall says. The most common mental health issues providers see are depression, anxiety, and trauma-related distress.

“Routine assessment is key,” Dr. Vannorsdall said. “If patients are not asked about their mental health symptoms, they may not spontaneously report them to their provider due to fear of stigma or simply not appreciating that there are effective treatments available for these issues.”

Fear that doctors won’t take symptoms seriously is common, says Heather Murray MD, a senior instructor in psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Many patients worry their physicians, loved ones, and society will not believe them or will minimize their symptoms and suffering,” said Dr. Murray, who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

Diagnostic tests in long COVID patients often don’t have conclusive results, which can lead doctors and patients themselves to question whether symptoms are truly “physical versus psychosomatic,” she said. “It is important that providers believe their patients and treat their symptoms, even when diagnostic tests are unrevealing.”
 

Growing mental health crisis

Patients often find their way to academic treatment centers after surviving severe COVID-19 infections. But a growing number of long COVID patients show up at these centers after milder cases. These patients were never hospitalized for COVID-19 but still have persistent symptoms like fatigue, thinking problems, and mood disorders.

Among the major challenges is a shortage of mental health care providers to meet the surging need for care since the start of the pandemic. Around the world, anxiety and depression surged 25% during the first year of the pandemic, according to the World Health Organization.

In the United States, 40% of adults report feelings of anxiety and depression, and one in three high school students have feelings of sadness and hopelessness, according to a March 2022 statement from the White House.

Despite this surging need for care, almost half of Americans live in areas with a severe shortage of mental health care providers, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. As of 2019, the United States had a shortage of about 6,790 mental health providers. Since then, the shortage has worsened; it’s now about 7,500 providers.

“One of the biggest challenges for hospitals and clinics in treating mental health disorders in long COVID is the limited resources and long wait times to get in for evaluations and treatment,” said Nyaz Didehbani, PhD, a neuropsychologist who treats long COVID patients at the COVID Recover program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

These delays can lead to worse outcomes, Dr. Didehbani said. “Additionally, patients do not feel that they are being heard, as many providers are not aware of the mental health impact and relationship with physical and cognitive symptoms.” .

Even when doctors recognize that psychological challenges are common with long COVID, they still have to think creatively to come up with treatments that meet the unique needs of these patients, said Thida Thant, MD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

“There are at least two major factors that make treating psychological issues in long COVID more complex: The fact that the pandemic is still ongoing and still so divisive throughout society, and the fact that we don’t know a single best way to treat all symptoms of long COVID,” she said.

Some common treatments for anxiety and depression, like psychotherapy and medication, can be used for long COVID patients with these conditions. But another intervention that can work wonders for many people with mood disorders – exercise – doesn’t always work for long COVID patients. That’s because many of them struggle with physical challenges like chronic fatigue and what’s known as postexertional malaise, or a worsening of symptoms after even limited physical effort.

“While we normally encourage patients to be active, have a daily routine, and to engage in physical activity as part of their mental health treatment, some long COVID patients find that their symptoms worsen after increased activity,” Dr. Vannorsdall said.

Patients who are able to reach long COVID care centers are much more apt to get mental health problems diagnosed and treated, doctors at many programs around the country agree. But many patients hardest hit by the pandemic – the poor and racial and ethnic minorities – are also less likely to have ready access to hospitals that offer these programs, said Dr. Anderson.

“Affluent, predominantly White populations are showing up in these clinics, while we know that non-White populations have disproportionally high rates of acute infection, hospitalization, and death related to the virus,” he said.

Clinics are also concentrated in academic medical centers and in urban areas, limiting options for people in rural communities who may have to drive for hours to access care, Dr. Anderson said.

“Even before long COVID, we already knew that many people live in areas where there simply aren’t enough mental health services available,” said John Zulueta, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago who provides mental health evaluations at the UI Health Post-COVID Clinic.

“As more patients develop mental health issues associated with long COVID, it’s going to put more stress on an already stressed system,” he said.

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

New COVID-19 cases rose for the second week in a row as cumulative cases among U.S. children passed the 14-million mark, but a recent survey shows that more than half of parents believe that the vaccine is a greater risk to children under age 5 years than the virus.

In a Kaiser Family Foundation survey conducted July 7-17, 53% of parents with children aged 6 months to 5 years said that the vaccine is “a bigger risk to their child’s health than getting infected with COVID-19, compared to 44% who say getting infected is the bigger risk,” KFF reported July 26.

More than 4 out of 10 of respondents (43%) said that they will “definitely not” get their eligible children vaccinated, while only 7% said that their children had already received it and 10% said their children would get it as soon as possible, according to the KFF survey, which had an overall sample size of 1,847 adults, including an oversample of 471 parents of children under age 5.

Vaccine initiation has been slow in the first month since it was approved for the youngest children. Just 2.8% of all eligible children under age 5 had received an initial dose as of July 19, compared with first-month uptake figures of more than 18% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 27% for those aged 12-15, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The current rates for vaccination in those aged 5 and older look like this: 70.2% of 12- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose, versus 37.1% of those aged 5-11. Just over 60% of the older children were fully vaccinated as of July 19, as were 30.2% of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

Number of new cases hits 2-month high

Despite the vaccine, SARS-CoV-2 and its various mutations have continued with their summer travels. With 92,000 newly infected children added for the week of July 15-21, there have now been a total of 14,003,497 pediatric cases reported since the start of the pandemic, which works out to 18.6% of cases in all ages, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The 92,000 new cases represent an increase of almost 22% over the previous week and mark the highest 1-week count since May, when the total passed 100,000 for 2 consecutive weeks. More recently the trend had seemed more stable as weekly cases dropped twice and rose twice as the total hovered around 70,000, based on the data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health departments.

A different scenario has played out for emergency department visits and hospital admissions, which have risen steadily since the beginning of April. The admission rate for children aged 0-17, which was just 0.13 new patients per 100,000 population on April 11, was up to 0.44 per 100,000 on July 21. By comparison, the highest rate reached last year during the Delta surge was 0.47 per 100,000, based on CDC data.

The 7-day average of emergency dept. visits among the youngest age group, 0-11 years, shows the same general increase as hospital admissions, but the older children have diverged form that path (see graph). For those aged 12-15 and 16-17, hospitalizations started dropping in late May and into mid-June before climbing again, although more slowly than for the youngest group, the CDC data show.

The ED visit rate with diagnosed COVID among those aged 0-11, measured at 6.1% of all visits on July 19, is, in fact, considerably higher than at any time during the Delta surge last year, when it never passed 4.0%, although much lower than peak Omicron (14.1%). That 6.1% was also higher than any other age group on that day, adults included, the CDC said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases rose for the second week in a row as cumulative cases among U.S. children passed the 14-million mark, but a recent survey shows that more than half of parents believe that the vaccine is a greater risk to children under age 5 years than the virus.

In a Kaiser Family Foundation survey conducted July 7-17, 53% of parents with children aged 6 months to 5 years said that the vaccine is “a bigger risk to their child’s health than getting infected with COVID-19, compared to 44% who say getting infected is the bigger risk,” KFF reported July 26.

More than 4 out of 10 of respondents (43%) said that they will “definitely not” get their eligible children vaccinated, while only 7% said that their children had already received it and 10% said their children would get it as soon as possible, according to the KFF survey, which had an overall sample size of 1,847 adults, including an oversample of 471 parents of children under age 5.

Vaccine initiation has been slow in the first month since it was approved for the youngest children. Just 2.8% of all eligible children under age 5 had received an initial dose as of July 19, compared with first-month uptake figures of more than 18% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 27% for those aged 12-15, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The current rates for vaccination in those aged 5 and older look like this: 70.2% of 12- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose, versus 37.1% of those aged 5-11. Just over 60% of the older children were fully vaccinated as of July 19, as were 30.2% of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

Number of new cases hits 2-month high

Despite the vaccine, SARS-CoV-2 and its various mutations have continued with their summer travels. With 92,000 newly infected children added for the week of July 15-21, there have now been a total of 14,003,497 pediatric cases reported since the start of the pandemic, which works out to 18.6% of cases in all ages, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The 92,000 new cases represent an increase of almost 22% over the previous week and mark the highest 1-week count since May, when the total passed 100,000 for 2 consecutive weeks. More recently the trend had seemed more stable as weekly cases dropped twice and rose twice as the total hovered around 70,000, based on the data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health departments.

A different scenario has played out for emergency department visits and hospital admissions, which have risen steadily since the beginning of April. The admission rate for children aged 0-17, which was just 0.13 new patients per 100,000 population on April 11, was up to 0.44 per 100,000 on July 21. By comparison, the highest rate reached last year during the Delta surge was 0.47 per 100,000, based on CDC data.

The 7-day average of emergency dept. visits among the youngest age group, 0-11 years, shows the same general increase as hospital admissions, but the older children have diverged form that path (see graph). For those aged 12-15 and 16-17, hospitalizations started dropping in late May and into mid-June before climbing again, although more slowly than for the youngest group, the CDC data show.

The ED visit rate with diagnosed COVID among those aged 0-11, measured at 6.1% of all visits on July 19, is, in fact, considerably higher than at any time during the Delta surge last year, when it never passed 4.0%, although much lower than peak Omicron (14.1%). That 6.1% was also higher than any other age group on that day, adults included, the CDC said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases rose for the second week in a row as cumulative cases among U.S. children passed the 14-million mark, but a recent survey shows that more than half of parents believe that the vaccine is a greater risk to children under age 5 years than the virus.

In a Kaiser Family Foundation survey conducted July 7-17, 53% of parents with children aged 6 months to 5 years said that the vaccine is “a bigger risk to their child’s health than getting infected with COVID-19, compared to 44% who say getting infected is the bigger risk,” KFF reported July 26.

More than 4 out of 10 of respondents (43%) said that they will “definitely not” get their eligible children vaccinated, while only 7% said that their children had already received it and 10% said their children would get it as soon as possible, according to the KFF survey, which had an overall sample size of 1,847 adults, including an oversample of 471 parents of children under age 5.

Vaccine initiation has been slow in the first month since it was approved for the youngest children. Just 2.8% of all eligible children under age 5 had received an initial dose as of July 19, compared with first-month uptake figures of more than 18% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 27% for those aged 12-15, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The current rates for vaccination in those aged 5 and older look like this: 70.2% of 12- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose, versus 37.1% of those aged 5-11. Just over 60% of the older children were fully vaccinated as of July 19, as were 30.2% of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

Number of new cases hits 2-month high

Despite the vaccine, SARS-CoV-2 and its various mutations have continued with their summer travels. With 92,000 newly infected children added for the week of July 15-21, there have now been a total of 14,003,497 pediatric cases reported since the start of the pandemic, which works out to 18.6% of cases in all ages, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The 92,000 new cases represent an increase of almost 22% over the previous week and mark the highest 1-week count since May, when the total passed 100,000 for 2 consecutive weeks. More recently the trend had seemed more stable as weekly cases dropped twice and rose twice as the total hovered around 70,000, based on the data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health departments.

A different scenario has played out for emergency department visits and hospital admissions, which have risen steadily since the beginning of April. The admission rate for children aged 0-17, which was just 0.13 new patients per 100,000 population on April 11, was up to 0.44 per 100,000 on July 21. By comparison, the highest rate reached last year during the Delta surge was 0.47 per 100,000, based on CDC data.

The 7-day average of emergency dept. visits among the youngest age group, 0-11 years, shows the same general increase as hospital admissions, but the older children have diverged form that path (see graph). For those aged 12-15 and 16-17, hospitalizations started dropping in late May and into mid-June before climbing again, although more slowly than for the youngest group, the CDC data show.

The ED visit rate with diagnosed COVID among those aged 0-11, measured at 6.1% of all visits on July 19, is, in fact, considerably higher than at any time during the Delta surge last year, when it never passed 4.0%, although much lower than peak Omicron (14.1%). That 6.1% was also higher than any other age group on that day, adults included, the CDC said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

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

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

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

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top five for cancer

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

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

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

Top five for orthopedics

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

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

The full report is available online.

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

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

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

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

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top five for cancer

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

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

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

Top five for orthopedics

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

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

The full report is available online.

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

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

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

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

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top five for cancer

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

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

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

Top five for orthopedics

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

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

The full report is available online.

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

Dozens of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, medical students walked out of their white coat ceremony July 24 as a keynote speaker began to talk.

A Twitter video of the walkout has gone viral. By press time, the video had garnered more than 9.5 million views.

The walkout comes days after more than 340 medical students at the school signed a petition opposing the selection of Michigan assistant professor Kristin Collier, MD, for the ceremony because of her anti-abortion views, according to The Michigan Daily.

In response to the incident, a medical school spokeswoman told this news organization that Dr. Collier was chosen to be speaker “based on nominations and voting by members of the UM Medical School Gold Humanism Honor Society, which is comprised of medical students, house officers, and faculty.”

The press statement continued, “The White Coat Ceremony is not a platform for discussion of controversial issues. Its focus will always be on welcoming students into the profession of medicine. Dr. Collier never planned to address a divisive topic as part of her remarks. However, the University of Michigan does not revoke an invitation to a speaker based on their personal beliefs.”

The university further stated that it remains committed to providing reproductive care for patients, including abortion care, which remains legal in Michigan following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning abortion rights, according to the statement by Mary Masson, director of Michigan Medicine public relations.

The state has an abortion ban, but a recent court order temporarily blocked enforcement of it, according to the statement.

In her speech, Dr. Collier recognized the divisiveness of the issue. “I want to acknowledge the deep wounds our community has suffered over the past several weeks. We have a great deal of work to do for healing to occur. And I hope for today, for this time, we can focus on what matters the most, coming together with a goal to support our newly accepted students and their families.”

Following applause from the remaining audience, she continued to offer advice for the incoming students about how to thrive in their chosen profession.

Dr. Collier, a graduate of the med school and director of its Health, Spirituality, and Religion program, has 15.2K Twitter followers. She has been known to post anti-abortion sentiments, including those cited in the students’ petition.

“While we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care,” the petition reads, in part.

The petition states that the disagreement is not over personal opinions. “We demand that UM stands in solidarity with us and selects a speaker whose values align with institutional policies, students, and the broader medical community. This speaker should inspire the next generation of health care providers to be courageous advocates for patient autonomy and our communities.”

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

Dozens of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, medical students walked out of their white coat ceremony July 24 as a keynote speaker began to talk.

A Twitter video of the walkout has gone viral. By press time, the video had garnered more than 9.5 million views.

The walkout comes days after more than 340 medical students at the school signed a petition opposing the selection of Michigan assistant professor Kristin Collier, MD, for the ceremony because of her anti-abortion views, according to The Michigan Daily.

In response to the incident, a medical school spokeswoman told this news organization that Dr. Collier was chosen to be speaker “based on nominations and voting by members of the UM Medical School Gold Humanism Honor Society, which is comprised of medical students, house officers, and faculty.”

The press statement continued, “The White Coat Ceremony is not a platform for discussion of controversial issues. Its focus will always be on welcoming students into the profession of medicine. Dr. Collier never planned to address a divisive topic as part of her remarks. However, the University of Michigan does not revoke an invitation to a speaker based on their personal beliefs.”

The university further stated that it remains committed to providing reproductive care for patients, including abortion care, which remains legal in Michigan following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning abortion rights, according to the statement by Mary Masson, director of Michigan Medicine public relations.

The state has an abortion ban, but a recent court order temporarily blocked enforcement of it, according to the statement.

In her speech, Dr. Collier recognized the divisiveness of the issue. “I want to acknowledge the deep wounds our community has suffered over the past several weeks. We have a great deal of work to do for healing to occur. And I hope for today, for this time, we can focus on what matters the most, coming together with a goal to support our newly accepted students and their families.”

Following applause from the remaining audience, she continued to offer advice for the incoming students about how to thrive in their chosen profession.

Dr. Collier, a graduate of the med school and director of its Health, Spirituality, and Religion program, has 15.2K Twitter followers. She has been known to post anti-abortion sentiments, including those cited in the students’ petition.

“While we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care,” the petition reads, in part.

The petition states that the disagreement is not over personal opinions. “We demand that UM stands in solidarity with us and selects a speaker whose values align with institutional policies, students, and the broader medical community. This speaker should inspire the next generation of health care providers to be courageous advocates for patient autonomy and our communities.”

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

Dozens of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, medical students walked out of their white coat ceremony July 24 as a keynote speaker began to talk.

A Twitter video of the walkout has gone viral. By press time, the video had garnered more than 9.5 million views.

The walkout comes days after more than 340 medical students at the school signed a petition opposing the selection of Michigan assistant professor Kristin Collier, MD, for the ceremony because of her anti-abortion views, according to The Michigan Daily.

In response to the incident, a medical school spokeswoman told this news organization that Dr. Collier was chosen to be speaker “based on nominations and voting by members of the UM Medical School Gold Humanism Honor Society, which is comprised of medical students, house officers, and faculty.”

The press statement continued, “The White Coat Ceremony is not a platform for discussion of controversial issues. Its focus will always be on welcoming students into the profession of medicine. Dr. Collier never planned to address a divisive topic as part of her remarks. However, the University of Michigan does not revoke an invitation to a speaker based on their personal beliefs.”

The university further stated that it remains committed to providing reproductive care for patients, including abortion care, which remains legal in Michigan following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning abortion rights, according to the statement by Mary Masson, director of Michigan Medicine public relations.

The state has an abortion ban, but a recent court order temporarily blocked enforcement of it, according to the statement.

In her speech, Dr. Collier recognized the divisiveness of the issue. “I want to acknowledge the deep wounds our community has suffered over the past several weeks. We have a great deal of work to do for healing to occur. And I hope for today, for this time, we can focus on what matters the most, coming together with a goal to support our newly accepted students and their families.”

Following applause from the remaining audience, she continued to offer advice for the incoming students about how to thrive in their chosen profession.

Dr. Collier, a graduate of the med school and director of its Health, Spirituality, and Religion program, has 15.2K Twitter followers. She has been known to post anti-abortion sentiments, including those cited in the students’ petition.

“While we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care,” the petition reads, in part.

The petition states that the disagreement is not over personal opinions. “We demand that UM stands in solidarity with us and selects a speaker whose values align with institutional policies, students, and the broader medical community. This speaker should inspire the next generation of health care providers to be courageous advocates for patient autonomy and our communities.”

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

Emma Sherman, a 13-year-old girl in Ascot, England, woke up to a dizzying aura of blind spots and flashing lights in her field of vision. It was May 2020, and she also had crippling nausea and headaches. By August, her dizziness was so overwhelming, she couldn’t hold her head up, lying in her mother’s lap for hours, too fatigued to attend school.

The former competitive gymnast, who had hoped to try out for the cheerleading squad, now used a wheelchair and was a shadow of her former self. She had been diagnosed with COVID-induced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition often caused by an infection that results in a higher heart rate, extreme nausea, dizziness, and fatigue.

“I was so into sports before I got long COVID, and afterwards I could barely walk,” Emma said.

Even minor movements sent her heart rate sky-high. Her long chestnut hair turned gray and fell out in clumps. In the hospital, she was pricked and prodded, her blood tested for numerous conditions.

“They ran every scan known to man and took an MRI of her brain,” said Emma’s mother, Marie Sherman. “All was clear.”

Emma’s pediatrician determined that the teen had long COVID after having had a mild case of the virus in March, about 2 months before her puzzling symptoms began. But beyond a positive antibody test, doctors have found little evidence of what was causing Emma’s symptoms.

For Emma and others with long COVID, there are no medications shown to directly target the condition. Instead, caregivers target their symptoms, which include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and a racing heart, said Laura Malone, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Krieger Pediatric Post–COVID-19 Rehabilitation Clinic in Baltimore.

“Right now, it’s a rehabilitation-based approach focused on improving symptoms and functioning so that kids can go back to their usual activities as much as possible,” she says.

Depression and anxiety are common, although doctors are struggling to figure out whether COVID is changing the brain or whether mental health symptoms result from all the life disruptions. There’s little research to show how may kids have depression because of long COVID. Dr. Malone said about half of her patients at the Kennedy Krieger Institute›s long COVID clinic are also dealing with mental health issues.

Patients with headaches, dizziness, and nausea are given pain and nausea medications and recommendations for a healthy diet with added fruits and vegetables, monounsaturated fats, lower sodium, unprocessed foods, and whole grains. Kids with irregular or racing heart rates are referred to cardiologists and potentially prescribed beta-blockers to treat their heart arrhythmias, while children with breathing problems may be referred to pulmonologists and those with depression to a psychiatrist.

Still, many patients like Emma go to their doctors with phantom symptoms that don’t show up on scans or blood tests.

“We’re not seeing any evidence of structural damage to the brain, for example,” said Dr. Malone. “When we do MRIs, they often come out normal.”

It’s possible that the virus lingers in some patients, said Rajeev Fernando, MD, an infectious disease specialist and a fellow at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Kids’ strong immune systems often fend off problems that can be noticed. But on the inside, dead fragments of the virus persist, floating in hidden parts of the body and activating the immune system long after the threat has passed.

The virus can be in the gut and in the brain, which may help explain why symptoms like brain fog and nausea can linger in children.

“The immune system doesn’t recognize whether fragments of the virus are dead or alive. It continues to think it’s fighting active COVID,” said Dr. Fernando.

There is little data on how long symptoms last, Dr. Fernando said, as well as how many kids get them and why some are more vulnerable than others. Some research has found that about 5%-15% of children with COVID may get long COVID, but the statistics vary globally.

“Children with long COVID have largely been ignored. And while we’re talking about it now, we’ve got some work to do,” said Dr. Fernando.

As for Emma, she recovered in January of 2021, heading back to school and her friends, although her cardiologist advised her to skip gym classes.

“For the first time in months, I was feeling like myself again,” she said.

But the coronavirus found its way to Emma again. Although she was fully vaccinated in the fall of 2021, when the Omicron variant swept the world late that year, she was infected again.

“When the wave of Omicron descended, Emma was like a sitting duck,” her mother said.

She was bedridden with a high fever and cough. The cold-like symptoms eventually went away, but the issues in her gut stuck around. Since then, Emma has had extreme nausea, losing most of the weight she had gained back.

For her part, Ms. Sherman has found solace in a group called Long COVID Kids, a nonprofit in Europe and the United States. The group is raising awareness about the condition in kids to increase funding, boost understanding, and improve treatment and outcomes.

“There’s nothing worse than watching your child suffer and not being able to do anything about it,” she said. “I tell Emma all the time: If I could just crawl in your body and take it, I would do it in a second.”

Emma is hoping for a fresh start with her family’s move in the coming weeks to Sotogrande in southern Spain.

“I miss the simplest things like going for a run, going to the fair with my friends, and just feeling well,” she said. “I have a long list of things I’ll do once this is all done.”

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

Emma Sherman, a 13-year-old girl in Ascot, England, woke up to a dizzying aura of blind spots and flashing lights in her field of vision. It was May 2020, and she also had crippling nausea and headaches. By August, her dizziness was so overwhelming, she couldn’t hold her head up, lying in her mother’s lap for hours, too fatigued to attend school.

The former competitive gymnast, who had hoped to try out for the cheerleading squad, now used a wheelchair and was a shadow of her former self. She had been diagnosed with COVID-induced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition often caused by an infection that results in a higher heart rate, extreme nausea, dizziness, and fatigue.

“I was so into sports before I got long COVID, and afterwards I could barely walk,” Emma said.

Even minor movements sent her heart rate sky-high. Her long chestnut hair turned gray and fell out in clumps. In the hospital, she was pricked and prodded, her blood tested for numerous conditions.

“They ran every scan known to man and took an MRI of her brain,” said Emma’s mother, Marie Sherman. “All was clear.”

Emma’s pediatrician determined that the teen had long COVID after having had a mild case of the virus in March, about 2 months before her puzzling symptoms began. But beyond a positive antibody test, doctors have found little evidence of what was causing Emma’s symptoms.

For Emma and others with long COVID, there are no medications shown to directly target the condition. Instead, caregivers target their symptoms, which include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and a racing heart, said Laura Malone, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Krieger Pediatric Post–COVID-19 Rehabilitation Clinic in Baltimore.

“Right now, it’s a rehabilitation-based approach focused on improving symptoms and functioning so that kids can go back to their usual activities as much as possible,” she says.

Depression and anxiety are common, although doctors are struggling to figure out whether COVID is changing the brain or whether mental health symptoms result from all the life disruptions. There’s little research to show how may kids have depression because of long COVID. Dr. Malone said about half of her patients at the Kennedy Krieger Institute›s long COVID clinic are also dealing with mental health issues.

Patients with headaches, dizziness, and nausea are given pain and nausea medications and recommendations for a healthy diet with added fruits and vegetables, monounsaturated fats, lower sodium, unprocessed foods, and whole grains. Kids with irregular or racing heart rates are referred to cardiologists and potentially prescribed beta-blockers to treat their heart arrhythmias, while children with breathing problems may be referred to pulmonologists and those with depression to a psychiatrist.

Still, many patients like Emma go to their doctors with phantom symptoms that don’t show up on scans or blood tests.

“We’re not seeing any evidence of structural damage to the brain, for example,” said Dr. Malone. “When we do MRIs, they often come out normal.”

It’s possible that the virus lingers in some patients, said Rajeev Fernando, MD, an infectious disease specialist and a fellow at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Kids’ strong immune systems often fend off problems that can be noticed. But on the inside, dead fragments of the virus persist, floating in hidden parts of the body and activating the immune system long after the threat has passed.

The virus can be in the gut and in the brain, which may help explain why symptoms like brain fog and nausea can linger in children.

“The immune system doesn’t recognize whether fragments of the virus are dead or alive. It continues to think it’s fighting active COVID,” said Dr. Fernando.

There is little data on how long symptoms last, Dr. Fernando said, as well as how many kids get them and why some are more vulnerable than others. Some research has found that about 5%-15% of children with COVID may get long COVID, but the statistics vary globally.

“Children with long COVID have largely been ignored. And while we’re talking about it now, we’ve got some work to do,” said Dr. Fernando.

As for Emma, she recovered in January of 2021, heading back to school and her friends, although her cardiologist advised her to skip gym classes.

“For the first time in months, I was feeling like myself again,” she said.

But the coronavirus found its way to Emma again. Although she was fully vaccinated in the fall of 2021, when the Omicron variant swept the world late that year, she was infected again.

“When the wave of Omicron descended, Emma was like a sitting duck,” her mother said.

She was bedridden with a high fever and cough. The cold-like symptoms eventually went away, but the issues in her gut stuck around. Since then, Emma has had extreme nausea, losing most of the weight she had gained back.

For her part, Ms. Sherman has found solace in a group called Long COVID Kids, a nonprofit in Europe and the United States. The group is raising awareness about the condition in kids to increase funding, boost understanding, and improve treatment and outcomes.

“There’s nothing worse than watching your child suffer and not being able to do anything about it,” she said. “I tell Emma all the time: If I could just crawl in your body and take it, I would do it in a second.”

Emma is hoping for a fresh start with her family’s move in the coming weeks to Sotogrande in southern Spain.

“I miss the simplest things like going for a run, going to the fair with my friends, and just feeling well,” she said. “I have a long list of things I’ll do once this is all done.”

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

Emma Sherman, a 13-year-old girl in Ascot, England, woke up to a dizzying aura of blind spots and flashing lights in her field of vision. It was May 2020, and she also had crippling nausea and headaches. By August, her dizziness was so overwhelming, she couldn’t hold her head up, lying in her mother’s lap for hours, too fatigued to attend school.

The former competitive gymnast, who had hoped to try out for the cheerleading squad, now used a wheelchair and was a shadow of her former self. She had been diagnosed with COVID-induced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition often caused by an infection that results in a higher heart rate, extreme nausea, dizziness, and fatigue.

“I was so into sports before I got long COVID, and afterwards I could barely walk,” Emma said.

Even minor movements sent her heart rate sky-high. Her long chestnut hair turned gray and fell out in clumps. In the hospital, she was pricked and prodded, her blood tested for numerous conditions.

“They ran every scan known to man and took an MRI of her brain,” said Emma’s mother, Marie Sherman. “All was clear.”

Emma’s pediatrician determined that the teen had long COVID after having had a mild case of the virus in March, about 2 months before her puzzling symptoms began. But beyond a positive antibody test, doctors have found little evidence of what was causing Emma’s symptoms.

For Emma and others with long COVID, there are no medications shown to directly target the condition. Instead, caregivers target their symptoms, which include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and a racing heart, said Laura Malone, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Krieger Pediatric Post–COVID-19 Rehabilitation Clinic in Baltimore.

“Right now, it’s a rehabilitation-based approach focused on improving symptoms and functioning so that kids can go back to their usual activities as much as possible,” she says.

Depression and anxiety are common, although doctors are struggling to figure out whether COVID is changing the brain or whether mental health symptoms result from all the life disruptions. There’s little research to show how may kids have depression because of long COVID. Dr. Malone said about half of her patients at the Kennedy Krieger Institute›s long COVID clinic are also dealing with mental health issues.

Patients with headaches, dizziness, and nausea are given pain and nausea medications and recommendations for a healthy diet with added fruits and vegetables, monounsaturated fats, lower sodium, unprocessed foods, and whole grains. Kids with irregular or racing heart rates are referred to cardiologists and potentially prescribed beta-blockers to treat their heart arrhythmias, while children with breathing problems may be referred to pulmonologists and those with depression to a psychiatrist.

Still, many patients like Emma go to their doctors with phantom symptoms that don’t show up on scans or blood tests.

“We’re not seeing any evidence of structural damage to the brain, for example,” said Dr. Malone. “When we do MRIs, they often come out normal.”

It’s possible that the virus lingers in some patients, said Rajeev Fernando, MD, an infectious disease specialist and a fellow at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Kids’ strong immune systems often fend off problems that can be noticed. But on the inside, dead fragments of the virus persist, floating in hidden parts of the body and activating the immune system long after the threat has passed.

The virus can be in the gut and in the brain, which may help explain why symptoms like brain fog and nausea can linger in children.

“The immune system doesn’t recognize whether fragments of the virus are dead or alive. It continues to think it’s fighting active COVID,” said Dr. Fernando.

There is little data on how long symptoms last, Dr. Fernando said, as well as how many kids get them and why some are more vulnerable than others. Some research has found that about 5%-15% of children with COVID may get long COVID, but the statistics vary globally.

“Children with long COVID have largely been ignored. And while we’re talking about it now, we’ve got some work to do,” said Dr. Fernando.

As for Emma, she recovered in January of 2021, heading back to school and her friends, although her cardiologist advised her to skip gym classes.

“For the first time in months, I was feeling like myself again,” she said.

But the coronavirus found its way to Emma again. Although she was fully vaccinated in the fall of 2021, when the Omicron variant swept the world late that year, she was infected again.

“When the wave of Omicron descended, Emma was like a sitting duck,” her mother said.

She was bedridden with a high fever and cough. The cold-like symptoms eventually went away, but the issues in her gut stuck around. Since then, Emma has had extreme nausea, losing most of the weight she had gained back.

For her part, Ms. Sherman has found solace in a group called Long COVID Kids, a nonprofit in Europe and the United States. The group is raising awareness about the condition in kids to increase funding, boost understanding, and improve treatment and outcomes.

“There’s nothing worse than watching your child suffer and not being able to do anything about it,” she said. “I tell Emma all the time: If I could just crawl in your body and take it, I would do it in a second.”

Emma is hoping for a fresh start with her family’s move in the coming weeks to Sotogrande in southern Spain.

“I miss the simplest things like going for a run, going to the fair with my friends, and just feeling well,” she said. “I have a long list of things I’ll do once this is all done.”

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

A U.S. neuroscientist claims that some of the studies of the experimental agent, simufilam (Cassava Sciences), a drug that targets amyloid beta (Abeta) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are flawed, and, as a result, has taken his concerns to the National Institutes of Health.

Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., uncovered what he calls inconsistencies in major studies examining the drug.

In a whistleblower report to the NIH about the drug, Dr. Schrag claims that several prominent investigators altered images and reused them over years to support the hypothesis that buildup of amyloid in the brain causes AD. The NIH has funded research into Abeta as a potential cause of AD to the tune of millions of dollars for years.

“This hypothesis has been the central dominant thinking of the field,” Dr. Schrag told this news organization. “A lot of the therapies that have been developed and tested clinically over the last decade focused on the amyloid hypothesis in one formulation or another. So, it’s an important component of the way we think about Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In an in-depth article published in Science and written by investigative reporter Charles Piller, Dr. Schrag said he became involved after a colleague suggested he work with an attorney investigating simufilam. The lawyer paid Dr. Schrag $18,000 to investigate the research behind the agent. Cassava Sciences denies any misconduct, according to the article.

Dr. Schrag ran many AD studies through sophisticated imaging software. The effort revealed multiple Western blot images – which scientists use to detect the presence and amount of proteins in a sample – that appeared to be altered.
 

High stakes

Dr. Schrag found “apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles,” the Science article states.

“A lot is at stake in terms of getting this right and it’s also important to acknowledge the limitations of what we can do. We were working with what’s published, what’s publicly available, and I think that it raises quite a lot of red flags, but we’ve also not reviewed the original material because it’s simply not available to us,” Dr. Schrag said in an interview.

However, he added that despite these limitations he believes “there’s enough here that it’s important for regulatory bodies to take a closer look at it to make sure that the data is right.”

Science reports that it launched its own independent review, asking several neuroscience experts to also review the research. They agreed with Dr. Schrag’s overall conclusions that something was amiss.

Many of the studies questioned in the whistleblower report involve Sylvain Lesné, PhD, who runs The Lesné Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and is an associate professor of neuroscience. His colleague Karen Ashe, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the same institution, was also mentioned in the whistleblower report. She was coauthor of a 2006 report in Nature that identified an Abeta subtype as a potential culprit behind AD.

This news organization reached out to Dr. Lesné and Dr. Ashe for comment, but has not received a response.

However, an email from a University of Minnesota spokesperson said the institution is “aware that questions have arisen regarding certain images used in peer-reviewed research publications authored by University faculty Dr. Ashe and Dr. Lesné. The University will follow its processes to review the questions any claims have raised. At this time, we have no further information to provide.”
 

A matter of trust

Dr. Schrag noted the “important trust relationship between patients, physicians and scientists. When we’re exploring diseases that we don’t have good treatments for.” He added that when patients agree to participate in trials and accept the associated risks, “we owe them a very high degree of integrity regarding the foundational data.”

Dr. Schrag also pointed out that there are limited resources to study these diseases. “There is some potential for that to be misdirected. It’s important for us to pay attention to data integrity issues, to make sure that we’re investing in the right places.”

The term “fraud” does not appear in Dr. Schrag’s whistleblower report, nor does he claim misconduct in the report. However, his work has spurred some independent, ongoing investigation into the claims by several journals that published the works in question, including Nature and Science Signaling.

Dr. Schrag said that if his findings are validated through an investigation he would like to see the scientific record corrected.

“Ultimately, I’d like to see a new set of hypotheses given a chance to look at this disease from a new perspective,” he added.

Dr. Schrag noted that the work described in the Science article was performed outside of his employment with Vanderbilt University Medical Center and that his opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt University or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 

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

A U.S. neuroscientist claims that some of the studies of the experimental agent, simufilam (Cassava Sciences), a drug that targets amyloid beta (Abeta) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are flawed, and, as a result, has taken his concerns to the National Institutes of Health.

Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., uncovered what he calls inconsistencies in major studies examining the drug.

In a whistleblower report to the NIH about the drug, Dr. Schrag claims that several prominent investigators altered images and reused them over years to support the hypothesis that buildup of amyloid in the brain causes AD. The NIH has funded research into Abeta as a potential cause of AD to the tune of millions of dollars for years.

“This hypothesis has been the central dominant thinking of the field,” Dr. Schrag told this news organization. “A lot of the therapies that have been developed and tested clinically over the last decade focused on the amyloid hypothesis in one formulation or another. So, it’s an important component of the way we think about Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In an in-depth article published in Science and written by investigative reporter Charles Piller, Dr. Schrag said he became involved after a colleague suggested he work with an attorney investigating simufilam. The lawyer paid Dr. Schrag $18,000 to investigate the research behind the agent. Cassava Sciences denies any misconduct, according to the article.

Dr. Schrag ran many AD studies through sophisticated imaging software. The effort revealed multiple Western blot images – which scientists use to detect the presence and amount of proteins in a sample – that appeared to be altered.
 

High stakes

Dr. Schrag found “apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles,” the Science article states.

“A lot is at stake in terms of getting this right and it’s also important to acknowledge the limitations of what we can do. We were working with what’s published, what’s publicly available, and I think that it raises quite a lot of red flags, but we’ve also not reviewed the original material because it’s simply not available to us,” Dr. Schrag said in an interview.

However, he added that despite these limitations he believes “there’s enough here that it’s important for regulatory bodies to take a closer look at it to make sure that the data is right.”

Science reports that it launched its own independent review, asking several neuroscience experts to also review the research. They agreed with Dr. Schrag’s overall conclusions that something was amiss.

Many of the studies questioned in the whistleblower report involve Sylvain Lesné, PhD, who runs The Lesné Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and is an associate professor of neuroscience. His colleague Karen Ashe, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the same institution, was also mentioned in the whistleblower report. She was coauthor of a 2006 report in Nature that identified an Abeta subtype as a potential culprit behind AD.

This news organization reached out to Dr. Lesné and Dr. Ashe for comment, but has not received a response.

However, an email from a University of Minnesota spokesperson said the institution is “aware that questions have arisen regarding certain images used in peer-reviewed research publications authored by University faculty Dr. Ashe and Dr. Lesné. The University will follow its processes to review the questions any claims have raised. At this time, we have no further information to provide.”
 

A matter of trust

Dr. Schrag noted the “important trust relationship between patients, physicians and scientists. When we’re exploring diseases that we don’t have good treatments for.” He added that when patients agree to participate in trials and accept the associated risks, “we owe them a very high degree of integrity regarding the foundational data.”

Dr. Schrag also pointed out that there are limited resources to study these diseases. “There is some potential for that to be misdirected. It’s important for us to pay attention to data integrity issues, to make sure that we’re investing in the right places.”

The term “fraud” does not appear in Dr. Schrag’s whistleblower report, nor does he claim misconduct in the report. However, his work has spurred some independent, ongoing investigation into the claims by several journals that published the works in question, including Nature and Science Signaling.

Dr. Schrag said that if his findings are validated through an investigation he would like to see the scientific record corrected.

“Ultimately, I’d like to see a new set of hypotheses given a chance to look at this disease from a new perspective,” he added.

Dr. Schrag noted that the work described in the Science article was performed outside of his employment with Vanderbilt University Medical Center and that his opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt University or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 

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

A U.S. neuroscientist claims that some of the studies of the experimental agent, simufilam (Cassava Sciences), a drug that targets amyloid beta (Abeta) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are flawed, and, as a result, has taken his concerns to the National Institutes of Health.

Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., uncovered what he calls inconsistencies in major studies examining the drug.

In a whistleblower report to the NIH about the drug, Dr. Schrag claims that several prominent investigators altered images and reused them over years to support the hypothesis that buildup of amyloid in the brain causes AD. The NIH has funded research into Abeta as a potential cause of AD to the tune of millions of dollars for years.

“This hypothesis has been the central dominant thinking of the field,” Dr. Schrag told this news organization. “A lot of the therapies that have been developed and tested clinically over the last decade focused on the amyloid hypothesis in one formulation or another. So, it’s an important component of the way we think about Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In an in-depth article published in Science and written by investigative reporter Charles Piller, Dr. Schrag said he became involved after a colleague suggested he work with an attorney investigating simufilam. The lawyer paid Dr. Schrag $18,000 to investigate the research behind the agent. Cassava Sciences denies any misconduct, according to the article.

Dr. Schrag ran many AD studies through sophisticated imaging software. The effort revealed multiple Western blot images – which scientists use to detect the presence and amount of proteins in a sample – that appeared to be altered.
 

High stakes

Dr. Schrag found “apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles,” the Science article states.

“A lot is at stake in terms of getting this right and it’s also important to acknowledge the limitations of what we can do. We were working with what’s published, what’s publicly available, and I think that it raises quite a lot of red flags, but we’ve also not reviewed the original material because it’s simply not available to us,” Dr. Schrag said in an interview.

However, he added that despite these limitations he believes “there’s enough here that it’s important for regulatory bodies to take a closer look at it to make sure that the data is right.”

Science reports that it launched its own independent review, asking several neuroscience experts to also review the research. They agreed with Dr. Schrag’s overall conclusions that something was amiss.

Many of the studies questioned in the whistleblower report involve Sylvain Lesné, PhD, who runs The Lesné Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and is an associate professor of neuroscience. His colleague Karen Ashe, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the same institution, was also mentioned in the whistleblower report. She was coauthor of a 2006 report in Nature that identified an Abeta subtype as a potential culprit behind AD.

This news organization reached out to Dr. Lesné and Dr. Ashe for comment, but has not received a response.

However, an email from a University of Minnesota spokesperson said the institution is “aware that questions have arisen regarding certain images used in peer-reviewed research publications authored by University faculty Dr. Ashe and Dr. Lesné. The University will follow its processes to review the questions any claims have raised. At this time, we have no further information to provide.”
 

A matter of trust

Dr. Schrag noted the “important trust relationship between patients, physicians and scientists. When we’re exploring diseases that we don’t have good treatments for.” He added that when patients agree to participate in trials and accept the associated risks, “we owe them a very high degree of integrity regarding the foundational data.”

Dr. Schrag also pointed out that there are limited resources to study these diseases. “There is some potential for that to be misdirected. It’s important for us to pay attention to data integrity issues, to make sure that we’re investing in the right places.”

The term “fraud” does not appear in Dr. Schrag’s whistleblower report, nor does he claim misconduct in the report. However, his work has spurred some independent, ongoing investigation into the claims by several journals that published the works in question, including Nature and Science Signaling.

Dr. Schrag said that if his findings are validated through an investigation he would like to see the scientific record corrected.

“Ultimately, I’d like to see a new set of hypotheses given a chance to look at this disease from a new perspective,” he added.

Dr. Schrag noted that the work described in the Science article was performed outside of his employment with Vanderbilt University Medical Center and that his opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt University or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 

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