BD ONCLARITY^TM HPV ASSAY

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://womens-health-solutions.bd.com/

BD ONCLARITY^TM HPV ASSAY

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://womens-health-solutions.bd.com/

BD ONCLARITY^TM HPV ASSAY

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://womens-health-solutions.bd.com/

As usual, several provocative additions to the colorectal cancer literature were published last month, but I will review only one today: the NordICC trial. This trial evaluated the use of screening colonoscopy to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer, death from colorectal cancer, and all-cause mortality.

We have long accepted that colonoscopy is the gold standard for detection of colorectal cancer, but until the publication of this study there has never been a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the test. Nearly 85,000 men and women from Nordic nations were randomly assigned to receive an invitation for either screening colonoscopy or usual care (ie, no colonoscopy). In the intention-to-screen analysis, colonoscopy reduced the risk for colorectal cancer over a period of 10 years by 18% (relative risk [RR] 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.93). However, the reduction in risk for death from colorectal cancer failed to reach statistical significance (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.64-1.16).

These results were especially disappointing because sigmoidoscopy, a test that evaluates only the rectum and left colon, has been shown in multiple studies to reduce risk for colorectal cancer death and all-cause mortality. It is difficult for me to think of a biologically plausible explanation for colonoscopy to be less effective than sigmoidoscopy in the prevention of cause-specific and all-cause death. However, potential explanations are hidden in the study data. Most glaringly, only 42% of the colonoscopy invitees received a colonoscopy as compared with a much larger percentage of patients (58%-87%) in the sigmoidoscopy trials. While this might be an important real-world data point, it is far less than the estimated 60% of patients in the United States who adhere to the recommendation for screening colonoscopy from ages 45 to 55. Additionally, the study had only 10 years of follow-up. It is possible that this is just not long enough for the benefits of screening colonoscopy to be fully realized. Finally, 29% of endoscopists had an adenoma detection below the recommended threshold of 25%, suggesting that poor colonoscopic technique may have played a role in the limited efficacy of colonoscopy found in the study.

Regardless of what we think of these results, the study was generally well designed and, therefore, very important. Studies like this give us critical information that we, as a nation, need to determine how best to allot our limited healthcare resources. While this study does not change my perception of the efficacy of colonoscopy, it makes me think twice about its societal utility.

As usual, several provocative additions to the colorectal cancer literature were published last month, but I will review only one today: the NordICC trial. This trial evaluated the use of screening colonoscopy to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer, death from colorectal cancer, and all-cause mortality.

We have long accepted that colonoscopy is the gold standard for detection of colorectal cancer, but until the publication of this study there has never been a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the test. Nearly 85,000 men and women from Nordic nations were randomly assigned to receive an invitation for either screening colonoscopy or usual care (ie, no colonoscopy). In the intention-to-screen analysis, colonoscopy reduced the risk for colorectal cancer over a period of 10 years by 18% (relative risk [RR] 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.93). However, the reduction in risk for death from colorectal cancer failed to reach statistical significance (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.64-1.16).

These results were especially disappointing because sigmoidoscopy, a test that evaluates only the rectum and left colon, has been shown in multiple studies to reduce risk for colorectal cancer death and all-cause mortality. It is difficult for me to think of a biologically plausible explanation for colonoscopy to be less effective than sigmoidoscopy in the prevention of cause-specific and all-cause death. However, potential explanations are hidden in the study data. Most glaringly, only 42% of the colonoscopy invitees received a colonoscopy as compared with a much larger percentage of patients (58%-87%) in the sigmoidoscopy trials. While this might be an important real-world data point, it is far less than the estimated 60% of patients in the United States who adhere to the recommendation for screening colonoscopy from ages 45 to 55. Additionally, the study had only 10 years of follow-up. It is possible that this is just not long enough for the benefits of screening colonoscopy to be fully realized. Finally, 29% of endoscopists had an adenoma detection below the recommended threshold of 25%, suggesting that poor colonoscopic technique may have played a role in the limited efficacy of colonoscopy found in the study.

Regardless of what we think of these results, the study was generally well designed and, therefore, very important. Studies like this give us critical information that we, as a nation, need to determine how best to allot our limited healthcare resources. While this study does not change my perception of the efficacy of colonoscopy, it makes me think twice about its societal utility.

As usual, several provocative additions to the colorectal cancer literature were published last month, but I will review only one today: the NordICC trial. This trial evaluated the use of screening colonoscopy to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer, death from colorectal cancer, and all-cause mortality.

We have long accepted that colonoscopy is the gold standard for detection of colorectal cancer, but until the publication of this study there has never been a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the test. Nearly 85,000 men and women from Nordic nations were randomly assigned to receive an invitation for either screening colonoscopy or usual care (ie, no colonoscopy). In the intention-to-screen analysis, colonoscopy reduced the risk for colorectal cancer over a period of 10 years by 18% (relative risk [RR] 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.93). However, the reduction in risk for death from colorectal cancer failed to reach statistical significance (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.64-1.16).

These results were especially disappointing because sigmoidoscopy, a test that evaluates only the rectum and left colon, has been shown in multiple studies to reduce risk for colorectal cancer death and all-cause mortality. It is difficult for me to think of a biologically plausible explanation for colonoscopy to be less effective than sigmoidoscopy in the prevention of cause-specific and all-cause death. However, potential explanations are hidden in the study data. Most glaringly, only 42% of the colonoscopy invitees received a colonoscopy as compared with a much larger percentage of patients (58%-87%) in the sigmoidoscopy trials. While this might be an important real-world data point, it is far less than the estimated 60% of patients in the United States who adhere to the recommendation for screening colonoscopy from ages 45 to 55. Additionally, the study had only 10 years of follow-up. It is possible that this is just not long enough for the benefits of screening colonoscopy to be fully realized. Finally, 29% of endoscopists had an adenoma detection below the recommended threshold of 25%, suggesting that poor colonoscopic technique may have played a role in the limited efficacy of colonoscopy found in the study.

Regardless of what we think of these results, the study was generally well designed and, therefore, very important. Studies like this give us critical information that we, as a nation, need to determine how best to allot our limited healthcare resources. While this study does not change my perception of the efficacy of colonoscopy, it makes me think twice about its societal utility.

Only about one third of patients with major depressive disorder achieve full remission with antidepressant therapy. Another third are considered nonresponders, and the remaining one third are partial responders. The latter group of patients are those who have seen some improvement but have not achieved full remission.

Dr Michael Thase at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, discusses the symptomatic burden and risk for relapse faced by partial responders, who present a significant treatment challenge.

Dr Thase explores the therapeutic options available when a first-choice treatment option proves incompletely effective. In addition to medication optimization, adjunctive treatment and alternative approaches are considered.

--

Michael E. Thase, MD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Mood and Anxiety Disorders Treatment and Research Program, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michael E. Thase, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as an advisor or consultant for: Acadia, Inc; Akili, Inc;

Alkermes PLC; Allergan, Inc; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; BioHaven, Inc; Bocemtium Consulting, SL; Boehringer Ingelheim International; CatalYm GmbH; Clexio Biosciences; Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc; H Lundbeck, A/S; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Luye Pharma Group, Ltd; Merck & Company, Inc; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Pfizer, Inc; Sage Pharmaceuicals; Seelos Pharmaceuticals; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive research funding from: Acadia, Inc; Allergan, Inc; AssureRx; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; BioHaven, Inc; Intracellular, Inc; Johnson & Johnson; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive royalties from: American Psychiatric Foundation; Guilford Publications; Herald House; Kluwer-Wolters; W W Norton & Company, Inc

Only about one third of patients with major depressive disorder achieve full remission with antidepressant therapy. Another third are considered nonresponders, and the remaining one third are partial responders. The latter group of patients are those who have seen some improvement but have not achieved full remission.

Dr Michael Thase at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, discusses the symptomatic burden and risk for relapse faced by partial responders, who present a significant treatment challenge.

Dr Thase explores the therapeutic options available when a first-choice treatment option proves incompletely effective. In addition to medication optimization, adjunctive treatment and alternative approaches are considered.

--

Michael E. Thase, MD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Mood and Anxiety Disorders Treatment and Research Program, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michael E. Thase, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as an advisor or consultant for: Acadia, Inc; Akili, Inc;

Alkermes PLC; Allergan, Inc; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; BioHaven, Inc; Bocemtium Consulting, SL; Boehringer Ingelheim International; CatalYm GmbH; Clexio Biosciences; Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc; H Lundbeck, A/S; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Luye Pharma Group, Ltd; Merck & Company, Inc; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Pfizer, Inc; Sage Pharmaceuicals; Seelos Pharmaceuticals; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive research funding from: Acadia, Inc; Allergan, Inc; AssureRx; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; BioHaven, Inc; Intracellular, Inc; Johnson & Johnson; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive royalties from: American Psychiatric Foundation; Guilford Publications; Herald House; Kluwer-Wolters; W W Norton & Company, Inc

Only about one third of patients with major depressive disorder achieve full remission with antidepressant therapy. Another third are considered nonresponders, and the remaining one third are partial responders. The latter group of patients are those who have seen some improvement but have not achieved full remission.

Dr Michael Thase at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, discusses the symptomatic burden and risk for relapse faced by partial responders, who present a significant treatment challenge.

Dr Thase explores the therapeutic options available when a first-choice treatment option proves incompletely effective. In addition to medication optimization, adjunctive treatment and alternative approaches are considered.

--

Michael E. Thase, MD, Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Mood and Anxiety Disorders Treatment and Research Program, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michael E. Thase, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as an advisor or consultant for: Acadia, Inc; Akili, Inc;

Alkermes PLC; Allergan, Inc; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; BioHaven, Inc; Bocemtium Consulting, SL; Boehringer Ingelheim International; CatalYm GmbH; Clexio Biosciences; Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc; H Lundbeck, A/S; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Luye Pharma Group, Ltd; Merck & Company, Inc; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Pfizer, Inc; Sage Pharmaceuicals; Seelos Pharmaceuticals; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive research funding from: Acadia, Inc; Allergan, Inc; AssureRx; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; BioHaven, Inc; Intracellular, Inc; Johnson & Johnson; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive royalties from: American Psychiatric Foundation; Guilford Publications; Herald House; Kluwer-Wolters; W W Norton & Company, Inc

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition characterized by recurrent boils, abscesses, and nodules that can progress to narrow channels that form under the skin. An estimated 1%-4% of the US population has the condition, and women are affected more commonly than men.

Treatment of HS is challenging and the pathogenesis is still under investigation. Many believe that the disease involves follicular occlusion that leads to perifollicular cyst development followed by ruptures of the cyst contents. Many drug classes, including antibiotics and topical therapies, as well as lifestyle modifications, have been used to successfully treat mild to moderate HS. Management of moderate to severe HS has been less successful, however.

Dr Jennifer Hsiao, from the University of Southern California, highlights the various approaches to HS treatment, including medical, procedural, and emerging options.

--

Jennifer Hsiao, MD, Associate Professor, Physician, Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Jennifer Hsiao, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Novartis; UCB

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition characterized by recurrent boils, abscesses, and nodules that can progress to narrow channels that form under the skin. An estimated 1%-4% of the US population has the condition, and women are affected more commonly than men.

Treatment of HS is challenging and the pathogenesis is still under investigation. Many believe that the disease involves follicular occlusion that leads to perifollicular cyst development followed by ruptures of the cyst contents. Many drug classes, including antibiotics and topical therapies, as well as lifestyle modifications, have been used to successfully treat mild to moderate HS. Management of moderate to severe HS has been less successful, however.

Dr Jennifer Hsiao, from the University of Southern California, highlights the various approaches to HS treatment, including medical, procedural, and emerging options.

--

Jennifer Hsiao, MD, Associate Professor, Physician, Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Jennifer Hsiao, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Novartis; UCB

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition characterized by recurrent boils, abscesses, and nodules that can progress to narrow channels that form under the skin. An estimated 1%-4% of the US population has the condition, and women are affected more commonly than men.

Treatment of HS is challenging and the pathogenesis is still under investigation. Many believe that the disease involves follicular occlusion that leads to perifollicular cyst development followed by ruptures of the cyst contents. Many drug classes, including antibiotics and topical therapies, as well as lifestyle modifications, have been used to successfully treat mild to moderate HS. Management of moderate to severe HS has been less successful, however.

Dr Jennifer Hsiao, from the University of Southern California, highlights the various approaches to HS treatment, including medical, procedural, and emerging options.

--

Jennifer Hsiao, MD, Associate Professor, Physician, Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Jennifer Hsiao, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Novartis; UCB

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie

A task force of GIs from the four major GI societies – AGA, AASLD, ACG, and ASGE – has released a multisociety strategic plan outlining goals and milestones the GI specialty needs to achieve to reduce the environmental impact of the practice.

Key takeaway: As a procedure-intense subspecialty, gastroenterology, and in particular endoscopy, is a major contributor to health care’s carbon footprint and other environmental impacts. Endoscopy is the third largest generator of medical waste in a hospital (2 kg total waste per procedure) with most ending in landfills. With this strategic plan, the participating societies are committed to promoting and supporting a sustainable, high-quality GI practice.

The U.S. GI multisociety strategic plan, which has also been endorsed by 23 GI societies globally, is a collaborative effort that invites members to undertake initiatives to establish an environmentally sustainable, high-quality practice and promote planetary health. Each society will prioritize and adapt their initiatives in accordance with their individual societal goals. Some initiatives may be undertaken by a single society, whereas other objectives and initiatives may be approached jointly. It is a 5-year plan that covers seven major domains:

• Clinical setting.
• Education.
• Research.
• Society efforts.
• Intersociety efforts.
• Industry.
• Advocacy.

The plan was developed by the U.S. Multi-GI Society Task Force on Climate Change, which is composed of leading experts from AASLD, ACG, AGA, and ASGE.

For more information, view the full publication: GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability, published in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, HEPATOLOGY, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A task force of GIs from the four major GI societies – AGA, AASLD, ACG, and ASGE – has released a multisociety strategic plan outlining goals and milestones the GI specialty needs to achieve to reduce the environmental impact of the practice.

Key takeaway: As a procedure-intense subspecialty, gastroenterology, and in particular endoscopy, is a major contributor to health care’s carbon footprint and other environmental impacts. Endoscopy is the third largest generator of medical waste in a hospital (2 kg total waste per procedure) with most ending in landfills. With this strategic plan, the participating societies are committed to promoting and supporting a sustainable, high-quality GI practice.

The U.S. GI multisociety strategic plan, which has also been endorsed by 23 GI societies globally, is a collaborative effort that invites members to undertake initiatives to establish an environmentally sustainable, high-quality practice and promote planetary health. Each society will prioritize and adapt their initiatives in accordance with their individual societal goals. Some initiatives may be undertaken by a single society, whereas other objectives and initiatives may be approached jointly. It is a 5-year plan that covers seven major domains:

• Clinical setting.
• Education.
• Research.
• Society efforts.
• Intersociety efforts.
• Industry.
• Advocacy.

The plan was developed by the U.S. Multi-GI Society Task Force on Climate Change, which is composed of leading experts from AASLD, ACG, AGA, and ASGE.

For more information, view the full publication: GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability, published in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, HEPATOLOGY, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A task force of GIs from the four major GI societies – AGA, AASLD, ACG, and ASGE – has released a multisociety strategic plan outlining goals and milestones the GI specialty needs to achieve to reduce the environmental impact of the practice.

Key takeaway: As a procedure-intense subspecialty, gastroenterology, and in particular endoscopy, is a major contributor to health care’s carbon footprint and other environmental impacts. Endoscopy is the third largest generator of medical waste in a hospital (2 kg total waste per procedure) with most ending in landfills. With this strategic plan, the participating societies are committed to promoting and supporting a sustainable, high-quality GI practice.

The U.S. GI multisociety strategic plan, which has also been endorsed by 23 GI societies globally, is a collaborative effort that invites members to undertake initiatives to establish an environmentally sustainable, high-quality practice and promote planetary health. Each society will prioritize and adapt their initiatives in accordance with their individual societal goals. Some initiatives may be undertaken by a single society, whereas other objectives and initiatives may be approached jointly. It is a 5-year plan that covers seven major domains:

• Clinical setting.
• Education.
• Research.
• Society efforts.
• Intersociety efforts.
• Industry.
• Advocacy.

The plan was developed by the U.S. Multi-GI Society Task Force on Climate Change, which is composed of leading experts from AASLD, ACG, AGA, and ASGE.

For more information, view the full publication: GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability, published in Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, HEPATOLOGY, and The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its final rules for 2023 Medicare payments.

Good news! The full CRC continuum will be covered in Medicare.

In a win for patients and thanks to our collective advocacy efforts from AGA and partner societies, CMS expanded the regulatory definition of “colorectal cancer screening tests” and will waive cost sharing for a necessary follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based screening test.

Bad news: Looming cuts on the horizon, GI societies to take action.

The rule finalizes more than 4% in mandated Medicare physician reimbursement cuts through decreases in the conversion factor and expiration of temporary fixes passed by Congress. The CY 2023 conversion factor is $33.06, an unacceptable cut for our members. The GI societies continue to work with a coalition of national and state medical societies to urge Congress to prevent these cuts before Jan. 1, 2023.

Good news: ASC + hospital payments on the rise.

ASC payments and facility fee payments increase 3.8% for institutions that meet quality reporting requirements. The CY 2023 ASC conversion factor is $51.854 and the hospital outpatient conversion factor is $85.585.

CMS removed motility codes 91117 and 91122 from APC 5731, where their payments would have been cut 21%, and finalized their placement in APC 5722, where they get a 3% payment increase beginning Jan. 1, 2023. Thank you to the motility community for helping us secure this win.

CMS raises the hospital payment for ESD code C9779 to $3,260.69, a $765.65 increase from 2022. We continue to work with CMS on our request for separate codes for lower ESD and upper ESD and payments that better reflect their unique resource costs.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its final rules for 2023 Medicare payments.

Good news! The full CRC continuum will be covered in Medicare.

In a win for patients and thanks to our collective advocacy efforts from AGA and partner societies, CMS expanded the regulatory definition of “colorectal cancer screening tests” and will waive cost sharing for a necessary follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based screening test.

Bad news: Looming cuts on the horizon, GI societies to take action.

The rule finalizes more than 4% in mandated Medicare physician reimbursement cuts through decreases in the conversion factor and expiration of temporary fixes passed by Congress. The CY 2023 conversion factor is $33.06, an unacceptable cut for our members. The GI societies continue to work with a coalition of national and state medical societies to urge Congress to prevent these cuts before Jan. 1, 2023.

Good news: ASC + hospital payments on the rise.

ASC payments and facility fee payments increase 3.8% for institutions that meet quality reporting requirements. The CY 2023 ASC conversion factor is $51.854 and the hospital outpatient conversion factor is $85.585.

CMS removed motility codes 91117 and 91122 from APC 5731, where their payments would have been cut 21%, and finalized their placement in APC 5722, where they get a 3% payment increase beginning Jan. 1, 2023. Thank you to the motility community for helping us secure this win.

CMS raises the hospital payment for ESD code C9779 to $3,260.69, a $765.65 increase from 2022. We continue to work with CMS on our request for separate codes for lower ESD and upper ESD and payments that better reflect their unique resource costs.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its final rules for 2023 Medicare payments.

Good news! The full CRC continuum will be covered in Medicare.

In a win for patients and thanks to our collective advocacy efforts from AGA and partner societies, CMS expanded the regulatory definition of “colorectal cancer screening tests” and will waive cost sharing for a necessary follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based screening test.

Bad news: Looming cuts on the horizon, GI societies to take action.

The rule finalizes more than 4% in mandated Medicare physician reimbursement cuts through decreases in the conversion factor and expiration of temporary fixes passed by Congress. The CY 2023 conversion factor is $33.06, an unacceptable cut for our members. The GI societies continue to work with a coalition of national and state medical societies to urge Congress to prevent these cuts before Jan. 1, 2023.

Good news: ASC + hospital payments on the rise.

ASC payments and facility fee payments increase 3.8% for institutions that meet quality reporting requirements. The CY 2023 ASC conversion factor is $51.854 and the hospital outpatient conversion factor is $85.585.

CMS removed motility codes 91117 and 91122 from APC 5731, where their payments would have been cut 21%, and finalized their placement in APC 5722, where they get a 3% payment increase beginning Jan. 1, 2023. Thank you to the motility community for helping us secure this win.

CMS raises the hospital payment for ESD code C9779 to $3,260.69, a $765.65 increase from 2022. We continue to work with CMS on our request for separate codes for lower ESD and upper ESD and payments that better reflect their unique resource costs.

AGA released new evidence-based guidelines strongly recommending patients with obesity use recently approved medications paired with lifestyle changes.

The following medications, paired with healthy eating and regular physical activity, are first-line medical options and result in moderate weight loss as noted as a percentage of body weight (reported as the difference compared to percent weight loss observed in the placebo group).

• Semaglutide (Wegovy®), weight loss percentage: 10.8%
• Phentermine-topiramate ER (Qsymia®), weight loss percentage: 8.5%
• Liraglutide (Saxenda®), weight loss percentage: 4.8%
• Naltrexone-bupropion ER (Contrave®), weight loss percentage: 3.0%

Read the AGA Clinical Guidelines on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults with Obesity for the complete recommendations.

AGA released new evidence-based guidelines strongly recommending patients with obesity use recently approved medications paired with lifestyle changes.

The following medications, paired with healthy eating and regular physical activity, are first-line medical options and result in moderate weight loss as noted as a percentage of body weight (reported as the difference compared to percent weight loss observed in the placebo group).

• Semaglutide (Wegovy®), weight loss percentage: 10.8%
• Phentermine-topiramate ER (Qsymia®), weight loss percentage: 8.5%
• Liraglutide (Saxenda®), weight loss percentage: 4.8%
• Naltrexone-bupropion ER (Contrave®), weight loss percentage: 3.0%

Read the AGA Clinical Guidelines on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults with Obesity for the complete recommendations.

AGA released new evidence-based guidelines strongly recommending patients with obesity use recently approved medications paired with lifestyle changes.

The following medications, paired with healthy eating and regular physical activity, are first-line medical options and result in moderate weight loss as noted as a percentage of body weight (reported as the difference compared to percent weight loss observed in the placebo group).

• Semaglutide (Wegovy®), weight loss percentage: 10.8%
• Phentermine-topiramate ER (Qsymia®), weight loss percentage: 8.5%
• Liraglutide (Saxenda®), weight loss percentage: 4.8%
• Naltrexone-bupropion ER (Contrave®), weight loss percentage: 3.0%

Read the AGA Clinical Guidelines on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults with Obesity for the complete recommendations.

This holiday season is a good time to reflect on our many blessings and thank those who have helped make our lives and careers worthwhile, successful, and prosperous. What better way than to pass on something to those who will ensure that gastroenterology will advance in decades to come?

Progress in this lifesaving work is made possible by the generosity of many supporters, like you, who understand the devastating physical, emotional, and financial costs of digestive diseases. We simply cannot allow a slowdown in the pace of GI research, and we cannot afford to lose talent when research offers so much promise for the future.

You can make a difference to ensure the progress continues.

The AGA Research Foundation funds promising young investigators who might not receive funding otherwise at crucial times in their early careers. The research of these talented individuals, while important to the field, if left unfunded, could end prematurely. That’s something the field can’t afford, and that’s why I’ve supported the AGA Research Foundation over the years through my donations.

We must maintain a robust pipeline of research that will help safeguard the success of clinical medicine. I urge you to support the future of GI with a generous donation to the AGA Research Foundation. Your investment of $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or any amount you can give today will make a difference.

Help close the gap in research funding and make a difference. Make your tax-deductible donation online at www.gastro.org/donateonline.

Thank you in advance for support and best wishes for a happy, healthy holiday season and prosperous New Year.

Three easy ways to give

Online: www.gastro.org/donateonline



Through the mail:

AGA Research Foundation

4930 Del Ray Avenue

Bethesda, MD 20814
 

Over the phone: 301-222-4002

Dr. Camilleri is chair of the AGA Research Foundation, past-president of the AGA Institute, and a consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

This holiday season is a good time to reflect on our many blessings and thank those who have helped make our lives and careers worthwhile, successful, and prosperous. What better way than to pass on something to those who will ensure that gastroenterology will advance in decades to come?

Progress in this lifesaving work is made possible by the generosity of many supporters, like you, who understand the devastating physical, emotional, and financial costs of digestive diseases. We simply cannot allow a slowdown in the pace of GI research, and we cannot afford to lose talent when research offers so much promise for the future.

You can make a difference to ensure the progress continues.

The AGA Research Foundation funds promising young investigators who might not receive funding otherwise at crucial times in their early careers. The research of these talented individuals, while important to the field, if left unfunded, could end prematurely. That’s something the field can’t afford, and that’s why I’ve supported the AGA Research Foundation over the years through my donations.

We must maintain a robust pipeline of research that will help safeguard the success of clinical medicine. I urge you to support the future of GI with a generous donation to the AGA Research Foundation. Your investment of $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or any amount you can give today will make a difference.

Help close the gap in research funding and make a difference. Make your tax-deductible donation online at www.gastro.org/donateonline.

Thank you in advance for support and best wishes for a happy, healthy holiday season and prosperous New Year.

Three easy ways to give

Online: www.gastro.org/donateonline



Through the mail:

AGA Research Foundation

4930 Del Ray Avenue

Bethesda, MD 20814
 

Over the phone: 301-222-4002

Dr. Camilleri is chair of the AGA Research Foundation, past-president of the AGA Institute, and a consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

This holiday season is a good time to reflect on our many blessings and thank those who have helped make our lives and careers worthwhile, successful, and prosperous. What better way than to pass on something to those who will ensure that gastroenterology will advance in decades to come?

Progress in this lifesaving work is made possible by the generosity of many supporters, like you, who understand the devastating physical, emotional, and financial costs of digestive diseases. We simply cannot allow a slowdown in the pace of GI research, and we cannot afford to lose talent when research offers so much promise for the future.

You can make a difference to ensure the progress continues.

The AGA Research Foundation funds promising young investigators who might not receive funding otherwise at crucial times in their early careers. The research of these talented individuals, while important to the field, if left unfunded, could end prematurely. That’s something the field can’t afford, and that’s why I’ve supported the AGA Research Foundation over the years through my donations.

We must maintain a robust pipeline of research that will help safeguard the success of clinical medicine. I urge you to support the future of GI with a generous donation to the AGA Research Foundation. Your investment of $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or any amount you can give today will make a difference.

Help close the gap in research funding and make a difference. Make your tax-deductible donation online at www.gastro.org/donateonline.

Thank you in advance for support and best wishes for a happy, healthy holiday season and prosperous New Year.

Three easy ways to give

Online: www.gastro.org/donateonline



Through the mail:

AGA Research Foundation

4930 Del Ray Avenue

Bethesda, MD 20814
 

Over the phone: 301-222-4002

Dr. Camilleri is chair of the AGA Research Foundation, past-president of the AGA Institute, and a consultant in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Diagnosing long COVID is something of an art for doctors who, without any formal criteria, say they know it when they see it. Treating the condition requires equal combinations of skill, experience, and intuition, and doctors waiting for guidelines have started cobbling together treatment plans designed to ease the worst symptoms.

Their work is urgent. In the United States alone, as many as 29 million people have long COVID, according to estimates from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

“Patients with long COVID have on average at least 14 different symptoms involving nine or more different organ systems, so a holistic approach to treatment is essential,” said Janna Friedly, MD, executive director of the Post-COVID Rehabilitation and Recovery Clinic at the University of Washington in Seattle. 

For acute COVID cases, the National Institutes of Health has treatment guidelines that are taking a lot of the guesswork out of managing patients’ complex mix of symptoms. This has made it easier for primary care providers to manage people with milder cases and for specialists to come up with effective treatment plans for those with severe illness. But no such guidelines exist for long COVID, and this is making it harder for many doctors – particularly in primary care – to determine the best treatment. 

While there isn’t a single treatment that is effective for all long-COVID symptoms – and nothing is approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for this syndrome – doctors do have tools, Dr. Friedly said. 

“We always start with the basics – making sure we help patients get enough restorative sleep, optimizing their nutrition, ensuring proper hydration, reducing stress, breathing exercises, and restorative exercise – because all of these are critically important to helping people’s immune system stay as healthy as possible,” she said. “In addition, we help people manage the anxiety and depression that may be exacerbating their symptoms.”

Fatigue is an obvious target. Widely available screening tools, including assessments that have been used in cancer patients and people with chronic fatigue syndrome, can pinpoint how bad symptoms are in long-COVID patients. 

“Fatigue is generally the No. 1 symptom,” said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio. “If a patient has this, then their therapy program has to look very different, because they actually do better with pacing themselves.”

This was the first symptom tackled in a series of long-COVID treatment guidelines issued by the medical society representing many of the providers on the front lines with these patients every day – the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. These fatigue guidelines stress the importance of rest, energy conservation, and proper hydration. 

For patients with only mild fatigue who can still keep up with essential activities like work and school, activity programs may begin with a gradual return to daily routines such as housework or going out with friends. As long as they have no setbacks, patients can also start with light aerobic exercise and make it more intense and frequent over time. As long as they have no setbacks in symptoms, they can ramp up exercise by about 10% every 10 days. 

But with severe fatigue, this is too much, too soon. Activity plans are more apt to start with only light stretching and progress to light muscle strengthening before any aerobic exercise enters the picture. 

“Traditional exercise programs may be harmful to some patients with long COVID,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Many cannot tolerate graded exercise [where exertion slowly ramps up], and it actually can make them worse.” 

There’s less consensus on other options for treating fatigue, like prescription medications, dietary supplements, and acupuncture. Some doctors have tried prescription drugs like the antiviral and movement disorder medication amantadine, the narcolepsy drug modafinil, and the stimulant methylphenidate, which have been studied for managing fatigue in patients with other conditions like cancer, multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injuries, and Parkinson’s disease. But there isn’t yet clear evidence from clinical trials about how well these options work for long COVID. 

Similarly, interventions to tackle neurological symptoms and cognitive problems borrow a page from treatments used for other conditions like stroke and dementia – but require changes to meet the needs of those with long COVID. Four in five long-COVID patients with neurological and cognitive issues have brain fog, while more than two-thirds have headaches, and more than half have numbness and tingling in their extremities, loss of taste, loss of smell, and muscle pain, one study suggests.

Patients with deficits in areas like memory, attention, executive function, and visual and spatial planning may get speech therapy or occupational therapy, for example – both approaches that are common in people with cognitive decline caused by other medical conditions. 

Doctors also promote good sleep practices and treating any mood disorders – both of which can contribute to cognitive problems. But they often have to skip one of the best interventions for improving brain function – exercise – because so many long-COVID patients struggle with fatigue and exertion or have cardiovascular issues that limit their exercise. 

The lack of formal guidelines is especially a problem because there aren’t nearly enough specialists to manage the surge of patients who need treatment for issues like fatigue and brain fog. And without guidelines, primary care providers lack a reliable road map to guide referrals that many patients may need. 

“Given the complexity of long COVID and the wide range of symptoms and medical issues associated with long COVID, most physicians, regardless of specialty, will need to evaluate and treat long-COVID symptoms,” said Dr. Friedly. “And yet, most do not have the knowledge or experience to effectively manage long-COVID symptoms, so having guidelines that can be updated as more research is conducted is critical.”

One barrier to developing guidelines for long COVID is the lack of research into the biological causes of fatigue and autonomic dysfunction – nervous system damage that can impact critical things like blood pressure, digestion, and body temperature – that affect so many long-COVID patients, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the Post-Acute COVID-19 Team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Research is also progressing much more slowly for long COVID than it did for those hospitalized with severe acute infections. The logistics of running rigorous studies to prove which treatments work best for specific symptoms – information needed to create definitive treatment guidelines – are much more complicated for people with long COVID who live at home and may be too exhausted or too preoccupied with their daily lives to take part in research. 

The vast number of symptoms, surfacing in different ways for each patient, also make it hard to isolate specific ways to manage specific long-COVID symptoms. Even when two patients have fatigue and brain fog, they may still need different treatments based on the complex mix of other symptoms they have. 

“All long-COVID patients are not equal, and it is critical that research focuses on establishing specific descriptions of the disease,” Dr. Azola said. 

The National Institutes of Health is working on this through its long-COVID Recover Initiative. It’s unclear how long it will take for this research to yield enough definitive information to inform long-COVID treatment guidelines similar to what the agency produced for acute coronavirus infections, and it didn’t respond to questions about the timeline. 

But over the next few months, the National Institutes of Health expects to begin several clinical trials focused on some of the symptoms that doctors are seeing most often in their clinics, like fatigue, brain fog, exercise intolerance, sleep disturbances, and changes in the nervous system’s ability to regulate key functions like heart rate and body temperature. 

One trial starting in January will examine whether the COVID-19 drug Paxlovid can help. A recent preprint Department of Veterans Affairs study showed patients treated with Paxlovid were less likely to get long COVID in the first place.

Some professionals aren’t waiting for the agency. The LongCovid Research Consortium links researchers from Harvard and Stanford universities; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai; Cardiff; and Yale who are studying, for instance, whether tiny blood clots contribute to long COVID and whether drugs can reduce or eliminate them.

“Given the widespread and diverse impact the virus has on the human body, it is unlikely that there will be one cure, one treatment,” said Gary H. Gibbons, MD, director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health. “This is why there will be multiple clinical trials over the coming months that study a range of symptoms, underlying causes, risk factors, outcomes, and potential strategies for treatment and prevention, in people of all races, ethnicities, genders, and ages.”

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

Diagnosing long COVID is something of an art for doctors who, without any formal criteria, say they know it when they see it. Treating the condition requires equal combinations of skill, experience, and intuition, and doctors waiting for guidelines have started cobbling together treatment plans designed to ease the worst symptoms.

Their work is urgent. In the United States alone, as many as 29 million people have long COVID, according to estimates from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

“Patients with long COVID have on average at least 14 different symptoms involving nine or more different organ systems, so a holistic approach to treatment is essential,” said Janna Friedly, MD, executive director of the Post-COVID Rehabilitation and Recovery Clinic at the University of Washington in Seattle. 

For acute COVID cases, the National Institutes of Health has treatment guidelines that are taking a lot of the guesswork out of managing patients’ complex mix of symptoms. This has made it easier for primary care providers to manage people with milder cases and for specialists to come up with effective treatment plans for those with severe illness. But no such guidelines exist for long COVID, and this is making it harder for many doctors – particularly in primary care – to determine the best treatment. 

While there isn’t a single treatment that is effective for all long-COVID symptoms – and nothing is approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for this syndrome – doctors do have tools, Dr. Friedly said. 

“We always start with the basics – making sure we help patients get enough restorative sleep, optimizing their nutrition, ensuring proper hydration, reducing stress, breathing exercises, and restorative exercise – because all of these are critically important to helping people’s immune system stay as healthy as possible,” she said. “In addition, we help people manage the anxiety and depression that may be exacerbating their symptoms.”

Fatigue is an obvious target. Widely available screening tools, including assessments that have been used in cancer patients and people with chronic fatigue syndrome, can pinpoint how bad symptoms are in long-COVID patients. 

“Fatigue is generally the No. 1 symptom,” said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio. “If a patient has this, then their therapy program has to look very different, because they actually do better with pacing themselves.”

This was the first symptom tackled in a series of long-COVID treatment guidelines issued by the medical society representing many of the providers on the front lines with these patients every day – the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. These fatigue guidelines stress the importance of rest, energy conservation, and proper hydration. 

For patients with only mild fatigue who can still keep up with essential activities like work and school, activity programs may begin with a gradual return to daily routines such as housework or going out with friends. As long as they have no setbacks, patients can also start with light aerobic exercise and make it more intense and frequent over time. As long as they have no setbacks in symptoms, they can ramp up exercise by about 10% every 10 days. 

But with severe fatigue, this is too much, too soon. Activity plans are more apt to start with only light stretching and progress to light muscle strengthening before any aerobic exercise enters the picture. 

“Traditional exercise programs may be harmful to some patients with long COVID,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Many cannot tolerate graded exercise [where exertion slowly ramps up], and it actually can make them worse.” 

There’s less consensus on other options for treating fatigue, like prescription medications, dietary supplements, and acupuncture. Some doctors have tried prescription drugs like the antiviral and movement disorder medication amantadine, the narcolepsy drug modafinil, and the stimulant methylphenidate, which have been studied for managing fatigue in patients with other conditions like cancer, multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injuries, and Parkinson’s disease. But there isn’t yet clear evidence from clinical trials about how well these options work for long COVID. 

Similarly, interventions to tackle neurological symptoms and cognitive problems borrow a page from treatments used for other conditions like stroke and dementia – but require changes to meet the needs of those with long COVID. Four in five long-COVID patients with neurological and cognitive issues have brain fog, while more than two-thirds have headaches, and more than half have numbness and tingling in their extremities, loss of taste, loss of smell, and muscle pain, one study suggests.

Patients with deficits in areas like memory, attention, executive function, and visual and spatial planning may get speech therapy or occupational therapy, for example – both approaches that are common in people with cognitive decline caused by other medical conditions. 

Doctors also promote good sleep practices and treating any mood disorders – both of which can contribute to cognitive problems. But they often have to skip one of the best interventions for improving brain function – exercise – because so many long-COVID patients struggle with fatigue and exertion or have cardiovascular issues that limit their exercise. 

The lack of formal guidelines is especially a problem because there aren’t nearly enough specialists to manage the surge of patients who need treatment for issues like fatigue and brain fog. And without guidelines, primary care providers lack a reliable road map to guide referrals that many patients may need. 

“Given the complexity of long COVID and the wide range of symptoms and medical issues associated with long COVID, most physicians, regardless of specialty, will need to evaluate and treat long-COVID symptoms,” said Dr. Friedly. “And yet, most do not have the knowledge or experience to effectively manage long-COVID symptoms, so having guidelines that can be updated as more research is conducted is critical.”

One barrier to developing guidelines for long COVID is the lack of research into the biological causes of fatigue and autonomic dysfunction – nervous system damage that can impact critical things like blood pressure, digestion, and body temperature – that affect so many long-COVID patients, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the Post-Acute COVID-19 Team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Research is also progressing much more slowly for long COVID than it did for those hospitalized with severe acute infections. The logistics of running rigorous studies to prove which treatments work best for specific symptoms – information needed to create definitive treatment guidelines – are much more complicated for people with long COVID who live at home and may be too exhausted or too preoccupied with their daily lives to take part in research. 

The vast number of symptoms, surfacing in different ways for each patient, also make it hard to isolate specific ways to manage specific long-COVID symptoms. Even when two patients have fatigue and brain fog, they may still need different treatments based on the complex mix of other symptoms they have. 

“All long-COVID patients are not equal, and it is critical that research focuses on establishing specific descriptions of the disease,” Dr. Azola said. 

The National Institutes of Health is working on this through its long-COVID Recover Initiative. It’s unclear how long it will take for this research to yield enough definitive information to inform long-COVID treatment guidelines similar to what the agency produced for acute coronavirus infections, and it didn’t respond to questions about the timeline. 

But over the next few months, the National Institutes of Health expects to begin several clinical trials focused on some of the symptoms that doctors are seeing most often in their clinics, like fatigue, brain fog, exercise intolerance, sleep disturbances, and changes in the nervous system’s ability to regulate key functions like heart rate and body temperature. 

One trial starting in January will examine whether the COVID-19 drug Paxlovid can help. A recent preprint Department of Veterans Affairs study showed patients treated with Paxlovid were less likely to get long COVID in the first place.

Some professionals aren’t waiting for the agency. The LongCovid Research Consortium links researchers from Harvard and Stanford universities; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai; Cardiff; and Yale who are studying, for instance, whether tiny blood clots contribute to long COVID and whether drugs can reduce or eliminate them.

“Given the widespread and diverse impact the virus has on the human body, it is unlikely that there will be one cure, one treatment,” said Gary H. Gibbons, MD, director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health. “This is why there will be multiple clinical trials over the coming months that study a range of symptoms, underlying causes, risk factors, outcomes, and potential strategies for treatment and prevention, in people of all races, ethnicities, genders, and ages.”

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

Diagnosing long COVID is something of an art for doctors who, without any formal criteria, say they know it when they see it. Treating the condition requires equal combinations of skill, experience, and intuition, and doctors waiting for guidelines have started cobbling together treatment plans designed to ease the worst symptoms.

Their work is urgent. In the United States alone, as many as 29 million people have long COVID, according to estimates from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

“Patients with long COVID have on average at least 14 different symptoms involving nine or more different organ systems, so a holistic approach to treatment is essential,” said Janna Friedly, MD, executive director of the Post-COVID Rehabilitation and Recovery Clinic at the University of Washington in Seattle. 

For acute COVID cases, the National Institutes of Health has treatment guidelines that are taking a lot of the guesswork out of managing patients’ complex mix of symptoms. This has made it easier for primary care providers to manage people with milder cases and for specialists to come up with effective treatment plans for those with severe illness. But no such guidelines exist for long COVID, and this is making it harder for many doctors – particularly in primary care – to determine the best treatment. 

While there isn’t a single treatment that is effective for all long-COVID symptoms – and nothing is approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for this syndrome – doctors do have tools, Dr. Friedly said. 

“We always start with the basics – making sure we help patients get enough restorative sleep, optimizing their nutrition, ensuring proper hydration, reducing stress, breathing exercises, and restorative exercise – because all of these are critically important to helping people’s immune system stay as healthy as possible,” she said. “In addition, we help people manage the anxiety and depression that may be exacerbating their symptoms.”

Fatigue is an obvious target. Widely available screening tools, including assessments that have been used in cancer patients and people with chronic fatigue syndrome, can pinpoint how bad symptoms are in long-COVID patients. 

“Fatigue is generally the No. 1 symptom,” said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio. “If a patient has this, then their therapy program has to look very different, because they actually do better with pacing themselves.”

This was the first symptom tackled in a series of long-COVID treatment guidelines issued by the medical society representing many of the providers on the front lines with these patients every day – the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. These fatigue guidelines stress the importance of rest, energy conservation, and proper hydration. 

For patients with only mild fatigue who can still keep up with essential activities like work and school, activity programs may begin with a gradual return to daily routines such as housework or going out with friends. As long as they have no setbacks, patients can also start with light aerobic exercise and make it more intense and frequent over time. As long as they have no setbacks in symptoms, they can ramp up exercise by about 10% every 10 days. 

But with severe fatigue, this is too much, too soon. Activity plans are more apt to start with only light stretching and progress to light muscle strengthening before any aerobic exercise enters the picture. 

“Traditional exercise programs may be harmful to some patients with long COVID,” said Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Many cannot tolerate graded exercise [where exertion slowly ramps up], and it actually can make them worse.” 

There’s less consensus on other options for treating fatigue, like prescription medications, dietary supplements, and acupuncture. Some doctors have tried prescription drugs like the antiviral and movement disorder medication amantadine, the narcolepsy drug modafinil, and the stimulant methylphenidate, which have been studied for managing fatigue in patients with other conditions like cancer, multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injuries, and Parkinson’s disease. But there isn’t yet clear evidence from clinical trials about how well these options work for long COVID. 

Similarly, interventions to tackle neurological symptoms and cognitive problems borrow a page from treatments used for other conditions like stroke and dementia – but require changes to meet the needs of those with long COVID. Four in five long-COVID patients with neurological and cognitive issues have brain fog, while more than two-thirds have headaches, and more than half have numbness and tingling in their extremities, loss of taste, loss of smell, and muscle pain, one study suggests.

Patients with deficits in areas like memory, attention, executive function, and visual and spatial planning may get speech therapy or occupational therapy, for example – both approaches that are common in people with cognitive decline caused by other medical conditions. 

Doctors also promote good sleep practices and treating any mood disorders – both of which can contribute to cognitive problems. But they often have to skip one of the best interventions for improving brain function – exercise – because so many long-COVID patients struggle with fatigue and exertion or have cardiovascular issues that limit their exercise. 

The lack of formal guidelines is especially a problem because there aren’t nearly enough specialists to manage the surge of patients who need treatment for issues like fatigue and brain fog. And without guidelines, primary care providers lack a reliable road map to guide referrals that many patients may need. 

“Given the complexity of long COVID and the wide range of symptoms and medical issues associated with long COVID, most physicians, regardless of specialty, will need to evaluate and treat long-COVID symptoms,” said Dr. Friedly. “And yet, most do not have the knowledge or experience to effectively manage long-COVID symptoms, so having guidelines that can be updated as more research is conducted is critical.”

One barrier to developing guidelines for long COVID is the lack of research into the biological causes of fatigue and autonomic dysfunction – nervous system damage that can impact critical things like blood pressure, digestion, and body temperature – that affect so many long-COVID patients, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the Post-Acute COVID-19 Team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Research is also progressing much more slowly for long COVID than it did for those hospitalized with severe acute infections. The logistics of running rigorous studies to prove which treatments work best for specific symptoms – information needed to create definitive treatment guidelines – are much more complicated for people with long COVID who live at home and may be too exhausted or too preoccupied with their daily lives to take part in research. 

The vast number of symptoms, surfacing in different ways for each patient, also make it hard to isolate specific ways to manage specific long-COVID symptoms. Even when two patients have fatigue and brain fog, they may still need different treatments based on the complex mix of other symptoms they have. 

“All long-COVID patients are not equal, and it is critical that research focuses on establishing specific descriptions of the disease,” Dr. Azola said. 

The National Institutes of Health is working on this through its long-COVID Recover Initiative. It’s unclear how long it will take for this research to yield enough definitive information to inform long-COVID treatment guidelines similar to what the agency produced for acute coronavirus infections, and it didn’t respond to questions about the timeline. 

But over the next few months, the National Institutes of Health expects to begin several clinical trials focused on some of the symptoms that doctors are seeing most often in their clinics, like fatigue, brain fog, exercise intolerance, sleep disturbances, and changes in the nervous system’s ability to regulate key functions like heart rate and body temperature. 

One trial starting in January will examine whether the COVID-19 drug Paxlovid can help. A recent preprint Department of Veterans Affairs study showed patients treated with Paxlovid were less likely to get long COVID in the first place.

Some professionals aren’t waiting for the agency. The LongCovid Research Consortium links researchers from Harvard and Stanford universities; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai; Cardiff; and Yale who are studying, for instance, whether tiny blood clots contribute to long COVID and whether drugs can reduce or eliminate them.

“Given the widespread and diverse impact the virus has on the human body, it is unlikely that there will be one cure, one treatment,” said Gary H. Gibbons, MD, director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health. “This is why there will be multiple clinical trials over the coming months that study a range of symptoms, underlying causes, risk factors, outcomes, and potential strategies for treatment and prevention, in people of all races, ethnicities, genders, and ages.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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