Category: NATURAL

Insomnia is a sleep disorder that affects approximately 10% of adults in the United States. It is characterized by difficulty with falling asleep, staying asleep, and/or waking up too early, at least three times per week for a period of three months or more. Contrary to some beliefs that insomnia will get better by itself over time, evidence suggests that it will persist if not actively treated. In one study, 37.5% of patients with insomnia reported that their insomnia was still a problem five years later.

What are common treatment options used for insomnia?

Perhaps the most common nonpharmacological intervention used for insomnia is something called sleep hygiene. It describes a series of good sleep habits to engage in (such as keeping your bedroom quiet at night) and ones to avoid (turning off electronic devices before going to bed).

Unfortunately, as many patients know, sleep hygiene is not a very effective treatment for insomnia when implemented by itself. When sleep hygiene is used as one part of a multimodal approach, such as cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, it can be an effective complement to other important strategies. While cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia is recommended as the gold-standard treatment by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the American College of Physicians, finding a clinician with expertise in behavioral sleep medicine can be a challenge — even via telemedicine.

Integrative treatment approaches are popular

Many people are interested in pursuing other treatment options for insomnia that do not involve prescription medications. Increasing evidence suggests that a number of approaches may be beneficial, including mindfulness-based practices and mind-body movement practices like yoga. Some people may use dietary supplements such as valerian, melatonin, chamomile, and cannabis, though evidence is more limited regarding their efficacy. You should always tell your doctor if you are taking any dietary supplements, as these may interact with other prescription medications.

An integrative option for people with insomnia and a psychiatric disorder

Insomnia is a common issue for people with a psychiatric disorder, possibly because of overlapping neurobiology. For example, someone with insomnia is 10 times more likely than someone without insomnia to also have depression. Among patients receiving psychiatric care, compression and weight have been used therapeutically. It has been hypothesized that the calming (and possibly sleep-promoting) effects of such an approach may be similar to what is experienced with acupressure or massage.

A team of researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden conducted a study to determine whether a weighted metal chain blanket could improve insomnia symptoms compared to a light plastic chain blanket. They recruited outpatients with elevated insomnia symptoms who were being treated for one of several mood disorders: major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a weighted metal chain blanket or a light blanket with plastic chains that were sewn on, which were the same shape and size as the metal chains on the weighted blanket. Those who were provided with a weighted metal chain blanket first tried on an 8-kilogram (17.6 pound) blanket. If this was too heavy, a 6-kilogram (13.2 pound) blanket was then provided. Over a four-week period, their sleep was assessed using surveys and a wrist-based device called an actigraph.

What did the researchers learn?

Participants who used the weighted metal chain blanket reported that their insomnia symptom severity declined significantly, while those who had used the light blanket did not experience such notable improvements. Furthermore, depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms decreased much more for those who used the weighted blanket than those who used the light blanket. This secondary finding is consistent with other work showing that interventions designed to treat insomnia can have a meaningful impact on mood.

These promising findings are tempered by data showing that there were no significant improvements to key insomnia metrics, such as the amount of time spent awake after falling asleep, when sleep was tracked objectively using the actigraph. Other research conducted in children has also failed to demonstrate that weighted blankets significantly change sleep outcomes when measured using an actigraph.

Should you buy a weighted blanket?

While these findings are intriguing, more research is needed. It is important to note that there is a very real placebo effect for insomnia symptoms. This means that if you are someone who believes a weighted blanket could have a positive effect on your sleep tonight… well, it's quite possible that it will. For healthy adults, weighted blankets are considered safe as long as the individual can lift the blanket off when necessary. Because sleep is such a subjective experience, the cost of a weighted blanket may be money well spent — as long as you don’t forget that there are other options available to treat insomnia, with much more research data to support their effectiveness.

If a screening test for prostate cancer produces an abnormal result, the next step is typically a biopsy. In the United States, this is almost always done by threading a biopsy needle into the prostate through the rectum. By watching on an ultrasound machine, doctors can see where the needle is going. Called a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy, this procedure comes with a small but growing risk of infections that are in turn increasingly resistant to current antibiotics.

To minimize infection risk, doctors can also thread the biopsy needle through a patch of skin between the anus and scrotum called the perineum, thus bypassing rectal bacteria. These so-called transperineal (TP) biopsies offer a further advantage in that they provide better access to the tip (or apex) of the prostate, which is where 30% of cancers occur. However, they are also more painful for the patient. Until recently, they were done only in hospital operating rooms under general anesthesia.

Today, technical advances are making it possible for doctors to perform TP biopsies under local anesthesia in their own offices. And with this development, pressure to limit infections by adopting this approach is growing.

During a recent study, Harvard scientists looked at how the two methods compare in terms of cancer detection and complication rates. In all, 260 men were included in the study, each closely matched in terms of age, race, prostate-specific antigen levels, and other diagnostic findings. Half the men got TRUS biopsies and the other half got TP biopsies, and all the procedures were performed at a single medical practice between 2014 and 2020. Per standard clinical protocols, all the men in the TRUS group took prophylactic antibiotics to prepare. By contrast, just 43% of men in the TP group took antibiotics, in accordance with physician preferences.

Results showed minimal differences in the cancer detection rate, which was 62% in the TP group and 74% among men who got TRUS biopsies. But importantly, 15% of men with cancer in the TP group had apex tumors that the TRUS biopsies "may have missed," the study authors wrote.

More complications with the TP approach

As far as complications go, one man in the TRUS group developed an infection that was treated with multiple rounds of oral antibiotics. None of the TP-biopsied men got an infection, but eight of them had other complications: one had urinary blood clots that were treated in the hospital, two were catheterized for acute urinary retention, three were medically evaluated for dizziness, and two had temporary swelling of the scrotum.

Why were the TP noninfectious complication rates higher? That's not entirely clear. For various reasons, doctors wound up taking more prostate samples (called cores) on average from men in the TP group than they did from men in the TRUS group. The authors suggest if an equivalent number of cores had been taken from men in either group, then the complication rates might have been more similar. (In fact, larger comparative studies performed in hospital-based settings show no difference in complication rates when equal numbers of cores are obtained). But doctors in the current study also had more experience with TRUS biopsies, and that might also explain the discrepancy, the authors suggest. And as doctors in general become experienced with the TP method, complication rates might fall.

In an editorial comment, Dr. Marc Garnick, the Gorman Brothers Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, editor of the Harvard Health Publishing Annual Report on Prostate Diseases, and editor in chief of HarvardProstateKnowledge.org, acknowledged positive findings from the study, particularly a reduced need for antibiotics with the TP method, and the discovery of apex tumors TRUS biopsies could have missed. Garnick also highlighted a "steep learning curve" with TP biopsies, and how some of the noninfectious complications required hospital-based care. "The ability to perform TP biopsies in an office setting should enable future comparisons with TRUS to help answer whether this new TP technology has enduring value," he wrote.

If you have a daily commute, a backup of traffic or road work may delay you, but you’ll eventually reach your destination. Gastroparesis, a digestive condition, can be imagined as a slowed commute through the stomach. But the delay involved can cause uncomfortable symptoms, and may have other health consequences that can affect nutrition and your quality of life. Although gastroparesis affects millions of people worldwide, many people are much more familiar with other gut problems, such as acid reflux and gallstones, that can cause similar symptoms.

What is gastroparesis?

Gastroparesis is a condition that causes delay in the emptying of the stomach. When you swallow food, it travels through your mouth and into a long tube called the esophagus before entering your stomach. Your stomach serves two separate functions: The first is to relax to accommodate food and liquid until you feel full. The second is to churn the food and liquid into a slurry that then passes into your small intestine to be digested. When either function is disturbed, slower-than-normal emptying occurs.

What are the symptoms of gastroparesis?

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most common symptoms of gastroparesis, most likely stemming from the sluggish emptying of the stomach. Typically, these symptoms occur toward the end of meals or soon after meals are finished. A third common symptom is abdominal pain caused by a combination of motor nerve and sensory nerve dysfunction. When motor nerves aren’t working properly, food and liquid can be detained in the stomach. When sensory nerves aren’t working well, signals between the gut and the brain are not communicated effectively, which can cause pain, nausea, and vomiting.

A growing body of evidence suggests that gastroparesis overlaps with a disorder of gut-brain interaction called functional dyspepsia, which is recurring indigestion that has no apparent cause. Other health problems can cause similar symptoms as gastroparesis, such as gastric outlet obstruction and cyclic vomiting syndrome, or even conditions beyond the gut, such as glandular disorders. So it’s important to discuss any symptoms that are bothering you with your doctor to get the correct diagnosis.

Who is more likely to experience gastroparesis?

Many misconceptions exist about the typical person with gastroparesis. For example, it’s not true that people must have diabetes to have gastroparesis: only 25% of people with gastroparesis have diabetes. Most commonly, no clear cause for gastroparesis can be found among people who have the condition.

Additionally, people are more likely to experience gastroparesis if they

• take certain medicines, such as opiate pain medications and some medications for diabetes
• have had surgeries, radiation, or connective tissue disorders that affect the function of the nerves of the gut
• are female, because women are several times more likely than men to have gastroparesis.

Thus far, there is limited information on health disparities among people with gastroparesis, although one study shows that diabetes is more likely to be the cause of gastroparesis among Black and Hispanic patients than white patients. It’s not yet clear why, although socioeconomic inequities that affect health outcomes may be a factor (as is true for many other conditions).

How is it diagnosed?

Diagnosing gastroparesis and deciding on the best treatment strategy requires a careful patient history, blood tests, imaging tests, and sometimes endoscopy. Usually, people first discuss their symptoms with a primary care doctor who can rule out some possible causes and refer them to a specialist to discuss next steps, such as imaging or endoscopy, if necessary.

A common imaging test used in the US is called a gastric emptying scan, which takes four to five hours. The person having the test eats a standardized meal, such as an egg sandwich, that contains safe levels of medical-grade radiation. At certain intervals, images are taken to see how much of the meal remains in the stomach. During normal digestion, about 90% of the stomach is emptied within four hours and 10% is left behind; more than this amount remaining meets a key criterion for gastroparesis.

It’s worth noting that the exact amount of stomach emptying in four hours may fluctuate and may be influenced by other health factors, such as uncontrolled blood sugar, or certain medications, particularly opiate pain medicines.

How is gastroparesis treated?

The main goal of treatment is to address the symptom that bothers you the most. Depending on your diagnosis and symptoms, treatment might involve one or more of the following:

• Medications. Erythromycin and metoclopramide speed up emptying the stomach. A newer medicine called prucalopride may have the same effect. Other medications, particularly for people who are finding pain and nausea more problematic, target disordered gut-brain interaction using neuromodulators, such as older forms of antidepressants and neuropathy medications. These medicines may improve sensation of the gastrointestinal tract.
• Procedures and surgeries. A gastroenterologist may suggest different endoscopy techniques that improve stomach emptying by disrupting a valve between the stomach and the small intestine called the pylorus. One approach, called a per-oral pyloroplasty, does not require surgery. A surgical approach called laparoscopic pyloroplasty reshapes the muscle of the valve between the stomach and small intestine to help the stomach empty more quickly. Less often, surgically implanting a gastric stimulator to help improve the signaling between gut and brain may be considered.

If you have gastroparesis, be sure to discuss all these treatment options to see which one is best for you.

Follow me on Twitter @Chris_Velez_MD

Ever read a headline that catches your eye but then found the story itself disappointing? Or worse, did you feel that the dramatic headline was utterly misleading? Yeah, me too.

The impact of a well-crafted headline can be big. We often skim the headlines, then decide whether or not to read on.

Previously, I’ve written about how media coverage of drug research can mislead or confuse. Here I’m zooming in on health headlines, which can be equally deceptive. Watch for these pitfalls.

Overstated study findings

• Were humans studied? If a study finds that a drug is safe and effective for an important disease, that’s big news. But what if all of the study subjects were mice? Leaving out this important detail from the headline exaggerates the study’s importance.
• Too much drama. Dramatic terms such as “breakthrough” or “groundbreaking” are common in headlines about medical research. Yet true breakthroughs are quite rare. That’s the nature of science: knowledge tends to accumulate slowly, with each finding building a bit on what came before.
• Going too far. Headlines often make a leap of faith when summarizing a study’s findings. For example, if researchers identify a new type of cell in the blood that increases when a disease is worsening, they may speculate that treatments to reduce those cells might control the disease. “Researchers discover new approach to treatment!” blares the headline. Sure, that could happen someday (see below), but it’s an overstatement when the study wasn’t even assessing treatment.

• Overlooking the most important outcome. Rather than examining how a treatment affects heart disease, let’s say, studies may assess how it affects a risk factor for it. A good example is cholesterol. It’s great if a drug lowers cholesterol, but much better if it lowers the rate of cardiovascular disease and deaths. Headlines rarely capture the important difference between a “proxy measure” (such as a risk factor) and the most important outcome (such as rates of death).

Faulty logic

• A link for illness is not the same as a cause of illness. The distinction between “causation” and an “association” is important. Observational studies can determine whether there is a link (association) between two health issues, such as a link between a symptom (like a headache) and a disease (like stomach ulcers). But that doesn’t mean one actually caused the other. Imagine an observational study that compared thousands of headache sufferers with thousands of people who rarely had headaches. If more people in the frequent headache group also had more stomach ulcers, the headline might boldly declare “Headaches cause ulcers!” A more likely explanation is that people with a lot of headaches are taking aspirin, ibuprofen, and related drugs, which are known causes of ulcers.

Hazy on key details

• Someday isn’t today. Studies of new drugs or devices may be heralded as life-changing for people or practice-changing for doctors. Yet, a closer look often reveals that the new treatment is years away from reaching the market — or it may never get approved at all.
• A work in progress. “Preliminary” is the missing word in many headlines. Studies presented at medical conferences but not yet published in a peer-reviewed medical journal offer preliminary insights. This research, while promising at the time, may ultimately be a scientific dead end.
• Is it a study, a press release, or an ad? It’s hard to tell with some headlines. Press releases or advertisements typically present a positive spin on new findings or treatments. We expect news stories to be more balanced.

One story, many headlines

Here’s a great example of overhyped headlines. A 2021 study presented findings about a pacemaker that treats abnormal heart rhythms for a period of time and then dissolves. Amazing, right? For people who need a pacemaker only temporarily, a dissolving pacemaker could allow them to avoid a surgical procedure to remove it once it was no longer needed.

Three headlines covering this research spun the story this way:

Coming Soon: An Implanted Pacemaker That Dissolves Away After Use

Could people one day get pacemakers that dissolve into the body?

First-ever transient pacemaker harmlessly dissolves in body

But that dissolving pacemaker had never been tried in living humans — an important fact! To test the dissolving pacemaker, the researchers had performed open-heart surgery in rats and dogs, and lab experiments on heart tissue removed from mice, rabbits, and deceased humans.

The first headline demonstrates the pitfall of overpromising on the findings of preliminary research: yes, a dissolving pacemaker might someday be routine in humans, but it’s unlikely to be “coming soon.” And when a headline says “harmlessly dissolves in body,” we might reasonably think this refers to a livinghuman body. Not so.

The bottom line

Why are we constantly bombarded with misleading headlines? A major reason is that headlines attract attention, clicks, reads, subscriptions, and influence essential to media sites. Some writers and editors lean into hype, knowing it attracts more attention. Others may not be trained to read or present medical news carefully enough.

In a world full of misleading health news headlines, here’s my advice: be skeptical. Consider the source and read past the headline before buying in. And if your go-to media often serves up misleading headlines, consider changing channels or crossing that news source off your list.

Get expert advice on gathering safely from Harvard Health Publishing. Spoiler alert: vaccination is key to helping keep everyone healthy. Below, our faculty contributors share their own plans and advice for safely enjoying the holidays this year while answering three important questions.

Roger Shapiro, MD

Associate professor of immunology and infectious diseases, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston

What are your plans this year for gathering — or not gathering — with family or friends during Thanksgiving and other winter holidays, and why?

Unlike 2020, my family will be gathering for Thanksgiving in 2021. Everyone in the family is vaccinated, and most are now boosted as well. We are all comfortable with the protection that being vaccinated brings, and there is agreement that if a COVID-19 exposure were to occur, it is unlikely to cause severe illness.

What advice can you offer people planning to gather in person to reduce the chance of getting or spreading the virus that causes COVID-19?

Everyone who can get vaccinated should be vaccinated, and those who qualify for a booster should get one. Children 5 to 11 may not have their second shot by Thanksgiving but can certainly be fully vaccinated by Christmas. If there are unvaccinated members of your family, your situation is no different than in 2020: gathering is unsafe for the unvaccinated because the first exposure to this virus can be lethal without protection from a vaccine. Additionally, people who are unvaccinated are more likely to be infected before traveling, so they are more likely to bring the virus to the table, possibly causing illness (even if mild) among those who are vaccinated. For families that are all vaccinated and wishing to further reduce the possibility of transmission, taking a rapid antigen test prior to gathering can add a layer of protection.

For people planning to travel to gatherings, what would you advise?

If you are all vaccinated, enjoy the return to a normal holiday season. Vaccines are your main source of protection. If you want to add additional protection, you can consider using rapid antigen tests just before gathering to confirm that everyone is negative. If there are immunocompromised members of your family who may not be fully protected by a vaccine, you should discuss the risks case-by-case with your doctor.

Suzanne Salamon, MD

Chief of clinical programs in gerontology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston

What are your plans this year for gathering — or not gathering — with family or friends during Thanksgiving and other winter holidays, and why?

Let me start by saying my 99-year-old mother lives with us, and even though she’s had her third shot of the COVID vaccine, I’m very concerned about immune status. I also have a two-year-old granddaughter who cannot yet get the vaccine. So, everyone’s immune status is not equal. Certainly older people, even those who’ve had their third shot, may not have the same immune status as a 35-year-old.

We have really curtailed the size of our Thanksgiving dinner to under 10 people, since the CDC recommends smaller groups. Nobody wants to see people sitting at home alone during the holidays, but we have to make it as safe as possible for those who are there.

What advice can you offer people planning to gather in person to reduce the chance of getting or spreading the virus that causes COVID-19?

COVID cases are on the rise now in many places, even though a month ago the numbers were trending down. Unfortunately, we need to be more vigilant once again.

Many people are afraid to insult family and friends by asking them about vaccine status before they come. Tell people that you really want to see them, but some family or friends may be immune-suppressed or at higher risk if they get COVID-19, and you’re trying to make the gathering safe for everyone. That’s why I’d ask people to let you know their COVID vaccine status. Even after the two-vaccine series, research is showing diminished antibodies after six months, which may put people at higher risk for getting and/or spreading the virus. I would ask people who are not vaccinated not to come.

When people gather, ventilation is really important in reducing the concentration of any virus that might be present. Have the gathering outside or on a screened porch, if at all possible. We hosted Thanksgiving last year in our garage. We left the garage doors open and set up small tables and little space heaters for warmth. People could be social yet stay separated, and ventilation was great. You can decorate small tables with colorful plastic tablecloths and candles, even put down a rug. If you’re inside, windows and doors can be kept open, which will help move the air around. Have some small space heaters and sweaters available.

Ask everyone to bring a mask, or keep a box of masks available. Wear masks while you’re all chit-chatting until you sit down to dinner. In the bathroom, have a roll of paper towels or paper guest towels rather than a cloth towel, and leave the fan on for ventilation.

For people planning to travel to gatherings, what would you advise?

Planes are thought to be very safe. In the air terminal, sit apart from people. Keep your mask on during the flight.

Traveling by car is pretty safe. If you get out to go to the bathroom or get coffee, wear a mask and wash your hands. Traveling by bus or train is tricky, because even though there is a mask requirement, people will take off their masks. Be sure to wear your own mask. I personally double-mask. Two surgical masks block out a lot and can be a bit more comfortable than the N95 masks we wear in the hospital. A plastic face shield over the mask may be a good idea for added protection.

John J. Ross, MD

Hospitalist with specialty in infectious diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

What are your plans this year for gathering — or not gathering — with family or friends during Thanksgiving and other winter holidays, and why?

We are having an unmasked, multigenerational, fully-vaccinated, traditional Thanksgiving dinner at my in-laws, just like the Before Times.

What advice can you offer people planning to gather in person to reduce the chance of getting or spreading the virus that causes COVID-19?

Everyone in attendance should have a primary COVID vaccination. Getting vaccinated against COVID reduces the risk of hospitalization or death due to COVID by more than 90%. It also reduces your risk of death from any cause. People who are eligible for booster shots should get them. That includes anyone over 65, and people over 18 with underlying medical conditions, high occupational risk, or those who live in high-risk settings such as group homes, shelters, and long-term care facilities.

Certain vaccinated people are more likely to get breakthrough COVID. This includes people of advanced age, and those with serious medical conditions or weak immune systems. These people should be extremely cautious around those who are not vaccinated or partly vaccinated. I would recommend that they mask around unvaccinated people, physically distance, and use extra ventilation (opening windows, or ideally moving the whole shebang outdoors). Rapid antigen tests may also be helpful in the setting.

For people planning to travel to gatherings, what would you advise?

For those who have long distances to travel, I would recommend flying if possible. Airplanes have excellent ventilation, and masks are mandatory. While masks are also required on trains, they are not as well ventilated as planes, and train travel has been associated with significant COVID risks.

Amy Sherman, MD

Division of infectious diseases, associate physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

What are your plans this year for gathering — or not gathering — with family or friends during Thanksgiving and other winter holidays, and why?

This Thanksgiving, my fiancé and I are driving to New Jersey and New York (with our dog!) to visit our families. We will have dinner with 14 others from my close family — larger than last year’s Thanksgiving, but smaller than pre-COVID years. Everyone has been vaccinated, and most have received a third dose. We will then visit with my fiancé’s 94-year-old-grandma, choosing to see her independently instead of bringing her to a large gathering.

Although no measures can absolutely make an indoor gathering 100% safe, we will apply layers of protective measures to reduce risk, with vaccinations as the base layer. Additionally, everyone will get tested for the virus that causes COVID-19 before gathering, limit exposure risks in the week before Thanksgiving, avoid public transportation, and drive instead of flying. When we’re together, we’ll spend time outdoors as much as possible. Maybe this year will bring new traditions — an outdoor bonfire instead of nighttime movie marathons, or Friday morning jogs instead of Jazzercise with my aunt!

What advice can you offer people planning to gather in person to reduce the chance of getting or spreading the virus that causes COVID-19?

We are in a much better place this year compared to last year. Connecting with family and friends is important for our mental health and well-being. However, we still need to be cautious, especially when gatherings include people who are older, immunocompromised, or at risk of severe COVID-19. We also have seen recent outbreaks in school-age kids who are not yet vaccinated. I would encourage your family and friends to get vaccinated if they haven’t already. For those family members at higher risk, consider smaller and more intimate gatherings, or do hybrid in-person/Zoom meetings. And layer up with the other risk reducing strategies I suggested!

For people planning to travel to gatherings, what would you advise?

Avoid public transportation if possible. If this is not possible, wear a mask on the bus, train, or airplane, even if you’ve been vaccinated. Vaccinations decrease the severity of disease, but you still could become infected and transmit the virus to others.

Read more advice on gathering for winter holidays this year, such as who can and should get a COVID-19 vaccine booster, whether to take a rapid test or PCR test before spending time with family or friends, how to navigate tricky relationships, and healthy eating through the holiday season.

As the holiday season approaches, there’s a lot to keep in mind. Let’s just start with the easy questions: Who’s hosting Thanksgiving? Who’s making the turkey? The stuffing? Dessert?

But as we embark on our second round of holidays during the COVID-19 pandemic, we all have additional questions and decisions to make about how to keep everyone safe:

• Inside or outside? While outside is safer, it may be too cold where you are to consider dining outdoors.
• Is it necessary to wear masks or keep a physical distance? That depends on everyone’s vaccination status, recent exposures, and risk tolerance.
• Must everyone be vaccinated? For many, this one’s a dealbreaker. Some hosts may insist. And some family and friends may come only if everyone is vaccinated.

The role of COVID testing could be changing

We know a lot more about testing for COVID-19 than at this time last year:

• PCR tests. This is still the most accurate test of current infection. It detects small amounts of genetic material from the virus that causes COVID-19. But it often takes days to get the result back.
• Rapid tests. This is typically an antigen test. It detects small bits of viral protein using similar technology to that used in pregnancy tests. An advantage of this type of testing is that the results are back in minutes. And while these tests have a higher rate of false negatives than a PCR test, getting a negative result strongly suggests you aren’t contagious. Even if you are infected, a negative result suggests there’s too little virus to infect others, at least at the time of the test. So, rapid COVID tests could be used as a way to screen people just before an activity during which exposure is possible — like Thanksgiving or other holiday gatherings.

One approach is to offer testing for each person as they arrive. It might slow the reunion process down a bit, but only for a few minutes. If a visiting friend or family member tests positive, they should leave along with anyone else they might have already exposed. The next step for them would to be to quarantine while waiting for results from a PCR test.

Cost, availability, and other limits of rapid testing before gatherings

While rapid testing may be a useful way to reduce your risk as holiday gatherings approach, it’s not perfect. Cost per test is high, generally $10 to $40 in the US. That’s especially hard for people with limited resources and those at higher risk for infection and complications from COVID-19. Rapid tests may be hard to find, too, although the Biden administration has vowed to address lack of availability by pledging several billion dollars to expand rapid testing. The health department in your community may be able to help you find test sites.

The FDA has given emergency use authorization to nearly 40 different tests, and research suggests that different brands vary widely in their accuracy. Currently, there are no specific recommendations from experts about which rapid test is best.

Additionally:

• Results only apply to the time that the test is performed. You could have a negative test today despite being infected and a positive test tomorrow. These false-negative results may occur because it’s so early in the infection that there isn’t much viral protein present. Or it could be because of how the sample was obtained — maybe the swab wasn’t inserted deeply enough into the nose or wasn’t twirled around for long enough. Repeated testing can be helpful to address the concern of false-negative results; in fact, some tests specifically recommend repeat testing within a few days.
• False-positive results may occur. A test may indicate infection when no such infection is present. It’s what happened on a now-infamous episode of The View. Two hosts quickly exited the set during a live broadcast because their COVID tests were positive. Soon after, their results were declared incorrect after further testing was done. Although false-positive results should be quite rare, manufacturing problems may make them more likely. In fact, some tests have been recalled because of an unexpectedly high rate of false-positive results.
• Be prepared to download an app and follow instructions carefully. Rapid tests for COVID-19 typically require you to download an app and connect your phone or computer to the testing device through the app. Then you need to use a swab to collect a sample from inside your nose, apply the swab to the chemicals from the kit, and wait 15 minutes or so for your device to tell you the result. It’s not a particularly intuitive or consumer-friendly process. Many people may find it challenging.

The bottom line

Despite its limitations, rapid testing for COVID-19 is a strategy worth considering for holiday gatherings or group activities during which exposure to the virus is possible. Ideally, simplified rapid testing will become readily available at low (or no) cost soon. So, think about putting rapid COVID testing on your holiday to-do list, and consider offering tests to guests before you sit down for the turkey. It doesn’t take long, and the turkey probably won’t be ready on time anyway.

Lately it seems like everywhere I look, someone is vaping as they walk by, stand outside a store, or roll up in the car next to me at a stoplight. It’s not surprising: e-cigarette use, or vaping, has become remarkably popular in recent years. About 6% of adults in the US now report vaping. That’s about 15 million people, double the number from just three years ago. Of course, regular cigarettes are known to cause cancer and a host of other health problems.

While considered less harmful than smoking tobacco, vaping isn’t risk-free. We know some, but not all, of its risks. We also know vaping is increasingly popular among teens and young adults, and this makes the recent FDA announcement authorizing sales of three additional vaping products surprising.

A surprise announcement from the FDA

In its announcement, the FDA authorized the R. J. Reynolds Vapor Company to market and sell its Vuse Solo device with tobacco-flavored vaping liquid to adults.

The FDA denied marketing authorization for 10 flavored products made by the same company. It also reports having denied more than a million flavored vaping products from other companies.

By the way, the agency emphasizes it is not actually approving these vaping products, or declaring them safe. The announcement states that marketing authorization will be reversed if

• the company directs advertising to younger audiences
• there is evidence of “significant” new use by teens or by people who did not previously smoke cigarettes
• R. J. Reynolds does not comply with extensive monitoring requirements.

Why did the FDA take this action?

The decision was reportedly based on data from the company — unfortunately not provided in the press release — demonstrating these products would benefit individuals and public health. How? By helping smokers quit.

Some studies have suggested that e-cigarette use can be modestly helpful for smokers trying to quit. For example, an analysis of 61 studies found that e-cigarette use was more effective than other approaches to quitting smoking. The study authors estimated that out of every 100 people who tried to quit smoking by vaping, nine to 14 might be successful. When only using other methods, such as nicotine patches or behavioral counselling, only four to seven smokers out of 100 might quit. A separate study suggests vaping may help smokers who aren’t able to quit reduce the number of cigarettes smoked per day — at least for six months, the duration of the study.

Does vaping harm health less than smoking cigarettes?

Despite claims that vaping is less harmful than smoking cigarettes and that it might help smokers quit, concern about its risks is well deserved.

• Nicotine addiction. Whether in cigarettes or vapes, nicotine is highly addictive. And the amount of nicotine in many vaping products is much higher than in regular cigarettes. Side effects include reduced appetite, increased heart rate and blood pressure, nausea, and diarrhea.
• Harm to lungs and heart. Vapors from e-cigarettes may contain cancer-causing toxins, metals, and lung irritants. Vaping raises risk for lung diseases, such as emphysema, asthma, chronic bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It’s also linked to an increased risk of heart attacks. Even secondhand exposure to e-cigarette vapors may trigger asthma.
• Severe, potentially fatal lung injury. In 2019, doctors began seeing people who had recently vaped and developed shortness of breath, cough, fever, and extensive lung damage. Dubbed EVALI (e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury), more than 2,800 cases and 68 deaths were reported. The condition has been linked to vapors containing THC and a form of vitamin E (called vitamin E acetate) used as a thickening agent when vaping THC. Cases have fallen markedly since 2020. Possibly because of falling case numbers, the FDA announcement of new vaping products didn’t even mention EVALI, which seems odd. If you do vape, see these recommendations to reduce the risk of EVALI.
• Health risks during pregnancy. Nicotine can damage a baby’s developing brain and lungs; some flavorings may be harmful as well. As a result, experts recommend that people who are pregnant not vape.

For teens and children, vaping has additional risks

An alarming number of middle-school and high-school age kids report vaping, despite the nationwide prohibition against selling e-cigarette products to anyone under age 18 (21 in some states). Its popularity is partly related to the marketing of flavors known to appeal to minors, such as bubblegum and berry-flavored products. According to one national survey, approximately 85% of teen vaping involved non-tobacco flavored products.

It’s important to know that

• nicotine negatively affects the developing brain
• the high exposure to nicotine and other toxic chemicals through vaping may be particularly harmful to kids because of their smaller body size
• the addictive potential of nicotine may mean that kids who vape are more likely to become cigarette smokers.

The bottom line

For nonsmokers and teens, there is no controversy: don’t start smoking and don’t vape.

If you’re an adult smoker trying to quit, be aware that the balance of risks and benefits and the long-term health consequences of vaping are uncertain. We need more solid research to help people make decisions. Meanwhile, the FDA has come down on the side of a limited authorization to help adult smokers quit. We’ll know only in retrospect if that was the right move.

As if stubbornly high rates of COVID-19 aren’t giving us enough to worry about, welcome to cold and flu season!

Yes, colds and influenza, two well-known upper respiratory infections, will soon be on the rise. Last year we saw remarkably low rates of flu. Many experts don’t think we’ll be so lucky this year.

Think zinc?

A new analysis reviewing available research suggests that over-the-counter zinc supplements could be one way to make cold and flu season a bit easier. Of course, this isn’t the first study to look into zinc as an antiviral remedy, including for COVID-19. But the results of past research have been mixed at best: some studies find modest benefit, others find no benefit, and the quality of the research has been low. Also, some people experience bothersome side effects from zinc, such as upset stomach, nausea, and in some cases, loss of the sense of smell.

What did the study say?

Published in November 2021 in BMJ Open, the study looks at zinc for preventing or treating colds and flulike illness. The researchers reviewed more than 1,300 previous studies and narrowed the analysis down to 28 well-designed trials, which included more than 5,000 study subjects. Here’s what they found:

For preventing colds and flu-like illness:

• Compared with placebo, zinc supplements or nasal spray zinc are associated with fewer upper respiratory infections. The estimated effect was modest: about one infection was prevented for every 20 people using zinc. The strength of the evidence for these findings is considered low.
• A few studies suggest preventive effects were largest for reducing severe symptoms, such as fever and flulike illness. It’s worth noting that the studies didn’t confirm whether participants had flu infections.
• Small studies of intentional exposure to cold virus found that zinc did not prevent colds.

For treating colds and flulike illness:

• Compared with placebo, those who took zinc had symptoms go away about two days sooner. The study estimated that of 100 people with upper respiratory infections, an extra 19 people would have completely recovered by day seven due to zinc treatment. The strength of the evidence for these findings is considered low.
• Some measures of symptom severity were lower for those treated with zinc (versus placebo): on day three of the infection, those taking zinc had milder symptoms. Further, there was an 87% lower risk of severe symptoms among those taking zinc. However, the daily average symptom severity was similar between those taking zinc and those taking placebo. The data quality and certainty of these findings were low to moderate.

What else to consider before stocking up on zinc

While these findings suggest promise in the ability of zinc to prevent or temper cold and flulike illness, here are other points to consider:

• Side effects. Side effects occurred more often in those taking zinc (versus placebo), including nausea and mouth or nose irritation. Fortunately, none were serious. But they might be bothersome enough for some people to stop using zinc.
• Cost. Zinc supplements are generally inexpensive. A daily dose of zinc lozenges for a month may cost less than $2/month (though I also found certain brands for sale online for as much as $75/month).
• Zinc deficiency. Study subjects either had normal zinc levels or were otherwise considered unlikely to be zinc deficient. There’s a big difference between taking a zinc supplement to prevent or treat respiratory infections and taking it because your body lacks enough of the mineral. Zinc deficiency is more likely among people with poor nutrition or digestive conditions that interfere with mineral absorption; they require supplementation to avoid serious complications such as impaired immune function and poor wound healing.
• Different doses or types. Additional research is needed to determine the best way to take zinc.
• COVID-19. None of the studies in this analysis assessed the impact of zinc supplements on SARS-CoV-2, so these conclusions do not apply to COVID-19.

You know the drill

Perhaps this new analysis will convince you to take zinc this winter. Or perhaps you’re still skeptical. Either way, don’t forget tried and true preventive measures and treatments during cold and flu season, including these:

• Get a flu shot
• Wash your hands frequently
• Avoid contact, maintain physical distance, and wear a mask around people who are sick
• Get plenty of sleep
• Choose a healthy diet.

If you do get sick:

• Stay home if possible
• Wear a mask if you can’t avoid contact with others
• Drink plenty of fluids
• Take over-the-counter cold and flu remedies to reduce symptoms
• Contact your doctor if you have symptoms of the flu; early treatment can shorten the duration of the illness. In addition, other conditions (especially COVID-19) should be ruled out.

Many of the measures recommended for cold and flu season overlap with those recommended to prevent or treat COVID-19.

The bottom line

Colds and flulike illnesses afflict millions every winter. You might feel as though it’s inevitable you’ll be among them. But you may be able to spare yourself the misery by following some simple, safe, and common-sense measures. As evidence mounts in its favor, perhaps these measures should include zinc.

As for me, I remain steadfastly on the fence. But it wouldn’t take much — perhaps one more large, well-designed, randomized controlled trial — to push me onto the zinc bandwagon.

Vaccination against the virus that causes COVID-19 is the most important lifesaving tool we have in this pandemic. Fortunately, the vaccines authorized in the US have proven remarkably safe and effective. And we’ve known from the start that the strong protection they provide would likely wane over time.

But has protection declined enough to warrant booster shots? Studies published in the last few months by researchers in the UK, Israel, and the US (reviewed here and here) raised this possibility, and Israel and the UK have already started ambitious booster programs.

First things first: Vaccinate everyone

In the US, the CDC and FDA have reviewed the necessity, safety, and effectiveness of boosters for the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. I’ll discuss these recommendations in a moment.

But first, it’s important not to overlook this fact: vaccinating the unvaccinated should be a much bigger priority than giving booster shots to those who’ve received vaccines. That goes for people in the US who have been unable or unwilling to get the vaccine, and people in places throughout the world with limited access to vaccines.

Broadening the pool of people with initial vaccinations would not only save more lives than promoting boosters, but would also reduce COVID-related healthcare disparities between richer and poorer countries. That’s why the World Health Organization (WHO) called for a moratorium on booster doses. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has announced a promise to donate another half billion vaccines to countries with low vaccination rates, bringing the total US commitment to donate 1.1 billion doses. The administration emphasizes that starting a booster program in the US and helping other countries get their citizens vaccinated are not mutually exclusive.

Is there a difference between a booster dose and a third shot?

It’s not trick wording: not all extra vaccine doses are boosters. In August 2021, the FDA approved a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for people who are immunocompromised. This includes people who have HIV and those receiving treatment for cancer that suppresses the immune system. For them, the extra dose is not a booster; it’s considered part of their initial immunization series.

Getting the timing and dose right on vaccine boosters

Ideally, vaccine boosters are given no sooner than necessary, but well before widespread protective immunity declines. The risks of waiting too long are obvious: as immunity wanes, the rates of infection, serious illness, and death may begin to rise.

But there are downsides to providing boosters too early:

• Side effects might be more common. While studies published to date suggest that boosters are safe, we don’t yet have long-term data.
• The benefit may be small. It may be better to wait on boosters if most people are still well-protected by their initial vaccinations.
• Current boosters may not cover future variants. If new variants of concern emerge in the coming months, boosters may be modified to cover them.
• Waiting longer before a booster might lead to a stronger immune response. As noted by Dr. Anthony Fauci recently: “If you allow the immune response to mature over a period of a few months, you get much more of a bang out of the shot.”

The recommended dose for the Pfizer/BioNTech booster and Johnson & Johnson booster is the same as the initial dose. For the Moderna booster it’s a half-dose, which may reduce the risk of side effects and increase the number of doses available to others.

Recommendations for vaccine boosters

In the US, adults 18 or older who have had a COVID vaccine are eligible for a booster shot.

• If you had the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine The FDA and CDC have authorized Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna boosters for all adults 18 or older at least 6 months after the initial series. According to the CDC, people 50 or older, or adults 18 or older who live in long-term care facilities should get boosters. Other adults 18 or older may decide whether to have a booster.   
• If you had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine A booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has also been authorized for all adults 18 or older two or more months after the first dose.

Mixing or matching booster shots

The FDA and the CDC have concluded that mixing or matching vaccines when getting a booster dose is safe and effective. Regardless of the initial vaccine you received, any of the three available vaccines may be given as a booster.

Plenty of unknowns

The release of these new recommendations for vaccine boosters raises a number of questions:

• How convincing is the safety data? Reports to date suggest boosters are safe, but we need more research and real-world data.
• Will the boosters be modified to protect against emerging variants of concern?
• Will additional boosters be needed in the future? If so, how often?

There are important gaps in our knowledge of how well vaccine boosters work. We need larger and longer-term studies involving a broad range of participants representing all races and ethnicities and people with compromised immune systems. Look for further information in coming months.

What’s next?

You can expect the FDA and CDC to continue to expand recommendations for boosters based on review and analysis of ongoing research. Guidelines for teens and kids under age 18 will be particularly important. In the meantime, we should redouble our efforts to vaccinate people who haven’t yet received vaccines. Boosters can play an important role in protecting individuals. But, as CDC director Dr. Rochelle Wallensky notes, “we will not boost our way out of this pandemic.”

Neurodiversity describes the idea that people experience and interact with the world around them in many different ways; there is no one “right” way of thinking, learning, and behaving, and differences are not viewed as deficits.

The word neurodiversity refers to the diversity of all people, but it is often used in the context of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), as well as other neurological or developmental conditions such as ADHD or learning disabilities. The neurodiversity movement emerged during the 1990s, aiming to increase acceptance and inclusion of all people while embracing neurological differences. Through online platforms, more and more autistic people were able to connect and form a self-advocacy movement. At the same time, Judy Singer, an Australian sociologist, coined the term neurodiversity to promote equality and inclusion of “neurological minorities.” While it is primarily a social justice movement, neurodiversity research and education is increasingly important in how clinicians view and address certain disabilities and neurological conditions.

Words matter in neurodiversity

Neurodiversity advocates encourage inclusive, nonjudgmental language. While many disability advocacy organizations prefer person-first language (“a person with autism,” “a person with Down syndrome”), some research has found that the majority of the autistic community prefers identity-first language (“an autistic person”). Therefore, rather than making assumptions, it is best to ask directly about a person’s preferred language, and how they want to be addressed. Knowledge about neurodiversity and respectful language is also important for clinicians, so they can address the mental and physical health of people with neurodevelopmental differences.

Neurodiversity and autism spectrum disorder

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is associated with differences in communication, learning, and behavior, though it can look different from person to person. People with ASD may have a wide range of strengths, abilities, needs, and challenges. For example, some autistic people are able to communicate verbally, have a normal or above average IQ, and live independently. Others might not be able to communicate their needs or feelings, may struggle with impairing and harmful behaviors that impact their safety and well-being, and may be dependent on support in all areas of their life. Additionally, for some people with autism, differences may not cause any suffering to the person themself. Instead, the suffering may result from the barriers imposed by societal norms, causing social exclusion and inequity.

Medical evaluation and treatment is important for individuals with ASD. For example, establishing a formal diagnosis may enable access to social and medical services if needed. A diagnostic explanation may help the individual or their family understand their differences better and enable community connections. Additionally, neurodevelopmental conditions may also be associated with other health issues that require extra monitoring or treatment. It is important that people who need and desire behavioral supports or interventions to promote communication, social, academic, and daily living skills have access to those services in order to maximize their quality of life and developmental potential. However, approaches to interventions cannot be one-size-fits-all, as all individuals will have different goals, desires, and needs.

Fostering neurodiversity in the workplace

Stigma, a lack of awareness, and lack of appropriate infrastructure (such as office setup or staffing structures) can cause exclusion of people with neurodevelopmental differences. Understanding and embracing neurodiversity in communities, schools, healthcare settings, and workplaces can improve inclusivity for all people. It is important for all of us to foster an environment that is conducive to neurodiversity, and to recognize and emphasize each person’s individual strengths and talents while also providing support for their differences and needs.

How can employers make their workplaces more neurodiversity-friendly?

• Offer small adjustments to an employee’s workspace to accommodate any sensory needs, such as
  • Sound sensitivity: Offer a quiet break space, communicate expected loud noises (like fire drills), offer noise-cancelling headphones.
  • Tactile: Allow modifications to the usual work uniform.
  • Movements: Allow the use of fidget toys, allow extra movement breaks, offer flexible seating.
• Use a clear communication style:
  • Avoid sarcasm, euphemisms, and implied messages.
  • Provide concise verbal and written instructions for tasks, and break tasks down into small steps.
• Inform people about workplace/social etiquette, and don’t assume someone is deliberately breaking the rules or being rude.
• Try to give advance notice if plans are changing, and provide a reason for the change.
• Don’t make assumptions — ask a person’s individual preferences, needs, and goals.
• Be kind, be patient.

Resources to learn more about neurodiversity

Neurodiversity in the Workplace