ReportWire

Tag: diagnostic tests

  • A Simple Blood Test Could Eventually Tell You When Alzheimer’s Is Coming

    [ad_1]

    Sickness and death are inevitable, but many of us will never get the chance to know exactly when our worst health ailments will strike. Someday soon, though, that might not be true for people with Alzheimer’s disease, research out today shows.

    Scientists say they’ve devised a model that can narrow down the onset of Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia. Based on simple blood test results, they were able to predict the age, within several years, that someone would develop symptoms. In the short term, this work could improve clinical trials for Alzheimer’s, the researchers say, and down the road, it may help people at higher risk make crucial decisions about their future.

    “Given the speed of progress in Alzheimer’s research, blood biomarkers, and modeling, we are hopeful that these kinds of models will be available for clinical care within the next couple of years,” study author Suzanne Schindler, an associate professor of neurology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, told Gizmodo.

    The Alzheimer’s clock

    There have been important advances in Alzheimer’s research lately, including diagnosis.

    Though the foolproof test for Alzheimer’s still relies on examining the brain after death, doctors now employ several methods to diagnose the condition in living people with high accuracy, even before symptoms like memory loss appear. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration formally approved the first blood tests for diagnosing or ruling out Alzheimer’s, and still more are on the way.

    These tests look for biomarkers closely linked to Alzheimer’s, such as the proteins tau and amyloid beta. In Alzheimer’s, abnormal versions of these proteins build up in the brain. One particular form of abnormal tau, called phosphorylated tau 217 (ptau217), seems to be an especially great biomarker. Since its levels in the blood track so closely with the progression of Alzheimer’s, the WashU researchers believe that ptau217 can act as a clock to predict the visible onset of the disease.

    To create their model, the researchers analyzed data from two existing Alzheimer’s research projects, involving roughly 600 older people. These volunteers, who started out in good cognitive health, were given one of several blood tests measuring ptau217, including PrecivityAD2, a commercially available test developed by WashU researchers that’s in the final steps of being reviewed for FDA approval.

    “In our study, we found that blood p-tau217 levels increased relatively consistently across individuals, allowing us to estimate the age that individuals became positive on the p-tau217 test,” co-author Kellen Petersen, an instructor in neurology at WashU Medicine, told Gizmodo. “This age at p-tau217 positivity was strongly associated with the age that individuals developed symptoms of Alzheimer’s.”

    All in all, the team’s model could predict when someone’s p-tau217 levels would likely soon lead to visible symptoms, though within an average time window of three to four years. Notably, the gap between high p-tau217 levels and Alzheimer’s symptoms was shorter in older volunteers, suggesting that younger people can better fend off brain deterioration. The team’s model also worked with blood tests besides PrecivityAD2, indicating its potential wide usability. Their results were published Thursday in Nature Medicine.

    The future of predicting Alzheimer’s

    Given the current time frame of three to four years, their clock model is best used in clinical trials for now, the researchers say. But that amount of advance notice could still provide valuable insights.

    “Our models will help trials select individuals who are still cognitively unimpaired but more likely to develop symptoms during the clinical trial, which would make trials more efficient,” Petersen said.

    The researchers are also optimistic that incorporating data from other blood, imaging, and cognitive tests can further refine their predictions. And eventually, these models should become accurate enough that doctors and patients can use them to guide their next steps.

    “For example, individuals who are far from symptom onset might choose to focus on lifestyle modification, while those close to symptom onset might be more proactive and consider participating in clinical trials,” Petersen said. The researchers are already working to improve their models, and they’ve released their code online and created a web-based app so that other research teams can try to do the same.

    Right now, Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia are incurable. But innovations like this could help us one day turn back the clock.

    [ad_2]

    Ed Cara

    Source link

  • The Regular Life-Saving Tests Every Dog and Cat Deserves | Animal Wellness Magazine

    [ad_1]

    The joy of sharing life with a dog or cat comes with a solemn responsibility—their health depends on vigilance beyond visible signs. Many diseases lurk quietly, revealing themselves only when it’s too late. Routine diagnostic tests for dogs and cats are the secret arsenal to uncover hidden threats early, protecting a beloved companion’s future.

    Blood Work

    Regular blood tests, including a Complete Blood Count (CBC) and chemistry panels, offer an internal snapshot. These reveal anemia, infections, organ stress, and metabolic imbalances long before symptoms arise. They can catch early signs of diabetes, kidney disease, liver dysfunction, and thyroid issues, conditions common and often silent in older animals. Imagine uncovering a hidden trouble spot like a stressed kidney or undetected infection before it severely weakens them—a priceless gift of time.

    Urinalysis

    Urinalysis complements blood work, revealing insights into kidney function, hydration status, infections, and early markers of diabetes. Urine analysis spots troubles invisible externally, illuminating conditions affecting urinary health or metabolic balance. It’s like giving your companion a voice to tell you about unseen struggles.

    Fecal Exams

    Though often overlooked, fecal tests detect intestinal parasites—such as roundworms, hookworms, and Giardia—that can cause nutrient loss, discomfort, and spread infectious risks within the home. Annual fecal exams act as guardians, keeping digestive health in check and preventing silent damage from parasitic invaders.

    Heartworm Testing

    Annual heartworm tests are crucial, especially for dogs, to detect this potentially fatal parasite spread by mosquitoes. Early detection allows intervention before irreversible heart or lung damage occurs, protecting long-term quality of life.

    X-Rays and Ultrasounds

    Diagnostic imaging reveals hidden fractures, joint diseases, and internal organ abnormalities. Ultrasounds can assess heart, liver, and kidney health, giving a window into internal complexities without invasive measures—capturing subtle changes before illness declares itself loudly. For example, fatty liver disease can be identified early with an ultrasound, allowing for a corrective course to be adopted in time.

     

    Why Routine Matters: The Silent Progression of Disease

    Animals instinctively mask pain and illness, instinctually protecting their vulnerability. This silence requires caregivers to be proactive. By testing twice yearly, diseases caught early allow simpler, more effective treatment. Chronic conditions—kidney disease, thyroid imbalances, diabetes, liver conditions—benefit immensely from timely management, prolonging vitality and joy.

    Bridging Affectionate Care and Science

    Watching a beloved dog or cat age gracefully is a profound gift. Routine diagnostic tests for dogs and cats can ensure a healthy furry life. Combining affection with regular diagnostics creates a protective net woven with science and care. These tests are not mere procedures; they are promises of more wagging tails, purring evenings, and irreplaceable moments together.

    Share this knowledge: encourage conversation about regular diagnostics with fellow dog and cat families. Together, vigilance becomes strength. Together, lives are longer, brighter, and healthier.


    Post Views: 617


    Animal Wellness is North America’s top natural health and lifestyle magazine for dogs and cats, with a readership of over one million every year. AW features articles by some of the most renowned experts in the pet industry, with topics ranging from diet and health related issues, to articles on training, fitness and emotional well being.

    [ad_2]

    Animal Wellness

    Source link

  • Why Do Rapid Tests Feel So Useless Right Now?

    Why Do Rapid Tests Feel So Useless Right Now?

    [ad_1]

    Max Hamilton found out that his roommate had been exposed to the coronavirus shortly after Thanksgiving. The dread set in, and then, so did her symptoms. Wanting to be cautious, she tested continuously, remaining masked in all common areas at home. But after three negative rapid tests in a row, she and Hamilton felt like the worst had passed. At the very least, they could chat safely across the kitchen table, right?

    Wrong. More than a week later, another test finally sprouted a second line: bright, pink, positive. Five days after that, Hamilton was testing positive as well. This was his second bout of COVID since the start of the pandemic, and he wasn’t feeling so great. Congestion and fatigue aside, he was “just very frustrated,” he told me. He felt like they had done everything right. “If we have no idea if someone has COVID, how are we supposed to avoid it?” Now he has a different take on rapid tests: They aren’t guarantees. When he and his roommate return from their Christmas and New Year’s holidays, he said, they’ll steer clear of friends who show any symptoms whatsoever.

    Hamilton and his roommate are just two of many who have been wronged by the rapid. Since the onset of Omicron, for one reason or another, false negatives seem to be popping up with greater frequency. That leaves people stuck trying to figure out when, and if, to bank on the simplest, easiest way to check one’s COVID status. At this point, even people who work in health care are throwing up their hands. Alex Meshkin, the CEO of the medical laboratory Flow Health, told me that he spent the first two years of the pandemic carefully masking in social situations and asking others to get tested before meeting with him. Then he came down with COVID shortly after visiting a friend who didn’t think that she was sick. Turns out, she’d only taken a rapid test. “That’s my wonderful personal experience,” Meshkin told me. His takeaway? “I don’t trust the antigen test at all.”

    That might be a bit extreme. Rapid antigen tests still work, and we’ve known about the problem of delayed positivity for ages. In fact, the tests are about as good at picking up the SARS-CoV-2 virus now as they’ve ever been, Susan Butler-Wu, a clinical microbiologist at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, told me. Their limit of detection––the lowest quantity of viral antigen that will register reliably as a positive result––didn’t really change as new variants emerged. At the same time, the Omicron variant and its offshoots seem to take longer, after the onset of infection, to accumulate that amount of virus in the nose, says Wilbur Lam, a professor of pediatrics and biomedical engineering at Emory University who is also one of the lead investigators assessing COVID diagnostic tests for the federal government. Lam told me that this delay, between getting sick and reaching the minimum detectable concentration of the viral antigen, could be contributing to the spate of false-negative results.

    That problem isn’t likely to be solved anytime soon. The same basic technology behind COVID rapid tests, called “lateral flow,” has been around for years; it’s even used for standard pregnancy tests, Emily Landon, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Chicago, told me. Oliver Keppler, a virology researcher at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich who was involved in a study comparing the performance of rapid tests between variants, says there isn’t really a way to tweak the tests so that they’ll be any more sensitive to newer variants. “Conceptually, there’s little we can do.” In the meantime, he told me, we have to accept that “in the first one or two days of infection with Omicron, on average, antigen tests are very poor.”

    Of course, Hamilton (and his roommate) would point out that the tests can fail even several days after symptoms start. That’s why he and others are feeling hesitant to trust them again. “It’s not just about the utility or accuracy of the test. It’s also about the willingness to even do the test,” Ng Qin Xiang, a resident in preventative medicine at Singapore General Hospital who was involved in a study examining the performance of rapid antigen tests, told me. “Even within my circle of friends, a lot of people, when they have respiratory symptoms, just stay home and rest,” he said. They just don’t see the point of testing.

    Landon recently got COVID for the first time since the start of the pandemic. When her son came home with the virus, she decided to perform her own experiment. She kept track of her rapids, testing every 12 hours and even taking pictures for proof. Her symptoms started on a Friday night and her initial test was negative. So was Saturday morning’s. By Saturday evening, though, a faint line had begun to emerge, and the next morning—36 hours after symptom onset—the second line was dark. Her advice for those who want the most accurate result and don’t have as many tests to spare is to wait until you’ve had symptoms for two days before testing. And if you’ve been exposed, have symptoms, and only have one test? “You don’t even need to bother. You probably have COVID.”

    [ad_2]

    Zoya Qureshi

    Source link

  • FDA change ushers in cheaper, easier-to-get hearing aids

    FDA change ushers in cheaper, easier-to-get hearing aids

    [ad_1]

    It’s now a lot easier — and cheaper — for many hard-of-hearing Americans to get help.

    Hearing aids can now be sold without a prescription from a specialist. Over-the-counter, or OTC, hearing aids started hitting the market in October at prices that can be thousands of dollars lower than prescription hearing aids.

    About 30 million people in the United States deal with hearing loss, according to the Food and Drug Administration. But only about 20% of those who could use a hearing aid seek help.

    Here’s a closer look:

    WHO MIGHT BE HELPED

    The FDA approved OTC hearing aids for adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. That can include people who have trouble hearing phone calls or who turn up the TV volume loud enough that others complain.

    It also can include people who have trouble understanding group conversations in noisy places.

    OTC hearing aids aren’t intended for people with deeper hearing loss, which may include those who have trouble hearing louder noises, like power tools and cars. They also aren’t for people who lost their hearing suddenly or in just one ear, according to Sterling Sheffield, an audiologist who teaches at the University of Florida. Those people need to see a doctor.

    HEARING TEST

    Before over-the-counter, you usually needed to get your hearing tested and buy hearing aids from a specialist. That’s no longer the case.

    But it can be hard for people to gauge their own hearing. You can still opt to see a specialist just for that test, which is often covered by insurance, and then buy the aids on your own. Check your coverage before making an appointment.

    There also are a number of apps and questionnaires available to determine whether you need help. Some over-the-counter sellers also provide a hearing assessment or online test.

    WHO’S SELLING

    Several major retailers now offer OTC hearing aids online and on store shelves.

    Walgreens drugstores, for example, are selling Lexie Lumen hearing aids nationwide for $799. Walmart offers OTC hearing aids ranging from about $200 to $1,000 per pair. Its health centers will provide hearing tests.

    The consumer electronics chain Best Buy has OTC hearing aids available online and in nearly 300 stores. The company also offers an online hearing assessment, and store employees are trained on the stages of hearing loss and how to fit the devices.

    Overall, there are more than a dozen manufacturers making different models of OTC hearing aids.

    New devices will make up most of the OTC market as it develops, Sheffield said. Some may be hearing aids that previously required a prescription, ones that are only suitable for people with mild to moderate hearing loss.

    Shoppers should expect a lot of devices to enter and leave the market, said Catherine Palmer, a hearing expert at the University of Pittsburgh.

    “It will be quite a while before this settles down,” she said.

    WHAT TO WATCH FOR

    Look for an OTC label on the box. Hearing aids approved by the FDA for sale without a prescription are required to be labeled OTC.

    That will help you distinguish OTC hearing aids from cheaper devices sometimes labeled sound or hearing amplifiers — called a personal sound amplification product or PSAP. While often marketed to seniors, they are designed to make sounds louder for people with normal hearing in certain environments, like hunting. And amplifiers don’t undergo FDA review.

    “People really need to read the descriptions,” said Barbara Kelley, executive director of the Hearing Loss Association of America.

    And check the return policy. That’s important because people generally need a few weeks to get used to them, and make sure they work in the situations where they need them most. That may include on the phone or in noisy offices or restaurants.

    Does the company selling OTC devices offer instructions or an app to assist with setup, fit and sound adjustments? A specialist could help too, but expect to pay for that office visit, which is rarely covered by insurance.

    Sheffield said hearing aids are not complicated, but wearing them also is not as simple as putting on a pair of reading glasses.

    “If you’ve never tried or worn hearing aids, then you might need a little bit of help,” he said.

    THE COST

    Most OTC hearing aids will cost between $500 and $1,500 for a pair, Sheffield said. He noted that some may run up to $3,000.

    And it’s not a one-time expense. They may have to be replaced every five years or so.

    Hearing specialists say OTC prices could fall further as the market matures. But they already are generally cheaper than their prescription counterparts, which can run more than $5,000.

    The bad news is insurance coverage of hearing aids is spotty. Some Medicare Advantage plans offer coverage of devices that need a prescription, but regular Medicare does not. There are discounts out there, including some offered by Medicare Advantage insurer UnitedHealthcare in partnership with AARP.

    Shoppers also can pay for the devices with money set aside in health savings accounts or flexible spending accounts.

    Don’t try to save money by buying just one hearing aid. People need to have the same level of hearing in both ears so they can figure out where a sound is coming from, according to the American Academy of Audiology.

    ———

    Follow Tom Murphy on Twitter: @thpmurphy

    ———

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What Doctors Still Don’t Understand About Long COVID

    What Doctors Still Don’t Understand About Long COVID

    [ad_1]

    As a pulmonary specialist, I spend most of my clinical time in the hospital—which, during pandemic surges, has meant many long days treating critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU. But I also work in an outpatient clinic, where I also treat those same sorts of patients after they’re discharged: people who survived weeks-long hospitalizations but have been dealing ever since with lung damage. Such patients often face the same social and economic factors that made them vulnerable to COVID-19 to begin with, and they require attentive care.

    Patients like these undoubtedly suffer what researchers have been calling post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2, or PASC—which, according to one highly publicized recent CDC study, afflicts some 20 percent of COVID-19 survivors ages 18 to 64. Other studies have yielded lower estimates of the condition also called long COVID, and while differences in study methodology account for some of this variability, there’s a more fundamental issue eluding efforts to uncover the one “true” estimate of the likelihood of this condition. Quite simply, long COVID isn’t any one thing.

    The wide spectrum of conditions that fall under the umbrella of long COVID impedes researchers’ ability to interpret estimates of national prevalence based on surveys of symptoms, which conflate different problems with different causes. More importantly, however, an incomplete and constrained perspective on what long COVID is or isn’t limits Americans’ understanding of who is suffering and why, and of what we can do to improve patients’ lives today.

    The cases of long COVID that turn up in news reports, the medical literature, and in the offices of doctors like me fall into a few rough (and sometimes overlapping) categories. The first seems most readily explainable: the combination of organ damage, often profound physical debilitation, and poor mental health inflicted by severe pneumonia and resultant critical illness. This serious long-term COVID-19 complication gets relatively little media attention despite its severity. The coronavirus can cause acute respiratory distress syndrome, the gravest form of pneumonia, which can in turn provoke a spiral of inflammation and injury that can end up taking down virtually every organ. I have seen many such complications in the ICU: failing hearts, collapsed lungs, failed kidneys, brain hemorrhages, limbs cut off from blood flow, and more. More than 7 million COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in the United States before the Omicron wave, suggesting that millions could be left with damaged lungs or complications of critical illness. Whether these patients’ needs for care and rehabilitation are being adequately (and equitably) met is unclear: Ensuring that they are is an urgent priority.

    Recently, a second category of long COVID has made headlines. It includes the new onset of recognized medical conditions—like heart disease, a stroke, or a blood clot—after a mild COVID-19 infection. It might seem odd that an upper respiratory tract infection could trigger a heart attack. Yet this pattern has been well described after other common respiratory-virus infections, particularly influenza. Similarly, various types of infections can lead to blood clots in the legs, which can travel (dangerously) to the lungs. Respiratory infections are not hermetically sealed from the rest of the body; acute inflammation arising in one location can sometimes have consequences elsewhere.

    But mild COVID-19 is so common that measuring the prevalence of such complications—which also regularly occur in people without COVID-19—can be tricky. Well-controlled investigations are needed to disentangle causation and correlation, particularly because social disadvantage is associated both with COVID exposure and illnesses of basically every organ system. Some such studies, which analyzed giant electronic-health-record databases, have suggested that even mild COVID-19 is at least correlated with a startlingly wide spectrum of seemingly every illness, including diabetes, asthma, and kidney failure; basically every type of heart disease; alcohol-, benzodiazepine-, and opioid-use disorders; and much more.

    To be clear, this research generally suggests that such complications occur far less often after mild COVID-19 cases than severe ones, and the extent to which the coronavirus causes each such complication remains unclear. In other words, we can surmise that at least some of these complications (particularly vascular complications, which have been well-described in many studies) are likely a consequence of COVID-19, but we can’t say with certainty how many. And more importantly, we don’t yet understand why some people with mild COVID recover easily while others go on to experience such complications. However, an estimated 81 percent of Americans have now been infected at least once, so the public-health ramifications are large even if COVID causes only some of the aforementioned recognized diseases, and even if our individual risk of complications after a mild infection is modest. Regardless of cause, patients who do develop any such chronic diseases require attentive, ongoing medical care—a challenge in a nation where 30 million are uninsured and even more underinsured.

    Another category of long COVID is something rather more quotidian, if still very distressing for those experiencing it: respiratory symptoms that last longer than expected after an acute upper-respiratory infection caused by the coronavirus, but that are not associated with lung damage, critical illness, or a new diagnosis like a heart attack or diabetes. Symptoms such as shortness of breath and chest pain are common months after run-of-the-mill pneumonia unconnected to the coronavirus, for instance, while many patients who contract non-COVID-related upper respiratory infections subsequently report a protracted cough or a lingering loss of their sense of smell. That a COVID-related airway infection sometimes has similar consequences only stands to reason.

    However, none of these may be what most people think of when long COVID is invoked. Some may even argue that such syndromes are not, in fact, long COVID at all, even if they cause long-term suffering. “Long Covid is not a condition for which there are currently accepted objective diagnostic tests or biomarkers,” wrote Steven Phillips and Michelle Williams in the New England Journal of Medicine. “It is not blood clots, myocarditis, multisystem inflammatory disease, pneumonia, or any number of well-characterized conditions caused by Covid-19.” Instead, for some the term may invoke a chronic illness—a complex of numerous unexplained, potentially debilitating symptoms—even among those who may barely have felt sick with COVID in the acute phase. Symptoms may vary widely, and include severe fatigue, cognitive issues often described as brain fog, shortness of breath, “internal tremors,” gastrointestinal problems, palpitations, dizziness, and many other issues around the body—all typically following a mild acute respiratory infection. If the other forms of long COVID seem more easily explainable, this type is often characterized as a medical mystery.

    Teasing apart which kind of long COVID a person has is important, both to advance our understanding of the illness and to best care for people. Yet lumping and splitting varieties of long COVID into categories is not easy. A given patient’s case might have features of more than one of the types that I’ve described here. Some patient advocates and researchers have tended to exclude patients in the first category—that is, survivors of protracted critical illness—from their conception of COVID long-haulers. I would argue that, insofar as we define long COVID as lasting damage and symptoms imposed by SARS-CoV-2, the full variety of severe long-term manifestations should be included in its scope. “Clinical phenotyping” studies now under way may eventually help scientists and doctors better understand the needs of different types of patients, but patients in all categories deserve better care today.

    The biological mechanisms by which an acute coronavirus upper respiratory infection might lead to a bewildering range of chronic, burdensome symptoms even in the aftermath of mild infections are debated. Some scientists, for instance, believe that the virus causes an autoimmune disease akin to lupus. Meanwhile, one group of researchers has argued that even a mild respiratory infection from SARS-CoV-2 causes tiny clots to block tiny blood vessels all over the body, depriving tissues of oxygen throughout the body. Still others believe that the coronavirus causes a chronic infection, as such viruses as HIV or hepatitis C do. Meanwhile, some have emphasized the possibility of structural brain damage. While some published studies have provided support for each theory, none has been adequately validated as a central unifying thesis. Each is, however, worth continuing to explore.

    A recently published investigation, conducted at the National Institutes of Health, suggests that clinicians and scientists should consider additional possibilities as potential drivers of symptoms for at least some patients. The researchers found far higher levels of physical symptoms and mental distress among subjects who had had COVID (many with long COVID) than among those who had not. Yet symptoms could not be explained by basically any test results: Researchers found effectively no substantive differences in markers of inflammation or immune activation, in objective neurocognitive testing, or in heart, lung, liver, or kidney function. And yet these patients were suffering from such symptoms as fatigue, shortness of breath, concentration and memory problems, chest pain, and more. Notably, researchers did not identify viral persistence in the bodies of patients reporting troublesome symptoms.

    What this means in practice is that there are some people suffering from long COVID symptoms without evidence of structural damage to the body, autoimmunity, or chronic infection. Psychosocial strain and suffering, moreover, appears common in this population. Even pointing this out is sensitive territory—it leads some people to wrongly suggest that long COVID is less severe or concerning than those suffering from it describe, or even to question the reality of the illness. And, understandably, the invocation of psychosocial factors as potential contributing factors to suffering for some individuals may make patients feel as though they are being second-guessed. The reality, though, is that psychosocial strain is an important driver of physical symptoms and suffering—one that clinicians should treat with empathy. All suffering, after all, is ultimately produced and perceived in one place: our brain.

    Severe depression, for instance, can inflict debilitating and severe physical symptoms of every sort, including crushing fatigue and withering brain fog, and is itself linked to having had COVID-19. And notably, a recent study in JAMA Psychiatry found that pre-infection psychosocial distress—e.g. depression, anxiety, or loneliness—was associated with a 30–50 percent increase in the risk of long COVID among those infected, even after adjustment for various factors. A false separation of brain and body has long plagued medicine, but it does not reflect biological reality: After all, diverse neuropsychiatric processes are associated with numerous “physical” changes, ranging from reduced blood flow to the brain to high (or low) levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

    Illnesses of any cause that result in protracted time off one’s feet can also instigate (likely in conjunction with other factors) reversible cardiovascular deconditioning, wherein the blood volume contracts and the amount of blood ejected by the heart with each squeeze falls—changes that can lead to a racing heart rate or faintness when standing, as decades of studies have shown. Diverse neurological symptoms can also be produced by a glitch in the function rather than the structure of the brain—or what has been described as problems of brain “software” rather than “hardware”—resulting in conditions known as functional neurological disorders. Similar glitches, known as functional respiratory disorders, can disturb our breathing patterns or cause shortness of breath, even when our lungs are structurally normal. My point is not to speculate on some overarching hypothesis to explain all symptoms among all patients with long COVID. The whole point is that there’s unlikely to be just one. And there is still much to learn.

    Research is underway to better understand this spectrum of illnesses, and their causes. But whichever diverse factors might be contributing to patients’ symptoms, we can take steps—both among clinicians and as a society—to improve lives now. Social supports can be as important as medical interventions: For those unable to work, qualification for disability assistance should not depend on a particular lab or lung-function test result. All patients with long-COVID symptoms deserve and require high-quality medical care without onerous cost barriers that may bankrupt them, which further compounds suffering. Universal healthcare is, that is to say, desperately needed to respond to this pandemic and its aftermath.

    Additionally, while no specific long-COVID medications have emerged, some treatments may be helpful for improving certain symptoms regardless of the specific type of illness, such as physical rehabilitative treatments for those with shortness of breath or reduced exercise tolerance. Ensuring universal access to such specialized rehabilitative care is essential as we enter the next stage of this pandemic. So is helping patients avoid the emerging cottage industry of dodgy providers hawking unproven long-COVID therapies. Health-care professionals also need more education about the broad spectrum of COVID-19-related issues, both to improve care and reduce stigmatization of patients with all types of this illness.

    Doctors and scientists still have much to learn about symptoms that continue—or first turn up—months or weeks after an initial COVID infection. What’s clear today is that long COVID can be many different things. That may confound our efforts to categorize it and discuss its implications, but the sheer variety should not get in the way of care for all who are suffering.

    [ad_2]

    Adam Gaffney

    Source link