ReportWire

Tag: Harvard Medical School

  • Explosion inside Harvard Medical School building was likely intentional, police say


    Police say an explosion inside a building on the Harvard Medical School campus in Boston early Saturday morning appears to have been an intentional act.

    The Harvard University Police Department said that just before 3 a.m., an officer was dispatched to the Goldenson Building on Longwood Ave. in Boston for a fire alarm activation.

    When the officer arrived to investigate, they saw two people running from the building. The officer tried to stop the two people, but was unable to identify them or prevent them from leaving.

    The officer later went to the floor where the alarm had been triggered and found that an explosion had happened on the fourth floor.

    The Boston Fire Department Arson Unit was also called to the scene. An initial assessment found that the explosion appears to have been intentional.

    Officers from the Boston Police Department then swept the building to search for any additional devices. No other devices were discovered, police said.

    A spokesperson for the FBI said they are on scene following the explosion.

    “We’re assisting our partners at the Harvard University Police Department and we’re going to decline further comment at this time. We’ll refer to the Harvard University Police Department,” the FBI spokesperson said. 

    No injuries have been reported from the explosion.

    The Harvard University Police Department is investigating the blast along with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.

    Anyone with information about the explosion is asked to call the Harvard University Police Department’s detective bureau at (617) 495-1796.

    According to Harvard University Planning and Design, the Goldenson Building was constructed in 1906. It is one of several Harvard buildings on the Boston campus surrounding the HMS Quad Lawn.

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis Does Not Seem to Be Enjoying Himself

    Ron DeSantis Does Not Seem to Be Enjoying Himself

    On Saturday afternoon, with just over six weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses, Ron DeSantis told a story about how he once bravely stood up to the Special Olympics.

    He was speaking atop a small platform in a partitioned-off section of a former roller rink in Newton, Iowa, dubbed “the Thunderdome.” The anecdote, like so many, had something to do with the tyranny of vaccine mandates. DeSantis said he had met a family at the Iowa State Fair, and that one of their children had wanted to participate in the Special Olympics, but wasn’t vaccinated. As it happened, the games were being held in Florida, where DeSantis serves as governor. “Well, we don’t have discrimination in Florida on that,” he said, meaning vaccination status. “So we were able to tell the Special Olympics, you let all the athletes compete!” People hooted.

    This narrative followed a familiar arc: The Florida governor had confronted something he didn’t like, and, after a brief crusade, emerged victorious. DeSantis plays the part of a fearless maverick pursuing justice—even if that means picking a fight with a well-respected nonprofit. All year long on the campaign trail, self-awareness has seemed to elude him. “What you don’t want to do is repel people for no reason,” DeSantis told the room a little later.

    Saturday’s speech marked the culmination of DeSantis’s 99-county tour of Iowa. The event may have been intended as a moment of triumph, but the crowd on this cold, dreary afternoon was, at approximately 400 attendees, not at capacity. Outside the venue, you could buy buttons that said RON ’24 HE’S KIND OF A BIG DEAL! with an illustration of DeSantis mashed up with Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy. Other merchandise leaned harder into DeSantis’s culture-warrior reputation: SOCIALISM SUCKS, ANNOY A LIBERAL WORK HARD BE HAPPY, CRITICAL RACE THEORY with a no-smoking slash through it, and DESANTISLAND with the Disney D.

    Is this angle working? Despite his GOP fame and high-profile endorsements, his polling average is trending in the wrong direction. He has more or less staked his candidacy on winning Iowa. But now he’s almost tied with former U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley in the polls there, and elsewhere, for distant second place to former President Donald Trump. He may soon slip to third. His super PAC, Never Back Down, just fired its CEO, Kristin Davison, after nine days on the job. (She had taken over for the previous CEO, who had resigned around Thanksgiving, along with the group’s chair.) I asked Never Back Down what potential voters should make of all these changes. The group’s spokesperson sent a statement: “Never Back Down has the most organized, advanced caucus operation of anyone in the 2024 primary field, and we look forward to continuing that great work to help elect Gov. DeSantis the next President of the United States.”

    One of Saturday’s warm-up speakers, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, attempted to humanize DeSantis for her constituents. She gestured to the importance of DeSantis achieving the “full Grassley”—a nod to Iowa’s senior senator, Chuck Grassley, who visits all of the state’s 99 counties every year to meet voters. (DeSantis’s team temporarily rebranded the milestone as a “Full DeSantis,” with placards peppering the venue.) “Listen, Iowans want the opportunity to look you in the eye; they want the opportunity to size that candidate up just a little bit,” Reynolds told the room. “It’s also really important for the candidates—I’ve said it really helps them kind of do the retail politics.” She spoke of DeSantis and his wife taking in all of the state’s offerings over the past year—Albert the Bull, Casey’s breakfast pizza. “And I’m going to tell ya, I think they’re having some fun!” Reynolds said unconvincingly.

    DeSantis did not appear to be fully enjoying himself in Newton. More than a few people have noted that his wife, Casey, is the more natural politician, and could herself be a stronger future candidate. As she introduced her husband on Saturday, he stood a few feet behind her, staring intensely into the back of her head. She was confident and effortless at the mic; Ron didn’t seem to know what to do with his eyes, or his mouth, or, especially, his hands. Clasp them loosely below his belly button? Put them on either side of his waist like Superman? He looked unsettled as he waited for her to finish.

    When his turn to speak came, DeSantis began by trying to follow Reynolds’s lead. He recalled his visit to the Field of Dreams baseball field in Dubuque County. (“And our kids were there and everything like that.”) He fumbled the name of  a famous bakery and was swiftly corrected by many members of the audience. He offered his affection for other Iowa staples: ice cream, cheese curds. “We brought a whole bunch of cheese curds back to the state of Florida, which was a lot of fun,” DeSantis proclaimed. No means of pandering was off limits. Iowa, he declared “will begin the revival of the United States of America.” He hinted that, as president, he’d even move the Department of Agriculture from Washington, D.C., to Iowa.

    Watching DeSantis up close as he lumbers through these moments of his campaign is almost enough to elicit sympathy. One of Saturday’s attendees, Caleb Grossnickle, a 25-year-old cybersecurity analyst from Ames, told me that he found DeSantis endearing. “I mean, he does seem a little awkward at times. But I think, honestly, it just shows that he’s a normal human,” he said. “He’s just a normal guy who’s trying to run for president, trying to make change.” Grossnickle told me that he was also interested in Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is running as an independent.

    One of DeSantis’s highest-profile Iowa surrogates, the evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats, was arguably the most captivating speaker on the bill. “Let me bathe this thing in prayer,” he said. He then launched into an invocation that ended with “Lord, when he does win the Iowa caucuses and when he does go through and win the early states, make people know that this is of you, by you, and for you, Lord.”

    Vander Plaats pointed out that voting for DeSantis is not the same as voting “against Trump.” But he also preached the need for a candidate who “fears God,” adding that “the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.” That noble idea morphed into a jab. “We need somebody to know that they fear God; they don’t believe they are God.”

    A 46-year-old attendee from Ottumwa, Iowa, named Jeremy had brought his daughter along to see DeSantis up close. He told me that he’d twice voted for Trump and would vote for him a third time if he gets the nomination, though he admitted he finds him “distasteful.” DeSantis, he added, is his favorite candidate, and “more of a classy person.”

    Later in the afternoon, I approached Vander Plaats in the back of the room. I asked him about his line relating to the type of person who believes they are God. Vander Plaats said he was referring to “the left.” I also brought up how DeSantis seemed to lack interpersonal skills, and asked if he thought that was a fair criticism of the man he had endorsed. “I think it’s overhyped,” Vander Plaats said, but he didn’t outright dismiss the notion. “Right now, I think Americans want a real leader to get things done versus, you know, Hey, do I want to sit on the couch with them and watch a football game?

    Yet some people really do love him. In my conversations with attendees, many of them pointed to DeSantis’s follow-through as the core of his appeal. A 55-year-old supporter named Todd Lyons told me that he and his wife had driven four hours west from their home in Normal, Illinois, that morning to be there. They’d never seen DeSantis in the flesh. “He says he’ll do something and he does it,” Lyons said. “As opposed to with Trump, you see a tweet where he’s going to do something and talk about how amazing it’s going to be and then he wouldn’t follow through.” Even if DeSantis doesn’t get the nomination, Lyons told me he planned to write in the governor’s name on the ballot. Anne Wolford, a 74-year-old retiree from Grinnell, Iowa, told me that she had liked South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, but he had just recently dropped out, and now she was interested in DeSantis. “I think we’ve got to have somebody that’s got the gumption to go head-to-head with China, Russia, and North Korea. And I think with his military background, he can maybe achieve that.”

    Two nights earlier, DeSantis exhibited his gumption in a TV debate with Governor Gavin Newsom of California. At one point, DeSantis brandished a “poop map” purportedly showing the places in San Francisco where human feces could be found on streets and sidewalks. (Practically the entire image was tinged brown.) In Iowa, DeSantis posited that Newsom was carrying out a shadow campaign for the presidency. “We cannot assume that they are actually gonna run [Joe] Biden,” he said. He seethed at the Democratic establishment. “We are not gonna be gaslit by people who think we’re dumb,” he said a little later.

    During his stump speech, he spent a good deal of time talking about the pandemic. He promised that Anthony Fauci, now in retirement, would face a “reckoning” over all things COVID-19. But even the demonized Fauci serves as a symptom of a larger disease, in DeSantis’s worldview. The field of medicine, he warned, has been infected by a “woke ideology,” and Harvard Medical School doctors “basically take, like, a woke Hippocratic oath.” (DeSantis holds degrees from Harvard and Yale.) He also punched down, endorsing the idea of imposing fees on remittances that foreign workers send back to their home countries. He believes these are the ideas that will win him the presidency.

    DeSantis attacks Trump more than most of his competitors (with the exception of Chris Christie), but he’s also assumed the role of Trump’s primary target. Nearly every day, the Trump campaign sends out press releases attacking DeSantis, with one recurring item that it calls the “kiss of death.” A sample from Friday mocked his stature: “KISS OF DEATH: Small Expectations, Smaller Candidate.” On Saturday morning, hours before DeSantis’s big achievement of stumping in every county, the Trump campaign sent out a preemptive press release: “Republican candidate for president Ryan Binkley, who is polling at 0%, outperformed Ron DeSantis by becoming the first person to visit all 99 counties in Iowa earlier this month.”

    It’s hard to understand what DeSantis’s real plan is, as Trump is still so far ahead in the polls. In an emailed statement, DeSantis’s deputy campaign manager, David Polyansky, said, “The collective firepower of Team DeSantis remains unmatched” and that the campaign “will carry the support of the most robust turnout operation in modern Iowa history into success on January 15.” Even if DeSantis wins the Iowa caucuses or comes in second, though, that doesn’t necessarily predict a victory in the New Hampshire primary. That state’s motto—“Live free or die”—is out of sync with what DeSantis has done in Florida, using the government to impose book bans and a six-week abortion limit. If by some chance Trump were to lose New Hampshire, it would probably be to Haley, not to DeSantis—and such a victory would position Haley for more success in her home state of South Carolina.

    In Newton, leaning against the rear wall was a 66-year-old man, in a Kangol-style hat and a University of Iowa pullover, named Vern Schnoebelen. He’s the lead singer and harmonica player of a band that had played the Thunderdome the night before. He told me that he and his friend had snuck into the VIP section, where the bar was, earlier that afternoon. He had come out on Saturday not because he loves DeSantis but simply because he lives nearby and this seemed like a big event. He told me that, come caucus time, if Trump is running away in the polls, he’ll intentionally support the candidate in third or fourth place to encourage them to stay active in the party. “I don’t want them to lose heart,” he said. “We never know what’s going to happen with Trump. Who knows what’s going to come out of the woodwork?”

    He told me that he had voted for Trump twice, and would support whoever became the GOP nominee, Trump included. I asked whether anything about Trump’s various indictments bothered him. “No, I think it’s all a fallacy,” he said. “I think most of it’s made up.”

    That’s what DeSantis is competing with. He’ll have to try not to lose heart.

    John Hendrickson

    Source link

  • BMI Won’t Die

    BMI Won’t Die

    If anything defines America’s current obesity-drug boom, it’s this: Many more people want these injections than can actually get them. The roadblocks include exorbitant costs that can stretch beyond $1,000 a month, limited insurance coverage, and constant supply shortages. But before all of those issues come into play, anyone attempting to get a prescription will inevitably confront the same obstacle: their body mass index, or BMI.

    So much depends on the simple calculation of dividing one’s weight by the square of their height. According to the FDA, people qualify for prescriptions of Wegovy and Zepbound—the obesity-drug versions of the diabetes medications Ozempic and Mounjaro—only if their BMI is 3o or higher, or 27 or higher with a weight-related health issue such as hypertension. Many who do get on the medication use BMI to track their progress. That BMI is the single biggest factor determining who gets prescribed these drugs, and who doesn’t, is the result of how deeply entrenched this metric has become in how both doctors and regular people approach health: Low BMI is good and high BMI is bad, or so most of us have come to think.

    This roughly 200-year-old metric has never been more relevant—or maligned—than it is in the obesity-drug era. BMI has become like the decrepit car you keep driving because it still sort of works and is too much of a hassle to replace. Its numerous shortcomings have been called out for many years now: For starters, it accounts for only height and weight, not other, more pertinent measures such as body-fat percentage. In June, the American Medical Association formally recognized that BMI should not be used alone as a health measure. Last year, some doctors called for BMI to be retired altogether, echoing previous assertions.

    The thing is, BMI can be an insightful health metric, but only when used judiciously with other factors. The problem is that it often hasn’t been. Just as obesity drugs are taking off, however, professional views are changing. People are so accustomed to seeing BMI as the “be-all, end-all” of health indicators, Kate Bauer, a nutritional-sciences professor at the University of Michigan, told me. “But that’s increasingly not the way it’s being used in clinical practice.” A shift in the medical field is a good start, but the bigger challenge will be getting everyone else to catch up.

    BMI got its start in the 1830s, when a Belgian astronomer named Adolphe Quetelet attempted to determine the properties of the “average” man. Using data on primarily white people, he observed that weight tended to vary as the square of height—a calculation that came to be known as Quetelet’s index.

    Over the next 150 years, what began as a descriptive tool transformed into a prescriptive one. Quetelet’s index (and other metrics like it) informed height-weight tables used by life-insurance companies to estimate risk. These sorts of tables formed “recommendations for the general population going from ‘average’ to ‘ideal’ weights,” the epidemiologist Katherine Flegal wrote in her history of BMI; eventually, nonideal weights were classified as “overweight” and “obese.” In 1972, the American physiologist Ancel Keys proposed using Quetelet’s index—which he renamed BMI—to roughly measure obesity. We’ve been stuck with BMI ever since. The metric became embedded not only in research and doctor’s visits but also in the very definitions of obesity. According to the World Health Organization, a BMI starting at 25 and less than 30 is considered overweight; anything above that range is obese.

    But using BMI to categorize a person’s health was controversial from the start. Even Keys called it “scientifically indefensible” to use BMI to judge someone as overweight. BMI doesn’t account for where fat is distributed on the body; fat that builds up around organs and tissues, called visceral fat, is linked to serious medical issues, while fat under the skin—the kind you can pinch—is usually less of a problem. Muscularity is also overlooked: LeBron James, for example, would be considered overweight. Both fat distribution and muscularity can vary widely across sex, age, and ethnicity. People with high BMIs can be perfectly healthy, and “there are people with normal BMIs that are actually sick because they have too much body fat,” Angela Fitch, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and the president of the Obesity Medicine Association, told me.

    For all its flaws, BMI is actually useful at the population level, Fitch said, and doctors can measure it quickly and cheaply. But BMI becomes troubling when it is all that doctors see. In some cases, the moment when a patient’s BMI is calculated by their doctor may shape the rest of the appointment and relationship going forward. “The default is to hyper-focus on the weight number, and I just don’t think that that’s helpful,” Tracy Richmond, a pediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School, told me. Anti-obesity bias is well documented among physicians—even some obesity specialists—and can lead them to dismiss the legitimate medical needs of people with a high BMI. In one tragic example, a patient died from cancer that went undiagnosed because her doctors attributed her health issues to her high BMI.

    But after many decades, the medical community has begun to use BMI in a different way. “More and more clinicians are realizing that there are people who can be quite healthy with a high BMI,” Kate Bauer said. The shift has been gradual, though it was given a boost by the AMA policy update earlier this year: “Hopefully that will help clinicians make a change to supplement BMI with other measures,” Aayush Visaria, an internal-medicine resident at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School who researches BMI’s shortcomings, told me.

    Physicians I spoke with acknowledged BMI’s flaws but didn’t seem too concerned about its continued use in medicine—even as obesity drugs make this metric even more consequential. BMI isn’t a problem, they said, as long as physicians consider other factors when diagnosing obesity or prescribing drugs to treat it. If you go to a doctor with the intention of getting on an obesity drug, you should be subject to a comprehensive evaluation including metrics such as blood sugar, cholesterol levels, and body composition that go “way beyond BMI,” Katherine Saunders, a clinical-medicine professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, said. Because Wegovy and other drugs come with side effects, she told me, doctors must be absolutely sure that a patient actually needs them, she added.

    But BMI isn’t like most other health metrics. Because of its simplicity, it has seeped out of doctor’s offices and into the mainstream, where this more nuanced view still isn’t common. Whether we realize it or not, BMI is central to our basic idea of health, affecting nearly every aspect of daily life. Insurance companies are notorious for charging higher rates to people with high BMI and lowering premiums for people who commit to long-term weight loss. Fertility treatments and orthopedic and gender-affirming surgery can be withheld from patients until they hit BMI targets. Workplace wellness programs based on BMI are designed to help employees manage their weight. BMI has even been used to prevent prospective parents from adopting a child.

    The rise of obesity drugs may make these kinds of usages of BMI even harder to shake. Determining drug eligibility by high BMI supports the notion that a number is synonymous with illness. Certainly many people using obesity drugs take a holistic view of their health, as doctors are learning to do. But focusing on BMI is still common. Some members of the r/Ozempic Subreddit, for example, share their BMI to show their progress on the drug. Again, high BMI can be used to predict who has obesity, but it isn’t itself an obesity diagnosis. The problem with BMI’s continued dominance is that it makes it even harder to move away from simply associating a number on a scale with overall health, with all the downstream consequences that come along with a weight-obsessed culture. As obesity drugs are becoming mainstream, “there needs to be public education explaining that BMI by itself may not be a good indicator of health,” Visaria said.

    In another 200 years, surely BMI will finally be supplanted by something else. If not much sooner: A large effort to establish hard biological criteria for obesity is under way; the goal is to eliminate BMI-based definitions once and for all. Caroline Apovian, a professor at Harvard Medical School, gives it “at least 10 years” before a comparably cheap or convenient replacement arises—though any changes would take longer to filter into public consciousness.” Until that happens, we’re stuck with BMI, and the mess it has wrought.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • It’s the Best Time in History to Have a Migraine

    It’s the Best Time in History to Have a Migraine

    Here is a straightforward, clinical description of a migraine: intense throbbing headache, nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and noise, lasting for hours or days.

    And here is a fuller, more honest picture: an intense, throbbing sense of annoyance as the pain around my eye blooms. Wondering what the trigger was this time. Popping my beloved Excedrin—a combination of acetaminophen, aspirin, and caffeine—and hoping it has a chance to percolate in my system before I start vomiting. There’s the drawing of the curtains, the curling up in bed, the dash to the toilet to puke my guts out. I am not a religious person, but during my worst migraines, I have whimpered at the universe, my hands jammed into the side of my skull, and begged it for relief.

    That probably sounds melodramatic, but listen: Migraines are miserable. They’re miserable for about 40 million Americans, most of them women, though the precise symptoms and their severity vary across sufferers. For about a quarter, myself included, the onset is sometimes preceded by an aura, a short-lived phase that can include blind spots, tingling, numbness, and language problems. (These can resemble stroke symptoms, and you should seek immediate medical care if you experience them and don’t have a history of migraines.) Many experience a final phase known as the “migraine hangover,” which consists of fatigue, trouble concentrating, and dizziness after the worst pain has passed.

    These days, migraine sufferers are caught in a bit of a paradox. In some ways, their situation looks bright (but, please, not too bright): More treatments are available now than ever before—though still no cure—and researchers are learning more about what triggers a migraine, with occasionally surprising results. “It’s a really exciting time in headache medicine,” Mia Minen, a neurologist and the chief of headache research at NYU Langone, told me.

    And yet the enthusiasm within the medical community doesn’t seem to align with conditions on the ground (which, by the way, is a nice, cool place to press your cheek during an attack). Migraine sufferers cancel plans and feel guilty about it. They struggle to parent. They call in sick, and if they can’t, they move through the work day like zombies. In a 2019 survey, about 30 percent of participants with episodic migraines—attacks that occur on fewer than 15 days a month—said that the disorder had negatively affected their careers. About 58 percent with chronic migraines—attacks that occur more often than that—said the same.

    Migraines are still misunderstood, including by the people who deal with them. “We still don’t have a full understanding of exactly what causes migraine, and why some people suffer more than others do,” Elizabeth Loder, a headache clinician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and a neurology professor at Harvard Medical School, told me. Despite scientific progress, awareness campaigns, and frequent reminders that migraines are a neurological disorder and not “just headaches,” too often, they’re not treated with the medical care they require. Yes, it’s the best time in history to have migraines. It just doesn’t feel that way.


    Humans have had migraines probably for as long as we’ve had brains. As the historian Katherine Foxhall argues in her 2019 book, Migraine: A History, “much evidence suggests migraine had been taken seriously in both medical and lay literature throughout the classical, medieval, and early modern periods as a serious disorder requiring prompt and sustained treatment.” It was only in the 18th century, when medical professionals lumped migraines in with other “nervous disorders” such as hysteria, that they “came to be seen as characteristic of sensitivity, femininity, overwork, and moral and personal failure.” The association persisted, Stephen Silberstein, the director of the headache center at Thomas Jefferson University, told me. When Silberstein began his training in the 1960s, “nobody talked about migraine in medical school,” he told me. Physicians still believed that migraines were “the disorder of neurotic women.”

    The first drug treatments for migraines appeared in the 1920s, and they were discovered somewhat by accident: Doctors found that ergotamine, a drug used to stimulate contractions in childbirth and control postpartum bleeding, also sometimes relieved migraines. (It could also cause pain, muscle weakness, and, in high enough doses, gangrene; some later studies have found that it’s little better than placebo.) The drug constricted blood vessels in the brain, so doctors assumed that migraine was a vascular disorder, the symptoms brought on by changes in blood flow and inflamed vessels. In the 1960s, a physician studying the effectiveness of a heart medication noticed that one of his participants experienced migraine attacks less frequently than he used to; a decade later, the FDA approved that class of drug, called beta-blockers, as a preventative treatment. (In the decades since their approval, studies have found that beta-blockers helped about a quarter of participants reduce their monthly migraine days by half, compared with 4 percent of people taking a placebo.)

    Things changed in the 1990s, when triptans, a new class of drugs made specifically for migraines, became available. Triptans were often more effective and faster at easing migraine pain than earlier drugs, though the effects didn’t last as long. Around the same time, genetic studies revealed that migraines are often hereditary. Meanwhile, new brain-imaging technology allowed researchers to observe migraines in real time. It showed that, although blood vessels could become inflamed during an attack and contribute to pain, migraine isn’t strictly a vascular disorder. The chaos comes from within the nervous system: Scientists’ best understanding is that the trigeminal nerve, which provides sensation in the face, becomes stimulated, which triggers cells in the brain to release neurotransmitters that produce headache pain. How exactly the nerve gets perturbed remains unclear.

    The past few years of migraine medicine have felt like the ’90s all over again. In 2018, the FDA approved a monthly injection that prevents migraines by regulating CGRP, a neurotransmitter that’s known to spike during attacks. For 40 percent of people with chronic migraines participating in one clinical trial, the treatment cut their monthly migraine days in half. Similar remedies followed; Lady Gaga, a longtime migraine sufferer, appeared in a commercial this summer to endorse Pfizer’s CGRP-blocking pill, and the company’s CEO launched a migraine-awareness campaign earlier this month. Solid evidence has emerged that cognitive behavioral therapy and relaxation techniques tailored to migraine can be helpful as part of a larger treatment plan. The FDA has cleared several wearable devices designed to curb migraines by delivering mild electric stimulation. Last year, the agency decided to speed up the development of a device that deploys gentle puffs of air into a user’s ears.

    Researchers are still, to this day, making progress on identifying migraine triggers. Experts agree on many common triggers, such as skipping meals, getting too little sleep, getting too much sleep, stress, the comedown from stress, and hormone changes linked to menstruation or menopause. They’re also realizing that some long-held beliefs about triggers might be entirely wrong. MSG, for example, probably doesn’t induce migraines; changes in air pressure don’t do so as often as many people who have migraines seem to think.

    Some supposed triggers might actually be signs of an oncoming migraine. The majority of migraine sufferers experience something called the premonitory phase, which can last for several hours or days before headache pain sets in and has its own set of symptoms, including food cravings. We migraine sufferers are frequently advised to steer clear of chocolate, but if you’re craving a Snickers bar, the migraine may already be coming whether or not you eat it. “When you get a headache, you blame it on the chocolate—even though the migraine made you eat the chocolate,” Silberstein said. “I always tell people, if they think they’re getting a migraine, eat a bar of chocolate … It’s more likely to do good than harm.”


    Silberstein’s advice sounded like absolute blasphemy to me. Virtually every migraine FAQ page in existence had led me to believe that chocolate is a ruthless trigger. Maybe I shouldn’t have been relying on general guidelines on the internet, even though they came from reputable medical institutions. But I had turned to the internet because I didn’t think my migraines necessitated a visit to a specialist. According to the American Migraine Foundation, the majority of people who have migraines never consult a doctor to receive proper diagnosis and treatment.

    Recent surveys have shown that people are reluctant to see a professional for a variety of reasons: They think their migraine isn’t bad enough, they worry that their symptoms won’t be taken seriously, or they can’t afford the care. The hot new preventative medications in particular “are extremely expensive, putting them out of reach of some of the people who might benefit the most,” Loder said. In 2018, when the much-heralded CGRP blocker hit the market, the journalist Libby Watson, a longtime migraine patient herself, interviewed migraine sufferers who described themselves as low-income, and found that most of them hadn’t heard of the new drug at all.

    Even if you can get them, the treatments don’t guarantee relief. One recent study showed that triptans might not relieve pain—or might not be tolerable—for up to 40 percent of migraine patients. Experts are still trying to figure out why the same treatment might work wonderfully for one person, and not at all for another, Minen said. Some patients find that drugs eventually stop working for them, or that they come with side effects bad enough to discourage continued use, such as dizziness and still more nausea.

    These problems remain unsolved in part because of a dearth of research. Like other conditions that mostly afflict women, migraines receive “much less funding in proportion to the burden they exert on the U.S. population,” Nature’s Kerri Smith reported in May. And many doctors are unaware of the research that exists: A 2021 study of non-migraine physicians found that 43 percent had “poor knowledge” of the condition’s symptoms and management, and just 21 percent were aware of targeted treatments. Specialists tend to have a much better knowledge base, but good luck seeing one: America has too few headache doctors, and there are significantly fewer of them in rural areas.

    Many migraine sufferers rely on over-the-counter pain relievers, myself included. Years ago, my primary-care physician prescribed me a triptan nasal spray. It produced a terrible aftertaste and worsened the throbbing in my head, and I gave up on it after only a couple of uses. Back to Excedrin I went, not realizing—until reporting this story—that nonprescription medications can cause even more attacks if you overuse them. Some people get by on home remedies that the journalist Katy Schneider, who battles migraines herself, has described as a “medicine cabinet of curiosities”; one person she interviewed shotguns an ice-cold Coke when she feels the symptoms coming on.

    When triptans and tricks fail, some people try to prevent migraines by avoiding triggers. Don’t stay up too late or sleep in. Don’t drink red wine. Put down that Snickers. This strategy of avoidance “interferes with the quality of their life in many cases,” Loder said, and probably doesn’t stop the attacks. And drawing associations is a futile exercise because most migraines are brought on by more than one trigger, Minen said. People can end up internalizing the 18th-century idea that migraines are a personal failure rather than a disease—and migraine FAQs perpetuate that myth by advising patients to live an ascetic life.

    The misconceptions surrounding migraine, combined with its invisibility, make the disorder easy to stigmatize. The authors of a 2021 review found that, compared with epilepsy, a neurological disorder with a physical manifestation, “people with chronic migraine are viewed as less trustworthy, less likely to try their hardest, and more likely to malinger.” Perhaps as a result, many feel pressure to grind through it. Migraines are estimated to account for 16 percent of presenteeism—being on the job but not operating at full capacity—in the American workforce.

    Before reporting this story, I had never thought to call my migraines a neurological disorder, let alone a “debilitating” one, as Minen and other experts do. Migraines were just this thing that I’ve lived with for more than a decade, and had accepted as an unfortunate part of my existence. Just my Excedrin and me, together forever, barreling through the wasted days. The attacks began in my late teens, around the same time that my childhood epilepsy mysteriously vanished. I never got an explanation for my seizures, despite years of daily medication and countless EEGs. A neurologist once told me that the two might be related, but he couldn’t say for sure; research has shown that people who have epilepsy are more likely to experience migraines. And so I assumed that I just had a slightly broken brain, prone to electrochemical misfiring.

    All of the experts I spoke with were politely horrified when I told them about my migraines and how I manage them. I promised them that I’d make an appointment with a specialist. Before we got off the phone, Silberstein gave me a tip. “Put a cold pack on your neck and then a heating pad, 15 minutes alternating,” he said. “It’ll take the migraine away.” He told me that researchers are developing a device that does this, but the old-fashioned way can be effective too. At this point, my cabinet of curiosities is falling apart, its hinges squeaking from overuse. I’m already rethinking my entire migraine life, so I may as well try this too.

    Marina Koren

    Source link

  • A Fourth of U.S. Health Visits Now Delivered by Non-Physicians

    A Fourth of U.S. Health Visits Now Delivered by Non-Physicians

     At a glance

    • From 2013 to 2019 the share of U.S. health care visits delivered by non-physicians such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants increased from 14 to 26 percent.
    • This rapid shift requires caregivers, medical educators, and policymakers to understand and manage this growing segment of the health care workforce.

    Newswise — The proportion of health care visits delivered by nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the US is increasing rapidly and now accounts for a quarter of all healthcare visits, according to a study published Sept. 14 in the BMJ.

    The analysis, led by researchers from the Department of Health Care Policy in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School, highlights the rising importance of this rapidly growing segment of the U.S. health care system.

    The research is the first nationally representative study of the share of health care delivered by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, collectively known as advanced practice providers. It is also the first study to look at care delivered across different clinical conditions. The researchers analyzed 276 million visits from a nationally representative sample of Medicare insured patients.

    Study co-authors Ateev Mehrotra, professor of health care policy at HMS, and Sadiq Patel, a former NIH postdoctoral fellow at HMS, spoke with HMNews about the increasingly important role these providers play in our health care system.

    Harvard Medicine News: How did we get to the point where a quarter of all medical visits are conducted by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, not by physicians?

    Mehrotra: The roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants were created in the mid 1960s to address what were already identified at that time as physician shortages. We looked specifically at the years from 2013 to 2019, when the proportion of all traditional health care visits delivered by nurse practitioners and physician assistants increased from 14 to 25.6 percent. 

    That’s the average, but it varied across different conditions. Forty-seven percent of respiratory infection visits and 31 percent of visits for anxiety disorders were conducted by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, but it was only 13 percent for eye disorders and 20 percent for hypertension.

    HMNews: What’s driving this recent growth? 

    Mehrotra: The short answer is supply and demand. The U.S. has fewer physicians per capita than most of our peer nations. Who is going to provide that care? The number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants has grown more quickly than the number of physicians. And this trend will only continue as we move forward.  

    The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that between 2019 and 2031 the number of nurse practitioners in the U.S. will increase by 80 percent and the number of physician assistants by nearly 50 percent. In contrast, the growth rate for physicians over the next decade or so is estimated at less than 5 percent.

    HMNews: Are there some patients who are more likely to see nurse practitioners or physician assistants than others?

    Patel: Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are very widespread: Among all patients with at least one visit in 2019, 42 percent had one or more nurse practitioner or physician assistant visits. But there were some groups more likely to see nurse practitioners and physician assistants. The likelihood was greatest among patients who were lower income, rural residents, and people with disabilities.

    That’s another reason it’s so important to get this right. We’ve known that these groups often have greater difficulty accessing care, and nurse practitioners and physician assistants are critical to providing this access.

    HMNews: When people are sick, they usually think about “going to the doctor.” Is this change worrying? Is there a difference in quality or cost between the care delivered by nurses and physician assistants versus the care delivered by physicians?

    Mehrotra: First of all, it’s very important to emphasize that it’s not really a question of one or the other. Almost all these practitioners work in teams that include physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants working together.

    Most of the research agrees that all three professions can do a good job delivering care in most settings, especially primary care. And it turns out that there is not a significant difference in spending. But there are clinical conditions that might be better suited to one profession or another.

    Patel: One of the things that we wanted to do with this study was to start looking at the specific types of care these allied professionals were most likely to deliver.

    HMNews: What did you learn?

    Patel: As Ateev mentioned, patients were less likely to see a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant for an eye disorder, and more likely to see them for a respiratory infection. That seems like a reasonable allocation of resources, given the relative complexity of the clinical conditions. 

    The high use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants for anxiety disorders is another interesting example. There simply aren’t enough psychiatrists to treat all the people who need care for mental health conditions. But the good news is that there are highly effective evidence-based treatments that can help a lot of people with depression and anxiety that do not require a physician to deliver.

    Mehrotra: Hopefully one benefit that will follow from this research is that we will be able to identify the services that allied health professionals can deliver and provide the training and support services they need to take care of their patients, like proactively planning for remote supervision in more complex psychiatric services or specialist consults by telemedicine.

    HMNews: Any predictions on how these changes will shape health care going forward?

    Mehrotra: The increase in care delivery by nurse practitioners and physician assistants represents a massive change. We need more research on how to best structure teams of clinicians — nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians — so that they can work together to provide the most effective care possible. If we are thoughtful about how we move forward as those changes continue to happen, that’s millions of opportunities to do it better. I hope we take advantage of that opportunity.

    This interview was edited for length and clarity.

    Harvard Medical School

    Source link

  • 2023 Warren Alpert Foundation Prize Honors Pioneer in Computational Biology

    2023 Warren Alpert Foundation Prize Honors Pioneer in Computational Biology

    Newswise — The 2023 Warren Alpert Foundation Prize has been awarded to scientist David J. Lipman for his visionary work in the conception, design, and implementation of computational tools, databases, and infrastructure that transformed the way biological information is analyzed and accessed freely and rapidly around the world.

    The $500,000 award is bestowed by The Warren Alpert Foundation in recognition of work that has improved the understanding, prevention, treatment, or cure of human disease. The prize is administered by Harvard Medical School. 

    Lipman will be honored at a scientific symposium on Oct. 11, 2023, hosted by HMS. For further information, visit The Warren Alpert Foundation Prize symposium website.

    Lipman, who is currently a senior science adviser for bioinformatics and genomics for the Food and Drug Administration, is receiving the award for work he did in the 1980s and 1990s prior to and after becoming the founding director of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a position he held until 2017.

    Lipman led the development of a powerful computational program called BLAST for the analysis and comparison of newly identified DNA and protein sequences against all known DNA and protein sequences. The tool transformed researchers’ ability to access and interpret DNA, RNA, and protein sequence data and propelled the fields of computational biology and molecular biology. While at the NCBI, Lipman also conceptualized and then oversaw the design and implementation of PubMed, the web-based database for biomedical literature used daily by millions of scientists, physicians, students, teachers, and the public. Today, NCBI houses multiple biotechnology databases and resources that, over the years, have reshaped biology, medicine, and other fields of science.

    “At a time when computation was deemed an exotic pursuit by most biomedical researchers, David was prescient because he understood the potential of computation to propel biomedical science forward,” said George Q. Daley, dean of HMS and chair of the Warren Alpert Foundation Prize scientific advisory board. “His vision, creativity, and rigor have transformed how scientists analyze and share data and, indeed, how we do science.”

    Lipman’s pioneering achievements not only democratized access to scientific information but also helped catalyze critical discoveries by enabling vital exchanges and collaborations among scientists in multiple fields of biomedicine and beyond.

    “The foundational work of David Lipman in the field of computational biology and the tools that he envisioned and created have an impact that is nearly impossible to measure on the fields of biology, medicine, and beyond,” said David M. Hirsch, director and chairman of the board of The Warren Alpert Foundation. “His contributions exemplify the mission and vision of the Warren Alpert Foundation.”

    Significance of the work

    Over the past 40 years, advances in DNA sequencing, computation, and the internet have transformed biomedical research, public health, and the practice of medicine. Lipman developed many of the most important computational tools and infrastructure for making discoveries with these technologies.  

    In the 1980s, as understanding of DNA and genes began to accelerate, elucidating the evolutionary relationships across genes and proteins within and between species became a major focus of Lipman’s scientific curiosity and research efforts. Such knowledge is critical in elucidating evolutionary relationships that provide essential clues about the function of genes and proteins.

    Early on, Lipman realized that the rapid emergence of new genetic sequencing data would require powerful and efficient computer programs to compare one DNA or protein sequence against all known sequences.

    In a series of papers published between 1983 and 1990, Lipman pioneered the design of multiple methods for comparative sequence analysis. This culminated in the development of an algorithm called BLAST, described in a now seminal 1990 paper. Today, BLAST and subsequent programs, gapped BLAST, and PSI-BLAST remain among the most widely used tools in biology and medicine and are deemed among the most significant achievements in the field of computational biology of the past 40 years.

    BLAST enabled understanding of the interplay between genes, biology, physiology, and the environment across organisms and has led to important discoveries in nearly all areas of biomedical research, from the molecular basis of cancer to identifying the source of a foodborne outbreak. 

    Furthermore, Lipman became one of the most ardent supporters of and key figures in the move toward open-access science. He was instrumental in the design of PubMed, the open-access scientific publication resource of the NCBI and the largest and most widely used resource for scientific research in the world.

    As director of NCBI, Lipman oversaw GenBank, the world’s largest DNA and protein sequence repository, an international collaboration among the United States, Japan, and Europe. Under his direction, NCBI brought GenBank into the era of genomics and the internet, vastly augmenting its capabilities.

    From the winner

    Through the creation of computational tools and information systems, my goal and that of the wonderful collaborators I’ve had the honor to work with has been to enable biomedical researchers to make discoveries. The scientists involved in the nomination and selection process have a deep understanding of the field and have themselves made some of the most important biomedical discoveries. So, this honor holds a special significance to me.”

                -David J. Lipman

    The prize

    The Warren Alpert Foundation Prize recognizes the research of scientists throughout the world. Including the 2023 prize, the foundation has awarded more than $7.5 million to 79 individuals. Since the inception of the award in 1987, 12 honorees have gone on to receive Nobel prizes.

    The 2022 Warren Alpert Foundation Prize was awarded to Drew Weissman, Katalin Karikó, Uğur Şahin, Özlem Türeci, and Eric Huang for pioneering discoveries into the biology of mRNA, for its modification for medicinal use, and for the design of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines that set the stage for other mRNA vaccines and a variety of mRNA-based therapies.

    Other past recipients include:

    • Lynne Maquat and Joan Steitz for discoveries in the biology and function of RNA that reshaped the understanding of RNA’s various roles in healthy cell function and disease-causing dysfunction.
    • Daniel Drucker, Joel Habener, and Jens Juul Holst for elucidating the function of key intestinal hormones, their effects on metabolism, and the subsequent design of treatments for type 2 diabetes, obesity, and short bowel syndrome.
    • Edward Boyden, Karl Deisseroth, Peter Hegemann, and Gero Miesenböck for pioneering work in the field of optogenetics.
    • Francis Collins, Paul Negulescu, Bonnie Ramsey, Lap-Chee Tsui, and Michael Welsh for discoveries in cystic fibrosis.
    • James Allison, Lieping Chen, Gordon Freeman, Tasuku Honjo, and Arlene Sharpe for discoveries into cancer’s ability to evade immune surveillance, which led to the development of a class of cancer immunotherapies. Allison and Honjo shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
    • Rodolphe Barrangou, Emmanuelle Charpentier, Jennifer Doudna, Philippe Horvath, and Virginijus Siksnys for CRISPR-related discoveries. Doudna and Charpentier shared the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
    • Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with two others, and Ruth and Victor Nussenzweig for their pioneering discoveries in the chemistry and parasitology of malaria and the translation of that work into the development of drug therapies and an antimalarial vaccine.
    • Oleh Hornykiewicz, Roger Nicoll, and Solomon Snyder for research into neurotransmission and neurodegeneration.
    • Alain Charpentier and Robert Langer for innovations in bioengineering.
    • Harald zur Hausen and Lutz Gissmann for work on the human papillomavirus (HPV) and its role in cervical cancer. Zur Hausen and others were honored with the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008.

    The Warren Alpert FoundationEach year the Warren Alpert Foundation receives between 30 and 50 nominations from scientific leaders worldwide. Prize recipients are selected by the foundation’s scientific advisory board, which is composed of distinguished biomedical scientists and chaired by the dean of Harvard Medical School. Warren Alpert (1920-2007), a native of Chelsea, Mass., established the prize in 1987 after reading about the development of a vaccine for hepatitis B. The inaugural recipient of the award was Kenneth Murray of the University of Edinburgh, who designed the hepatitis B vaccine. To award subsequent prizes, Alpert asked Daniel Tosteson (1925-2009), then dean of Harvard Medical School, to convene a panel of experts to identify scientists from around the world whose research had a direct impact on the treatment of disease. 

    Harvard Medical School

    Source link

  • Woman Demands Mother’s Remains After Father’s Donated Body Allegedly Stolen From Harvard

    Woman Demands Mother’s Remains After Father’s Donated Body Allegedly Stolen From Harvard

    A woman is demanding the return of her mother’s remains after learning that her father’s body was stolen as part of an alleged gruesome theft ring at the Harvard Medical School morgue.

    According to The Boston Globe, Paula Peltonovich’s father, Nicholas Pichowicz, died in 2019 and had his body donated to Harvard Medical School. His wife, Joan Pichowicz, died in March, and her remains were also donated to the school.

    Harvard Medical School accepts such donations through its Anatomical Gift Program. The bodies are used for education and research purposes — a common practice in medical schools across the country. After the bodies are used, Harvard cremates the remains and either returns them to the families or sends them to a cemetery.

    “This is what they chose to do years ago,” Peltonovich told the Globe on Thursday. “They gave back to science.”

    But Peltonovich now believes her father’s body encountered a more grisly fate.

    Between 2018 and 2022, Harvard’s former morgue manager Cedric Lodge and his wife, Denise, allegedly stole and cut up donor cadavers from the medical school and sold parts of them ― including brains, heads and skin — to buyers in Massachusetts and other states.

    The body parts were allegedly bought by Katrina Maclean, Joshua Taylor and Mathew Lampi. Maclean allegedly purchased body parts from Lodge — including two dissected faces — to resell to buyers or in her Massachusetts shop, which largely sells macabre dolls and other oddities. Maclean also allegedly sent skin to suspect Jeremy Pauley to have it tanned to create leather. It is illegal to buy or sell human organs in the United States.

    On Wednesday, Cedric and Denise Lodge, along with Taylor, Lampi, Maclean and Pauley, were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges related to the alleged trafficking scheme.

    After learning about the alleged theft ring on Wednesday, Peltonovich reached out to Harvard and was told that her father’s remains were among those stolen. The status of her mother’s body is unclear. But Peltonovich said she and her family want it back, if the institution still has it, so she can bury her mother.

    “It’s just unthinkable. There’s no words,” she told the Globe. “We were just disgusted. Sick, like we were going to throw up.”

    According to a Department of Justice press release, Lampi and Pauley allegedly sold and bought body parts from each other over a long period of time, exchanging over $100,000 in online payments. The federal indictment also alleged that Taylor sent 39 PayPal payments to Lodge for body parts between 2018 and 2021, totaling $37,355.56. The payments allegedly included a $1,000 transaction that read “head number 7,” and another with the note “braiiiiiins,” Vice reported.

    “The defendants violated the trust of the deceased and their families all in the name of greed,” FBI agent Jacqueline Maguire said in the press release on Wednesday. “While today’s charges cannot undo the unfathomable pain this heinous crime has caused, the FBI will continue to work tirelessly to see that justice is served.”

    Harvard released a statement following the indictment with the subject line “An abhorrent betrayal.”

    “We are appalled to learn that something so disturbing could happen on our campus — a community dedicated to healing and serving others,” the statement read. “The reported incidents are a betrayal of HMS and, most importantly, each of the individuals who altruistically chose to will their bodies to HMS through the Anatomical Gift Program to advance medical education and research.”

    The school sent out letters on Wednesday to the next of kin of the donors who were found to have been affected, and vowed to examine its records and work with the U.S. Attorney’s office to continue identifying the victims.

    Source link

  • Lung infection may be less transmissible than thought

    Lung infection may be less transmissible than thought

    Newswise — A little-known bacterium — a distant cousin of the microbes that cause tuberculosis and leprosy — is emerging as a public health threat capable of causing severe lung infections among vulnerable populations, those with compromised immunity or reduced lung function.

    Recent research found that various strains of the bacterium, Mycobacterium abscessus, were genetically similar, stoking fears that it was spreading from person to person.

    But a new study by Harvard Medical School researchers published May 22 in PNAS, calls those findings into question, offering an alternative explanation behind the genetic similarity of clinical clusters. This suggests that the pathogen may not be that prone to person-to-person transmission after all.

    “Our findings make a strong case for a different explanation behind the observed genetic similarities across strains,” said study senior author Maha Farhat, the Gilbert S. Omenn Associate Professor of Biomedical Informatics at HMS and a pulmonary disease expert at Massachusetts General Hospital. Farhat conducted the work in collaboration with Eric Rubin’s lab at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

    The results, Farhat added, argue against direct person-to-person transmission in clinical settings and instead point to M. abscessus infections being acquired from the home or other environmental exposures.

    In addition to having implications for the precautions that hospitals take to prevent outbreaks, it’s an important new clue into the behavior of a relatively unknown pathogen that poses serious risks for vulnerable populations.

    The research not only contributes to the understanding of M. abscessus transmission, but also suggests scientists should be cautious about assuming human transmission when they see genetic similarities in pathogens more generally, said study first author Nicoletta Commins, who conducted the research as a doctoral candidate at HMS and is now a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute.

    “Our results certainly do not refute the possibility of person-to-person transmission of Mycobacterium abscessus in some cases, and more research is needed to inform best clinical practice for vulnerable patients,” she said. “However, our work supports a model in which person-to-person transmission may not be as common as it is sometimes suggested to be.”

    M. abscessus is a hardy microbe highly resistant to antibiotics and can infect the lungs of immunocompromised people. While it doesn’t pose a threat to most healthy individuals, it can cause severe infection in those with suppressed immunity or people with compromised lung function such as patients with cystic fibrosis, a genetic condition marked by recurrent lung infections and lung scarring. Notably, patients with CF who become infected with this organism become ineligible for lifesaving lung transplants.

    The earlier study that sounded the alarm about person-to-person transmission was based on genetic sequencing of M. abscessus samples obtained from cystic fibrosis patients at clinics in the United States, Australia, and Europe, including the United Kingdom. Researchers found few genetic mutations across the samples — a possible sign that the pathogen was spreading directly between humans.

    For many pathogens such as TB, for example, recent person-to-person transmission leads to only a few or no mutations between any pair of samples simply because the pathogen does not have much time to acquire genetic mutations, Farhat explained.

    “Understandably, observing the genetic similarity between M. abscessus samples caused a great deal of anxiety and fear around how these organisms could be transmitting,” she said.

    Clinicians, especially in clinics that treat cystic fibrosis patients, began taking extra precautions to avert transmission. However, follow-up investigations failed to find supporting evidence that human-to-human transmission was happening, raising questions about other possible explanations for the genetic similarities across samples.

    Farhat’s team set out to investigate a hypothesis that the samples appeared genetically similar because the pathogen was evolving at a very slow rate.

    “We thought, yeah, you observed a small number of mutations, but we don’t know how quickly these mutations are acquired, she explained. “It may be slower than we think, and links between samples that appear recent may not be.’”

    The scientists first used a large dataset of M. abscessus genomes to create a “tree of life,” a kind of genetic family tree for the bacterium.

    They looked at branches of the tree with clusters of genetically similar strains, then tried to calculate their evolutionary rate. They found that these genetically similar clusters were evolving around 10 times more slowly than typical M. abscessus strains.

    Next, they used computer modeling to determine whether the genetic similarities could be explained by the relatively small population size of these bacteria. But even when they simulated extreme population sizes, the result didn’t change. This was an indicator that the high genetic similarity is best explained by a slower evolutionary rate.

    Finally, researchers conducted experiments to see how fast different strains of M. abscessus evolved to develop resistance when exposed to antibiotics in the lab. They found that the genetically similar strains evolved much more slowly than other strains.

    “These are three separate lines of evidence supporting this idea that these clustered isolates of Mycobacterium abscessus are evolving at a slower rate,” Farhat said.

    In addition to reducing concern about person-to-person transmission, the findings provide new insight into a poorly understood pathogen.

    In particular, the results offer clues about how a bug found primarily in the environment adapts and changes after it enters the human body — information that could help scientists eventually understand how to prevent and treat infections.

    Farhat is now planning follow-up studies that would compare bacteria in the environment with samples taken from patients, to better understand why certain patients become infected.

    Authorship, funding, disclosures

    Additional authors included Mark R. Sullivan, Kerry McGowen

    Evan Koch, and Eric Rubin. The work was partly supported by the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation, DRG-2415-20, with additional support from the Orchestra High Performance Compute Cluster at Harvard Medical School, funded by the NIH NCRR 1S10RR028832-01.

    Harvard Medical School

    Source link

  • Ozempic in Teens Is a Confusing Mess

    Ozempic in Teens Is a Confusing Mess

    Somehow, America’s desire for Ozempic is only growing. The drug’s active ingredient, semaglutide, is sold as an obesity medication under the brand name Wegovy—and it has become so popular that its manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, recently limited shipments to the U.S. and paused advertising to prevent shortages. Its promise has enticed would-be patients and set off a pharmaceutical arms race to create more potent drugs.

    Part of the interest stems from Ozempic’s potential in teens: In December, the FDA approved Wegovy as a treatment for teenagers with obesity, which affects 22 percent of 12-to-19-year-olds in the United States. The drug’s ability to spur weight loss in adolescents has been described as “mind-blowing.” In January, in its new childhood-obesity-treatment guidelines, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended that doctors consider adding weight-loss drugs such as semaglutide as a treatment for some patients.

    But although many doctors and obesity experts have embraced semaglutide as a treatment for adults, some are concerned that taking it at such a young age—and at such a precarious stage of life—could pose serious risks, especially because the long-term physical and mental-health effects of the medication are still unknown. Others, however, believe that not using this medication in adolescents is riskier, because obesity makes teens vulnerable to serious health conditions and premature death. In part because of the apprehension among doctors, prescriptions for semaglutide in teens are not taking off like they are for adults. At this point, whether these drugs will ever catch on as a treatment for teens remains deeply uncertain.


    Semaglutide isn’t just effective for teens; it may be even more effective than it is in adults. In a large Novo Nordisk–funded study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, “the degree of weight reduction in adolescents was better than what was observed in the adult trials,” Aaron S. Kelly, a co-director of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, told me. In another Novo Nordisk–funded study published last week, a team led by Kelly showed that the drug, combined with counseling and exercise, nearly halved the number of teens with obesity after they received 68 weeks of treatment. Both for adolescents and adults, the weekly injection doesn’t “magically melt away body fat,” Kelly said; instead, it works by triggering a sense of fullness and quieting hunger pangs.

    Teenagers’ experience with obesity is different—in some ways more intense—than that of older people. Puberty is a time of lots of growth and development, so the body fights off attempts at weight loss “with every mechanism that it has,” Tamara Hannon, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Indiana University School of Medicine, told me. Teenagers may also have less control than adults over what they eat or how much activity they get, because these are largely circumscribed by their family and school, as well as by social pressure to conform to how their peers eat. “Making good choices means doing something different than the majority of the other kids,” Hannon said. “At every corner, there’s something that is in direct opposition to losing weight.”

    Because obesity is a chronic disease, developing it early can be devastating. In many cases, it can result in illnesses such as type 2 diabetes and fatty liver at a young age. Children with obesity are five times more likely than their peers to have it in adulthood; as teens with obesity become adults with obesity, they can “develop very, very aggressive disease,” Fatima Stanford, an obesity-medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, told me. Weight-loss drugs give doctors the ability to intervene before the effects of obesity snowball, she said, which is why AAP’s new childhood-obesity guidelines advocate for using them as part of early, aggressive treatment—along with many hours of in-person health and lifestyle therapy. Used early enough, semaglutide or other medications could possibly reroute the trajectory of a teenager’s entire life.

    But semaglutide could also possibly throw a teen’s trajectory off course. Because treatment is considered a lifelong endeavor—stopping usually leads to rapid weight regain—adolescents who start the medication will be taking it for many decades. “We have no way of knowing whether these drugs, used so early in life for so long, could have unanticipated adverse effects,” David Ludwig, an endocrinologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, told me. Although adults face many of the same unknowns, the risks for teens could be more severe, because their body and brain are in constant flux. Of particular concern are the drug’s potential impacts on physiological changes specific to adolescence. “We need to keep an eye on pubertal development and menstrual history for girls,” Hannon said. In addition, the drugs can lead to unsavory side effects such as gastrointestinal issues and may have other impacts, including significant muscle loss and rewiring of the brain’s reward circuitry. Scientists are just beginning to understand these effects; at this point, only two major studies have been conducted on semaglutide in teens, and neither has involved a long follow-up period.

    The repercussions of semaglutide treatment on mental health, an important aspect of obesity care, are even less understood. Teens are “more likely than an adult to have intermittent access to medication,” Kathleen Miller, an adolescent-medicine specialist at Children’s Minnesota hospital, told me—and skipping several doses in a row could pose physical and well as psychological risks. Another concern is that the overall effect of taking semaglutide—a decreased appetite, which leads to eating less—is essentially the same as that of dieting. When teens go on very restrictive diets, whether or not they involve weight-loss medications, “we know that may be harmful to their mental health and promote disordered eating,” Hannon said. Because their brain is so plastic during puberty, “there’s a risk of ingraining those patterns in adolescence,” Miller said.


    With so many unknowns, would teens with obesity be better off avoiding semaglutide? At least for now, many pediatricians are reluctant to prescribe it. “The idea of using anti-obesity pharmacotherapy was challenging even in adults a couple of years ago,” says Angela Fitch, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and the president of the Obesity Medicine Association; acceptance of its role in pediatric care is even further behind. But denying teens the drug, she told me, is the biggest risk: Teens develop an unhealthy mentality about their body when they don’t get help losing weight. Explaining to a teen that obesity is not their fault, and correcting the underlying biological issue with medication or other treatment, helps them to develop “a better body image about themselves,” she said.

    None of the experts I spoke with flat-out said that semaglutide should never be used in adolescent treatment. Even those who were wary of the drug acknowledged that it might be medically appropriate in teens who really struggle with their weight and have little success losing it through any other means. That argument may only strengthen as more convenient drugs—or those with fewer side effects—are approved for teen use. This week, both Novo Nordisk and Pfizer announced that pill versions of these medications were successful in early trials.

    Even without all of the answers on how this drug might affect teens in the long term, Fitch predicted that “the uptake of semaglutide and other anti-obesity medications in pediatric clinical care will be slow and gradual.” Eventually, they may come to be seen as just one of several weight-loss tools to help set up kids for healthier lives. Treating adolescent obesity shouldn’t be an “either-or” choice, Ludwig said: “It’s everything-and.” He has proposed that combining semaglutide with a low-carbohydrate diet, for example, could have synergistic effects on adolescent weight loss.

    For the foreseeable future, semaglutide isn’t poised to take off for teens in the way that it has for adults. In spite of all the hype surrounding Ozempic, experts and their patients are left with a difficult choice based on different assessments of risk: what might happen if teens are treated with drugs, and what might happen if they’re not. Either way, teenagers have the most to benefit—and the most to lose.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • No One Really Knows How Much COVID Is Silently Spreading … Again

    No One Really Knows How Much COVID Is Silently Spreading … Again

    In the early days of the pandemic, one of the scariest and most surprising features of SARS-CoV-2 was its stealth. Initially assumed to transmit only from people who were actively sick—as its predecessor SARS-CoV did—the new coronavirus turned out to be a silent spreader, also spewing from the airways of people who were feeling just fine. After months of insisting that only the symptomatic had to mask, test, and isolate, officials scrambled to retool their guidance; singing, talking, laughing, even breathing in tight quarters were abruptly categorized as threats.

    Three years later, the coronavirus is still silently spreading—but the fear of its covertness again seems gone. Enthusiasm for masking and testing has plummeted; isolation recommendations have been pared down, and may soon entirely disappear. “We’re just not communicating about asymptomatic transmission anymore,” says Saskia Popescu, an infectious-disease epidemiologist and infection-prevention expert at George Mason University. “People think, What’s the point? I feel fine.

    Although the concern over asymptomatic spread has dissipated, the threat itself has not. And even as our worries over the virus continue to shrink and be shunted aside, the virus—and the way it moves between us—is continuing to change. Which means that our best ideas for stopping its spread aren’t just getting forgotten; they’re going obsolete.

    When SARS-CoV-2 was new to the world and hardly anyone had immunity, symptomless spread probably accounted for most of the virus’s spread—at least 50 percent or so, says Meagan Fitzpatrick, an infectious-disease transmission modeler at the University of Maryland’s School of Medicine. People wouldn’t start feeling sick until four, five, or six days, on average, after being infected. In the interim, the virus would be xeroxing itself at high speed in their airway, reaching potentially infectious levels a day or two before symptoms started. Silently infected people weren’t sneezing and coughing—symptoms that propel the virus more forcefully outward, increasing transmission efficiency. But at a time when tests were still scarce and slow to deliver results, not knowing they had the virus made them dangerous all the same. Precautionary tests were still scarce, or very slow to deliver results. So symptomless transmission became a norm, as did epic superspreading events.

    Now, though, tests are more abundant, presymptomatic spread is a better-known danger, and repeated rounds of vaccination and infection have left behind layers of immunity. That protection, in particular, has slashed the severity and duration of acute symptoms, lowering the risk that people will end up in hospitals or morgues; it may even be chipping away at long COVID. At the same time, though, the addition of immunity has made the dynamics of symptomless transmission much more complex.

    On an individual basis, at least, silent spread could be happening less often than it did before. One possible reason is that symptoms are now igniting sooner in people’s bodies, just three or so days, on average, after infection—a shift that roughly coincided with the rise of the first Omicron variant and could be a quirk of the virus itself. But Aubree Gordon, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the University of Michigan, told me that faster-arriving sicknesses are probably being driven in part by speedier immune responses, primed by past exposures. That means that illness might now coincide with or even precede the peak of contagiousness, shortening the average period in which people spread the virus before they feel sick. In that one very specific sense, COVID could now be a touch more flulike. Presymptomatic transmission of the flu does seem to happen on occasion, says Seema Lakdawala, a virologist at Emory University. But in general, “people tend not to hit their highest viral levels until after they develop symptoms,” Gordon told me.

    Coupled with more population-level immunity, this arrangement could be working in our favor. People might be less likely to pass the virus unwittingly to others. And thanks to the defenses we’ve collectively built up, the pathogen itself is also having more trouble exiting infected bodies and infiltrating new ones. That’s almost certainly part of the reason that this winter hasn’t been quite as bad as past ones have, COVID-wise, says Maia Majumder, an infectious-disease modeler at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital.

    That said, a lot of people are still undoubtedly catching the coronavirus from people who aren’t feeling sick. Infection per infection, the risk of superspreading events might now be lower, but at the same time people have gotten chiller about socializing without masks and testing before gathering in groups—a behavioral change that’s bound to counteract at least some of the forward shift in symptoms. Presymptomatic spread might be less likely nowadays, but it’s nowhere near gone. Multiply a small amount of presymptomatic spread by a large number of cases, and that can still seed … another large number of cases.

    There could be some newcomers to the pool of silent spreaders, too—those who are now transmitting the virus without ever developing symptoms at all. With people’s defenses higher than they were even a year and a half ago, infections that might have once been severe are now moderate or mild; ones that might have once been mild are now unnoticeable, says Seyed Moghadas, a computational epidemiologist at York University. At the same time, though, immunity has probably transformed some symptomless-yet-contagious infections into non-transmissible cases, or kept some people from getting infected at all. Milder cases are of course welcome, Fitzpatrick told me, but no one knows exactly what these changes add up to: Depending on the rate and degree of each of those shifts, totally asymptomatic transmission might now be more common, less common, or sort of a wash.

    Better studies on transmission patterns would help cut through the muck; they’re just not really happening anymore. “To get this data, you need to have pretty good testing for surveillance purposes, and that basically has stopped,” says Yonatan Grad, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

    Meanwhile, people are just straight-up testing less, and rarely reporting any of the results they get at home. For many months now, even some people who are testing have been seeing strings of negative results days into bona-fide cases of COVID—sometimes a week or more past when their symptoms start. That’s troubling on two counts: First, some legit COVID cases are probably getting missed, and keeping people from accessing test-dependent treatments such as Paxlovid. Second, the disparity muddles the start and end of isolation. Per CDC guidelines, people who don’t test positive until a few days into their illness should still count their first day of symptoms as Day 0 of isolation. But if symptoms might sometimes outpace contagiousness, “I think those positive tests should restart the isolation clock,” Popescu told me, or risk releasing people back into society too soon.

    American testing guidelines, however, haven’t undergone a major overhaul in more than a year—right after Omicron blew across the nation, says Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. And even if the rules were to undergo a revamp, they wouldn’t necessarily guarantee more or better testing, which requires access and will. Testing programs have been winding down for many months; free diagnostics are once again growing scarce.

    Through all of this, scientists and nonscientists alike are still wrestling with how to define silent infection in the first place. What counts as symptomless depends not just on biology, but behavior—and our vigilance. As worries over transmission continue to falter and fade, even mild infections may be mistaken for quiet ones, Grad told me, brushed off as allergies or stress. Biologically, the virus and the disease may not need to become that much more muted to spread with ease: Forgetting about silent spread may grease the wheels all on its own.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • After Law-School Revolt, Harvard Medical School Will Stop Cooperating With ‘U.S. News’ Rankings

    After Law-School Revolt, Harvard Medical School Will Stop Cooperating With ‘U.S. News’ Rankings

    Harvard Medical School’s dean announced on Tuesday that the institution would no longer send data to U.S. News & World Report for its annual rankings.

    “As unintended consequences, rankings create perverse incentives for institutions to report misleading or inaccurate data, set policies to boost rankings rather than nobler objectives, or divert financial aid from students with financial need to high-scoring students with means in order to maximize ranking criteria,” the dean, George Q. Daley, wrote in a message to the medical-school community.

    The move suggests that institutional protest of the magazine’s ubiquity in higher education may be far from over. Two months ago, deans of top-ranked law schools began announcing they would stop cooperating with U.S. News. Soon after, former deans of the University of Chicago’s School of Medicine published an op-ed in STAT that urged leaders of top medical schools to do the same. Daley wrote that the law-school protest had “compelled” him to act.

    Like Daley, many of the withdrawing law deans cited concerns about how the rankings’ methodology discourages schools from accepting lower-income students. Ultimately two dozen law deans said they wouldn’t cooperate anymore, according to the New York Law Journal. After the law-school revolt, U.S. News promised changes in its methodology.

    Daley was not available for an interview, but his message suggests an algorithm change may not be enough to entice him to start working with U.S. News again. “Educational leaders have long criticized the methodology used by USNWR to assess and rank medical schools,” he wrote. “However, my concerns and the perspectives I have heard from others are more philosophical than methodological.” Rankings can’t tell individual students if a school will be a good fit for them, “no matter the methodology,” he wrote.

    U.S. News did not respond directly to a request for comment on Daley’s announcement. In the past, its editors have said they will continue to rank schools that don’t cooperate, using publicly available data. In a statement late Tuesday, U.S. News’s chief executive, Eric Gertler, said in part that “millions of prospective students annually visit U.S. News medical-school rankings because we provide students with valuable data and solutions.”

    U.S. News has two “Best Medical Schools” lists. Harvard ranks No. 1 on the “Best Medical Schools: Research” list and No. 9 on “Best Medical Schools: Primary Care.”

    Francie Diep

    Source link

  • Paul Farmer Collaborative to Amplify Work and Honor Legacy of Global Health Champion

    Paul Farmer Collaborative to Amplify Work and Honor Legacy of Global Health Champion

    Newswise — A $50 million gift from Woburn, Mass.-based Cummings Foundation will build upon and amplify the work of the late Paul Farmer, a champion of global health. 

    The gift establishes the Paul Farmer Collaborative of Harvard Medical School and the University of Global Health Equity (UGHE) in Rwanda. It will be divided equally between the two institutions. 

    Farmer, a physician and medical anthropologist, was the Kolokotrones University Professor and chair of the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS, chancellor of UGHE, and co-founder and chief strategist of PIH, an international health and human rights organization. He died on Feb. 21, 2022, at the age of 62, while teaching at UGHE, an initiative of PIH. 

    “During his all-too-brief time here with us, Paul was the vital physical link between Harvard and UGHE,” said Joyce Cummings, who co-founded Cummings Foundation with her husband, suburban Boston real estate magnate Bill Cummings. “In Paul’s absence, it is critical that we act to ensure that this bond and his work endure.” 

    “This gift will allow us to continue Paul’s transformative work and honor his vision to reshape health care delivery for marginalized populations and to connect HMS with the University of Global Health Equity,” said HMS Dean George Q. Daley. “This gift is a powerful reminder that as a global community, we are only as strong as the most vulnerable among us, which Paul understood better than anyone.” 

    The Paul Farmer Collaborative

    The gift is intended to build on Farmer’s legacy and enable researchers at both institutions to deepen their exploration of social medicine, a field focused on the many factors influencing a person’s health, and pursue fundamental questions about social determinants of health and humane caregiving. The overarching goal of the collaborative is to catalyze the development of sustainable, equitable health systems that improve health care delivery to underserved populations. 

    The program, named in Farmer’s honor, will build on existing multifaceted collaborations between HMS and UGHE. 

    Cummings Foundation’s gift, to be paid over 10 years, will fund:

    • Independent and collaborative research, teaching, and education at both institutions.
    • Exchange of students, postdoctoral trainees, and faculty between the two institutions.
    • An annual global conference and workshop on health equity, global health delivery, research, education, and social medicine.
    • An endowed Cummings Foundation Professorship of Global Health Equity at HMS to continue advancing Farmer’s ideals and objectives.
    • Clinical training opportunities for medical students and residents, with an initial focus on building surgical capacity and surgical health innovation in low-resource settings. Long-term, the training could expand to include other clinical specialties such as mental health, obstetrics, gynecology, pediatrics, internal medicine, dermatology, and anesthesiology. 

    The relationship between HMS and Rwanda has deep roots. In 2005, PIH was asked to help the Rwandan Ministry of Health fight HIV, improve maternal and child health, and bring integrated, high-quality health care to people in the nation’s rural districts. 

    Since then, Farmer and global health and social medicine and clinical faculty at HMS and affiliated hospitals have also collaborated with Rwandan health care providers and researchers on a number of efforts combining research, clinical innovation, and training. 

    In 2012, HMS faculty and collaborators from the Rwandan Ministry of Health launched an intensive global health delivery course at the Rwinkwavu Hospital Training Center,  modeled on the Global Health Delivery Intensive Program developed at Harvard. The HMS master’s program in global health delivery has hosted students from Rwanda, and has been adapted as a program at UGHE. And in 2022, a team from HMS and Rwanda won the National Institutes of Health Technology Accelerator Challenge for Maternal Health for a project to develop artificial intelligence tools that help community health workers identify patients at risk for surgical-site infections. 

    “This remarkably timely, generous, and transformative gift from Cummings Foundation will sustain and build upon the ongoing collaboration between our department and the University of Global Health Equity,” said Allan Brandt, interim head of the HMS Department of Global Health and Social Medicine and the Amalie Moses Kass Professor of the History of Medicine at HMS. “The Paul Farmer Collaborative will ensure that our faculties and students partner to extend the goal of global health equity and assure that those most in need receive the highest quality care.” 

    One of the latest academic and medical collaborations between the two institutions is the newly launched Center for Equity in Global Surgery at UGHE. The center aims to develop solutions to correct the imbalance in access to care through research and innovation, education and training, policy, advocacy, and global collaborations, according to a paper describing the launch of the center in early February2022. The paper, co-authored by Farmer and colleagues from HMS and UGHE, is one of Farmer’s last pieces of published research. 

    The Paul Farmer Collaborative will strengthen the efforts of the HMS Program in Global Surgery and Social Change and the UGHE Center for Equity in Global Surgery, an effort that the paper described as a vehicle for global surgery solutions developed in Africa through research, education, advocacy, and training. 

    In the days before Farmer died, he gave two remote talks at the University of Hawaii from the campus of UGHE, where he was excited to be doing rounds with the first class of third-year medical students at the school. One of his presentations was on his latest book, Fevers, Feuds, and Diamonds: Ebola and the Ravages of History, in which he discusses the complex social, historical, and economic context of the West Africa Ebola outbreak. Another was on the importance of focusing on equity and social justice to improve health, drawing heavily on examples of his collaborative work in Rwanda. In the question-and-answer periods of both talks, Farmer shared several lessons learned in his decades of work on global health equity. 

    “We need to shift the conversation to what we’re hearing from poor people,” Farmer said. “I hear people saying, we want schools for our children, we want clean water, we want jobs, and we’d like to have our kids go to places like the UGHE.” 

    He also described the kinds of things he often heard from people, including many who work in the field of global health. They often listed things they thought were not possible in places like rural Rwanda: you can’t treat cancer, you can’t have an ICU, you can’t build a hospital or a medical school, many people told him. 

    Farmer noted that he was speaking to his audience in Hawaii from a thriving academic medical center campus, built in a rural area in Rwanda that didn’t even have electricity just a few years ago. 

    “This place is blossoming,” Farmer said. “We need to stand up to people who say ‘you can’t do this,’ because it’s being done.” 

    Landmark funding

     To effect real change, collaboration must include material support, not just  symbolic solidarity, Farmer said. Empathy is essential, he noted, but it takes “staff, stuff, space, systems, and support” to deliver the promise of modern medicine to people everywhere. 

    In dollars and time commitment, this support from Cummings Foundation funds one of the most significant relationships that HMS has in Africa.

     “It is incredibly exciting to have a nearly 400-year-old institution collaborating at such a significant level with a seven-year-old institution,” said Joyce Cummings. “Meaningful international partnerships are essential to effectively teaching global health, so Harvard will benefit immensely from solidifying its relationship with a top-notch university in such a highly desirable locale for learning and teaching about global health delivery. And UGHE will enjoy enormous reputational benefits, affording it greater visibility to major international life sciences and pharma firms seeking appropriate sites for investment, operations, and collaboration.” 

    “UGHE is training a new generation of leaders who will bring together the best evidence and a strong commitment to equity to improve health systems in East Africa and beyond,” said Jim Yong Kim, co-founder of PIH and newly appointed successor to Farmer as chancellor of UGHE. “Cummings Foundation’s visionary gift will greatly facilitate the exchange of knowledge between students and faculty in Boston and Butaro. We are so grateful to Bill and Joyce Cummings, and we know that their gift will be transformative.” 

    Kim previously served as president of the World Bank and of Dartmouth College. Like Farmer, he earned his MD and PhD at HMS and served as chair of its Department of Global Health and Social Medicine.

    “Rwanda was our family’s home for many years, and it is where Paul left us,” said Farmer’s wife, Didi Bertrand Farmer. “I am honored that this collaboration between Harvard/HMS and PIH/UGHE bears Paul’s name in the pursuit of social justice and equity in health, to which he devoted his life. I am so thankful for the generosity of Bill and Joyce Cummings.”

    Created by PIH, UGHE was launched in 2015 with substantial support from Cummings Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Republic of Rwanda. The government donated land for the magnificent rural campus, plus major new roadways and improved access to water, electricity, and internet connectivity. 

    In addition to the new $50 million gift, Cummings Foundation has contributed $2 million to UGHE to construct a residential facility for visiting faculty on its campus in rural Butaro, Rwanda. The 10,000-square-foot structure will offer about 10 apartments and a faculty lounge to facilitate connections among full-time and visiting professors. 

    Support for UGHE has grown significantly in recent years, with the largest donations coming from Cummings Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Prior to this year, Cummings Foundation contributed more than $27.5 million to UGHE while the Gates Foundation donated more than $18.5 million to help establish the university’s flagship degree programs.

    In September, the Gates Foundation committed $50 million toward the Paul E. Farmer Scholarship Fund for UGHE, which will cover the tuition, room, board, and expenses of 3,000 students over the next 25 years. 

    With the new gift, Cummings Foundation also honors Larry Bacow, Harvard’s 29th president, who in June announced plans to step down from the role on June 30, 2023. 

    “Harvard is so grateful for Cummings Foundation’s support to carry on Paul Farmer’s important work,” said Bacow. “Through their thoughtful and generous philanthropy, Bill and Joyce have improved the lives of countless people throughout the world. This gift will build on their important work.” 

    “We are so pleased to honor the legacies of both Paul and Larry, two dear friends,” said Joyce Cummings. “Our hope is that this long-term funding will help to carry on their commitments to leadership and service on a global scale.” 

    Adapted from a Cummings Foundation news release.

    Harvard Medical School

    Source link