Category

Health News

Category

In the late 1990s, Paul Farmer was usually the last doctor to leave the intensive care unit at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Atul Gawande, then a surgical resident, would find him there and the two would talk late into the night, discussing how to fix a health care system that, for the poor and marginalized, was utterly broken. It was Farmer’s favorite topic, and one that inspired Gawande as well.

Farmer provided a “moral center,” Gawande said. “He gave us the moral framework.”

Around the same time, as a young resident interested in caring for AIDS patients in impoverished settings, Joia Mukherjee visited central Haiti, where the nonprofit Partners In Health was successfully treating AIDS with the latest antiretroviral drugs despite official skepticism. She would soon join the organization, whose major accomplishments include redefining the feasibility — and necessity — of providing health care regardless of wealth and setting. Caveats have been replaced by certainty, limitations by determination, and, in many places, hopelessness and suffering by prevention and life-saving care. Over 40 years, the work of Farmer, Mukherjee, and thousands of others who joined the effort have pushed global health to a more humane place.

“He showed us that the moral high ground can win,” said Mukherjee, a Harvard Medical School associate professor and medical director of Partners In Health, which was founded in 1987 by Farmer and a small group of individuals dedicated to improving health care for the poor.

On Tuesday, Mukherjee and Gawande were still reeling over the loss of Farmer, 62, who died Monday in Rwanda. Mukherjee said there had been no apparent health warnings. In fact, she had spoken with him just the day before, and he told her how happy he was to be in Rwanda, where he had a home with his wife, Didi Bertrand Farmer, and their three children.

The two were joined in their mourning by colleagues and friends across Harvard and throughout the global health community. People exchanged emails and phone calls and gathered on videoconference to process their loss and celebrate a doctor and professor remembered as friendly and just, skilled and compassionate, tireless and inspiring.

Even for those never infected with SARS-CoV-2, new research shows that lifestyle disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic may have triggered inflammation in the brain contributing to fatigue, concentration difficulties, and depression.

The study, which was conducted by a team led by investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital, is published in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.

Beyond causing a staggering number of infections and deaths, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant social and economic disruptions that have impacted the lives of a large swath of the world’s population in multiple ways. Also, since the start of the pandemic, the severity and prevalence of symptoms of psychological distress, fatigue, brain fog, and other conditions have increased considerably in the United States, including among people not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To obtain a better understanding of the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, researchers analyzed brain imaging data, conducted behavioral tests, and collected blood samples from multiple uninfected volunteers — 57 before and 15 after lockdown/stay-at-home measures were implemented to limit the pandemic’s spread.

After lockdowns, the study participants demonstrated elevated brain levels of two markers of neuroinflammation — translocator protein (measured using positron emission tomography) and myoinositol (measured using magnetic resonance spectroscopy) — compared with pre-lockdown participants. Blood levels of two inflammatory markers — interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 — were also elevated in post-lockdown participants, although to a lesser extent.

Participants who reported a higher burden of symptoms related to mood and mental and physical fatigue showed higher levels of translocator protein in certain brain regions, compared with those reporting little or no symptoms. Also, higher post-lockdown translocator protein levels correlated with the expression of several genes involved in immune functions.

“While COVID-19 research has seen an explosion in the literature, the impact of pandemic-related societal and lifestyle disruptions on brain health among the uninfected has remained under-explored,” says lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, a postdoctoral research fellow at MGH and Harvard Medical School. “Our study demonstrates an example of how the pandemic has impacted human health beyond the effects directly caused by the virus itself.”

Senior author Marco L. Loggia, co-director of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at MGH and Harvard Medical School, notes that acknowledging a role of neuroinflammation in the symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic might point to possible strategies to reduce them. “For instance, behavioral or pharmacological interventions that are thought to reduce inflammation — such as exercise and certain medications — might turn out to be helpful as a means of reducing these vexing symptoms.”

Loggia adds that the findings also provide further support to the notion that stressful events might be accompanied by brain inflammation. “This could have important implication for developing interventions for a broad number of stress-related disorders,” he says.

Study co-authors include Zeynab Alshelh, Daniel Martins, Minhae Kim, Akila Weerasekera, Hope Housman, Erin J. Morrissey, Paulina C. Knight, Kelly A. Castro-Blanco, Daniel S. Albrecht, Chieh-En Tseng, Nicole R. Zürcher, Eva-Maria Ratai, Oluwaseun Akeju, Meena M. Makary, Ciprian Catana, Nathaniel D. Mercaldo, Nouchine Hadjikhani, Mattia Veronese, Federico Turkheimer, Bruce R. Rosen, and Jacob M. Hooker.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and The Landreth Family Foundation.

Over the last several decades, cataract surgery has become exceptionally safe and rather routine in this country. Annually, an estimated 2 million Americans have this procedure, mostly older adults. The numbers could double or even triple by 2050.

Yet while many of us think cataract surgery merely sharpens vision, research suggests it may keep minds sharper, too, and help prevent dementia.

Research shows a link between vision loss and dementia

Recent research has noted a link between age-related macular degeneration, cataracts, or diabetes-related eye disease and dementia. One study found an increased risk of dementia in older adults who experienced worsening vision over an eight-year period.

So might preventing or reversing vision loss reduce the risk of dementia? Previous studies have been mixed. According to a 2015 study, cataract surgery was linked with a reduced risk of future dementia. A 2018 study found no beneficial effect on dementia risk, but a lower risk of mild cognitive impairment. Differences in study populations and methods, including the definition of dementia, may explain the different findings.

New evidence that cataract surgery may prevent dementia

A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine makes a strong case that removing cataracts may reduce your risk for developing dementia. It analyzes the relationship between cataract surgery and risk of dementia over time among more than 3,000 older adults with cataracts or glaucoma. None had dementia at the start of the study.

The researchers found:

  • The risk of developing dementia was 29 percent lower among people who had cataract surgery than among otherwise similar people who did not have this surgery.
  • Among people with glaucoma, the risk of dementia was the same whether they did or didn’t have surgery. (Of note, glaucoma surgery does not restore vision.)
  • Study results were unlikely to be due to differences in health or access to health care, or other risk factors for dementia. After researchers accounted for these factors, the results were unchanged.

While compelling, these findings need to be confirmed by others, as the researchers note. And future studies should include a more diverse population: more than 90 percent of study participants were white, and all had ready access to comprehensive health care, including cataract surgery.

To read the full story

This is an excerpt from an article that appears on the Harvard Health Publishing website.

Robert H. Shmerling, M.D., is the senior faculty editor for Harvard Health Publishing and a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

A new study suggests that some patients with long COVID have lasting nerve damage that appears to be caused by infection-triggered immune dysfunction, which is potentially treatable.

Long COVID symptoms persist at least three months after recovery from COVID, even after mild cases. These include difficulty getting through normal activities, faintness and rapid heart rate, shortness of breath, cognitive difficulties, chronic pain, sensory abnormalities, and muscle weakness.

Led by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and the National Institutes of Health, the study was published today in Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation. The study included 17 patients with COVID (16 with mild cases) who met World Health Organization

criteria for long COVID. They had been evaluated and treated in 10 U.S. states/territories. Evaluations revealed evidence of peripheral neuropathy in 59 percent. Typical symptoms of neuropathy nerve damage include weakness, sensory changes, and pain in the hands and feet as well as internal complaints including fatigue.

“This is one of the early papers looking into causes of long COVID, which will steadily increase in importance as acute COVID wanes,” says lead author Anne Louise Oaklander, an investigator in the Department of Neurology at MGH. “Our findings suggest that some long COVID patients had damage to their peripheral nerve fibers, and that damage to the small-fiber type of nerve cell may be prominent.”

Oaklander notes that if patients have long-COVID symptoms that aren’t otherwise explained and aren’t improving, they might benefit from discussing neuropathy with their doctor or seeing a neurologist or neuromuscular specialist.

“Research from our team and others is clarifying what the different types of post-COVID neuropathy are, and how best to diagnose and treat them,” says Oaklander. “Most long COVID neuropathies described so far appear to reflect immune responses to the virus that went off course. And some patients seem to improve from standard treatments for other immune-related neuropathies.” She cautioned that there hasn’t been enough time to conduct clinical trials to rigorously test specific treatments, however.

Co-authors include Alexander J. Mills, Mary Kelley, Lisa S. Toran Bryan Smith, Marinos C. Dalakas, and Avindra Nath.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and Thomas Jefferson University.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD), a tear in an artery supplying blood to the heart, is a common cause of serious or fatal heart attacks that occur in women under age 50.

Although the cause of SCAD is unknown, risk factors include female sex, recent childbirth, irregular growth of cells in artery walls (fibromuscular dysplasia), history of migraine headaches, depression/anxiety, and the use of hormones in oral contraceptives or infertility treatments.

Now, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital have identified a potential genetic underpinning of SCAD: mutations in genes that control the production of fibrillar collagen, the most abundant protein in the extracellular matrix or “scaffolding” that gives shape, strength, and stability to blood vessels.

They describe their findings in a study published in JAMA Cardiology.

“This shows us that the extracellular matrix, the structural part of the blood vessel, is important in this disorder, specifically the collagenous part of that matrix,” says Mark E. Lindsay, an investigator specializing in genetic arterial disease at MGH.

Although there are currently no therapies that can help generate or restore collagen in blood vessels, the discovery provides a road map for researchers investigating SCAD, and could lead to the development of new therapies or strategies for preventing spontaneous artery dissection in at-risk individuals.

In collaboration with the laboratory of Pradeep Natarajan, director of preventive cardiology at MGH, Lindsay and colleagues used the genetic technique known as whole-exome sequencing, which looks at the region of the human genome involved in the production and regulation of proteins. They compared the exomes of 130 women and men with SCAD with those of 46,468 people without SCAD.

They identified rare genetic variants in fibrillar collagen genes that together occurred at a 17-fold higher level than a background of 2,506 other genes found in coronary arteries.

In addition, they found that individuals with SCAD were more likely to have these so-called “disruptive” (abnormal) rare variants within fibrillar collagen genes compared with those without SCAD.

The discovery was further supported by evidence that mice with inactive copies of the most common gene variants identified in SCAD cases had increased risk for arterial dissection and enlargement than those of wild-type mice, with resulting changes in collagen in the blood vessels. This effect was especially pronounced in female mice.

“Our findings have implications for genetic testing of patients with SCAD and other arterial dissections, suggesting that it may be helpful to add genes for some additional collagen isoforms to current test panels,” Lindsay says.

The multidisciplinary MGH SCAD Program was founded within the Corrigan Women’s Heart Health Program at MGH by Malissa Wood and her colleagues in 2013. The program provides a holistic approach to the care of SCAD patients and incorporates cardiac, vascular, and clinical genetic evaluations plus collaboration with cardiac rehabilitation team members, obstetrician-gynecologists, psychologists, radiologists and patients and their families. Hundreds of patients have received care at the MGH SCAD Program and have been enrolled in the MGH SCAD Research Registry used in this study.

“Our patients are highly motivated to help us better understand SCAD and enthusiastically participate in this important genetic research,” Wood says.

The study was supported by MGH of Cardiology, the Division of Cardiology’s Bioreposity (CVBio), the Corrigan Women’s Heart Center.

Masks are coming off, mandates are easing, and people are beginning to mingle more freely. Spring is just around the corner.

Despite the positive signs, experts caution that declaring an end to the pandemic remains an iffy proposition, given the proven ability of SARS-CoV-2 to surprise. Still, society is closer than ever to calling COVID endemic, when the combination of natural infection and vaccination will provide enough protection that the virus becomes part of the public health landscape along with many other ailments — some deadly, like tuberculosis and measles, and others less so, like the common cold. Harvard’s William Hanage, an epidemiologist and associate professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, outlines what an endemic SARS-CoV-2 might look like.

The clinical trial of an old antibiotic for a new purpose is offering hope to thousands of patients with drug-resistant breast cancer whose early remissions have given way to resurgent tumors.

Novobiocin was once used in humans but today is largely limited to animal applications, such as treating mastitis in dairy cows. Its trial as a cancer drug is expected to begin this spring at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. If it proves effective, the fact that it’s still manufactured and already approved in people should allow it to become rapidly available to patients, trial organizers say.

While the discovery of a potentially powerful anti-cancer agent in a veterinary niche may seem serendipitous, it sits at the end of a long chain of discovery. That chain has already deepened our understanding of a group of well-known cancers — breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate — that together afflict more than 600,000 people and kill about 140,000 each year. Research in recent decades has revealed that half of ovarian cancers, 15 percent of breast and prostate, and 10 percent of pancreatic cancers share a flaw in their DNA repair mechanism that make them susceptible to drugs like novobiocin. The work has also shown that they are related to a rare, often fatal childhood disease called Fanconi anemia.

In fact, the discoveries trace back to the suffering of Fanconi anemia families, hinging on a key moment two decades ago at a Maine summer camp where children suffering Fanconi anemia offered their blood for science. The distressing irony is that the resulting treatments, which now offer hope to thousands of cancer sufferers, are not only ineffective for Fanconi children, they’re potentially fatal.

“This is a terrible disease,” said Alan D’Andrea, who heads Dana-Farber’s Susan F. Smith Center for Women’s Cancers and who has worked on Fanconi anemia since the early 1990s. “The children have birth defects. They have a strong disposition to developing anemia and then leukemia. And their cells are super-sensitive to DNA damaging agents.”

The condition is rare and genetic. As a recessive disease, a child must inherit two copies of a Fanconi gene — one from each parent — for the condition to develop. It affects just one in 130,000 U.S. births each year, which translates to about 28 children, many of whom are afflicted with short stature, microcephaly, abnormal facial features, or other birth defects. Anemia tends to emerge around age 7, often followed by acute myeloid leukemia and eventually bone marrow failure. Many patients don’t live to adulthood, and the average age of death in 2000 was 30.

“Sometimes the most important discoveries in science are obvious when you hit them.”

D’Andrea, who also directs Dana-Farber’s Center for DNA Damage and Repair, became interested in Fanconi anemia in a roundabout fashion. While he was an undergraduate in Quincy House at Harvard College in the late 1970s, his mother developed breast cancer. She recovered, but the episode sparked an interest that led D’Andrea to the lab of William Haseltine at Dana-Farber, then called the Sidney Farber Cancer Institute. Haseltine was studying DNA repair, a subject that grabbed D’Andrea’s interest. The pair pioneered using new tools of gene sequencing to investigate DNA damage and repair. Later, while studying at Harvard Medical School, D’Andrea became interested in leukemia and then, as an assistant professor at the Medical School and Dana-Farber in the early 1990s, in Fanconi anemia. D’Andrea thought that a better understanding of the condition might not only help those afflicted with it, but also produce insights broadly applicable to leukemias, which affect 61,000 Americans and kill 24,000 per year.

D’Andrea’s efforts were met with enthusiasm. Families of Fanconi sufferers often struggle alone, trying to manage a condition frequently unrecognized by physicians and ignored by researchers. The Fanconi Anemia Research Fund was just a year old when D’Andrea got involved in 1990, but it was already beginning to support research on the condition.

“I first met Alan in the year 1990; our daughter Katie died in 1991,” said Lynn Frohnmayer, one of the fund’s founders. “We were advised to consult with a DNA expert at Harvard about her condition, so we talked to him for a long time. It’s hard to remember a time when he hasn’t been part of what we were doing.”

Community was no less important than research to Fanconi families, who gathered annually at a summer camp on Maine’s Sebago Lake.

“I’d go to this camp every summer and teach the families what we knew about the disease,” said D’Andrea, the Alvan T. and Viola D. Fuller American Cancer Society Professor of Radiation Oncology. “At the same time, we would collect blood samples from the children or the parents, and sometimes skin biopsies. We assumed at this point that if we could clone the genes that were involved for Fanconi anemia, we might discover something very fundamental about why these children get leukemia, and also discover some kind of DNA repair pathway.”

D’Andrea’s method — identifying defective Fanconi genes and using them to understand the function of the normal gene — took time, but slowly revealed the disease’s genetic underpinnings. As Fanconi genes were discovered — scientists have so far identified 23 — D’Andrea’s lab demonstrated how the proteins they encode work together in a biochemical pathway required for DNA repair.

“We figured out that these genes probably work together in some kind of a genetic DNA repair pathway and that was exciting,” D’Andrea said. “But it was a backwater field of cancer research. I would give talks on Fanconi anemia at big meetings and there’d be 12 people in the audience, and they’d be reading the newspaper, not paying attention.”

In the early 2000s, D’Andrea was at the camp drawing blood from an 11-year-old girl who had recently developed leukemia. He was talking with her mother, who was in her 30s, and noticed that her arm was in a sling. When she said she’d had a mastectomy after a breast cancer diagnosis, his interest was piqued.

In the mid-1990s, researchers had identified mutations in two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, that increase the risk of early breast cancer. The BRCA genes are tumor suppressors that play a role in DNA repair. In most women, healthy BRCA genes prevent tumors by keeping DNA functioning properly. In women who inherit mutated genes, faulty DNA repair opens the door to tumor growth.

“Suddenly, this rare disease, Fanconi anemia, and this rare pathway that we have been studying crashed into breast cancer and ovarian cancer research.”

D’Andrea’s work over the prior decade had pointed to faulty DNA repair as a cause of Fanconi anemia, so when he heard the young mother’s story, something clicked. He tracked down the girl’s father and asked about his family history. The man said he had been healthy, but that his mother had died of ovarian cancer.

After D’Andrea raced back to the lab, he and colleagues examined DNA from the girl’s samples. They found that she had two copies of a faulty breast cancer gene — BRCA2 — one inherited from each parent.

“Suddenly, this rare disease, Fanconi anemia, and this rare pathway that we have been studying crashed into breast cancer and ovarian cancer research,” D’Andrea said. “And not only those cancers in the general population, but BRCA2 and, subsequently, BRCA1, extremely important cancer-susceptibility genes. We call it today the Fanconi anemia/BRCA pathway.”

In hindsight, the connection seems obvious, D’Andrea said.

“We had been studying all these other Fanconi anemia genes and we knew that process had something to do with DNA repair. It made sense. Sometimes the most important discoveries in science are obvious when you hit them. You realize this child with Fanconi anemia had mutations in the BRCA gene — that’s why this child got cancer. When you get cancer as a child, you get leukemia, you don’t get breast cancer, you don’t get ovarian cancer. Leukemia — that was a very severe form of BRCA deficiency.”

Subsequent research found that the Fanconi anemia/BRCA pathway was disrupted not only in some breast and ovarian cancers, but also in a significant number of prostate and pancreatic cancers.

“Not only did these children have Fanconi anemia, but their parents and grandparents have other cancers: breast, ovarian, and — we now know — prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer,” D’Andrea said. “These poor families, they have children with Fanconi anemia, a fatal childhood disease, and their older siblings, parents, older family members who have a mutation in one of the genes, they get breast, ovarian, prostate, pancreatic cancer.”

The discovery of a common DNA repair pathway linking Fanconi anemia to deadly cancers brought immediate attention to the condition and to DNA repair as a common feature of some cancers. It also provided a new way to treat them. Subsequent research showed that cancers caused by BRCA mutations become more dependent on other DNA repair pathways. Drugs called PARP inhibitors were developed to attack a key protein in a backup DNA repair pathway used by BRCA-deficient tumors. PARP inhibitors rapidly disrupt tumor growth, leading to dramatic remissions, but only for a time.

A year to 18 months after PARP treatment begins, tumors often recur as the cancer mutates to use a third DNA repair pathway, which relies on a protein called polymerase theta. To counter that move, D’Andrea turned to modern drug-screening techniques, examining thousands of compounds’ effectiveness against polymerase theta. Novobiocin rose to the top. Subsequent trials in mouse models confirmed its effectiveness, which led to plans for the spring trial.

Should novobiocin prove an effective tool, researchers will shift to examining how tumors respond over time and whether they can eventually evade the drug’s effects by using one of the body’s other DNA repair pathways, according to Geoffrey Shapiro, Dana-Farber’s senior vice president for developmental therapeutics and a professor of medicine who is collaborating with D’Andrea on the novobiocin trial. Having an additional drug will also let researchers explore combination therapies that might be harder for tumors to overcome. Such therapies are already extending the lives of many patients and, in some cases, reducing cancer to a chronic disease.

“Ultimately, we will be combining all these DNA repair inhibitors to try to maximize response up front — if it’s safe enough to do that,” Shapiro said. “This is our next decade of work.”

Fanconi anemia remains a target for D’Andrea and other researchers. Thanks to recent advances, including improved survival rates for bone-marrow transplants, more patients are living into their 30s or later. This is good news for families, but the threat of cancer is ever-present, and comes with a cruel twist. While treatments such as PARP and novobiocin grew out of Fanconi-related science, the key difference between Fanconi patients and others with cancer makes those treatments not only useless but potentially deadly for people with the condition.

For most cancer patients, the DNA repair defect that is vulnerable to PARP inhibitors and, potentially, novobiocin is in their tumor cells, which creates targets for treatment. In Fanconi patients, the defect is present throughout their bodies, meaning that the inhibitors would attack all their cells, not just cancerous ones. Frohnmayer said chemotherapy and radiation therapy are also dangerous for Fanconi patients, which limits cancer-fighting options to a heavy emphasis on early detection and surgery while the search for other treatments continues.

“The first gene was discovered in 1992, so we were in the dark. All we had were these horrible statistics,” Frohnmayer said. “Today it’s much more hopeful. People know that getting through the bone-marrow-failure part of the problem is at least a possibility, maybe even a likelihood. We’re working really hard on the cancer problem. And you can at least have the hope that, by the time your child is in danger, there’s going to be a better answer than we have today.”

Family caregivers of loved ones with dementia often have high rates of depression and anxiety and physical problems related to chronic stress from their caretaking duties.

Researchers are now looking at a novel therapy for caregivers that not only reduces depression, but also boosts well-being. A new study published in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics describes the first randomized controlled trial of a therapeutic approach that uses guided imagery and mindfulness practices to build empathic imagination for caregivers.

Currently support groups are the most widely used psychotherapy intervention for family caregivers. “Although support groups provide caregivers with helpful information and an opportunity to share their experiences with each other, for many people they are not effective for managing the negative emotions associated with caring for a loved one with dementia,” says Felipe A. Jain, investigator and director of Health Aging Studies at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Jain and his colleagues found that caregivers who participated in mentalizing imagery therapy had lower rates of depression and anxiety and better well-being than caregivers who attended a traditional support group. The study also confirmed preliminary findings that the imagery therapy strengthened caregivers’ brain circuitry related to cognitive control and emotional regulation.

“We were able to show that there is an underlying neurobiological basis for the improvements that were reported by caregivers in the MIT [mentalizing imagery therapy] group,” says Jain. “This finding helps us understand how psychotherapies work and why it is so important that caregivers receive them. MIT is now the first therapy to show beneficial changes in the brain circuitry of caregivers.”

Although caregivers are empathic and compassionate, they may have difficulty reacting to a family member with dementia whose behaviors and emotions deviate markedly from their own. Caregivers may also struggle with shame and guilt regarding their own reactions and behaviors under chronic stress.

“MIT teaches mindfulness and guided imagery skills to help caregivers better understand the mind of their loved one and how they are reacting to that person,” says Jain.

Participants learn to view emotional reactions to challenging situations from different perspectives and to feel more connected to their communities and their natural environment. The therapy also focuses on stress reduction and increased self-compassion. “This therapy pushes the boundaries of how we think about ourselves and interact with others and incorporates new views on self and identity,” says Jain.

The 46 caregivers in the pilot study were randomly assigned to the mentalizing imagery therapy group or a support group. Both groups consisted of four weekly 120-minute sessions. The imagery group participated in weekly mindfulness exercises, including low-impact stretching and breath-focused meditation, as well as specific guided imagery exercises that changed week to week. The support group focused on challenges each caregiver faced and psychoeducational topics related to caregiving.

The mentalizing imagery therapy group significantly outperformed the support group in improving depression, anxiety, mindfulness, self-compassion, and well-being. While participants were receiving the weekly group sessions, both groups showed similar improvements in self-reported depression symptoms. But by only one week after therapy ended, the positive psychological effects of imagery therapy endured while the benefits faded for participants in the support group. At that point, depression symptoms were 41 percent lower than before therapy in imagery group, but only 15 percent lower in the support group. The significant benefits for imagery therapy persisted at follow up three months after the initial course. Similarly, happiness had increased by the end of the study by 20 percent in the imagery group, but only 5 percent in the support group.

In addition, neuroimaging showed that the mentalizing imagery group had robust and substantial increases in connectively in the emotional regulation circuits of the brain, which was not seen in the support group. The strengthening of connectivity correlated with the reduction in depressive symptoms and increase in mindfulness.

“MIT is designed to be a short-term intervention to help people reframe how they view themselves as caregivers and how they experience their loved ones,” says Jain. “Support groups are longer-term interventions designed to maintain support for caregivers over the course of the disease. There is a need for both.”

Jain and his fellow investigators are planning a larger clinical trial this year that will study whether mentalizing imagery therapy can be effectively delivered using telehealth and smartphones so caregivers can participate in the therapy remotely.

Major funding for this study was provided by the National Institute on Aging.

A new cohort study of older adults finds excessive daytime napping may signal an elevated risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

Investigators from Brigham and Women’s Hospital report a bidirectional link between daytime napping and cognitive aging: excessive daytime napping predicted an increased future risk of Alzheimer’s, and a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s sped up the increase in daytime napping during aging. The team’s results are published in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.

“Daytime sleep behaviors of older adults are oftentimes ignored, and a consensus for daytime napping in clinical practice and health care is still lacking,” said Peng Li of the Medical Biodynamics Program in the Brigham’s Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders. “Our results not only suggest that excessive daytime napping may signal an elevated risk of Alzheimer’s dementia, but they also show that faster yearly increase in daytime napping may be a sign of deteriorating or unfavored clinical progression of the disease. Our study calls for a closer attention to 24-hour sleep patterns — not only nighttime sleep but also daytime sleep — for health monitoring in older adults.”

There are conflicting results regarding the effects of daytime napping on cognition in older adults. Whereas some studies have shown that daytime napping has benefits on acute cognitive performance, mood, and alertness, other studies have highlighted the adverse outcomes on cognitive performance. Nevertheless, researchers at the Brigham recognized that all prior studies on Alzheimer’s disease assessed napping within a participant only once, and most of them were subjective and questionnaire based.

The current study tested two hypotheses: (1) Participants nap longer and/or more frequently with aging and the changes are even faster with the progression of Alzheimer’s; and (2) participants with excessive daytime napping are at an increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s.

The study was a collaborative work with Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center and University of California, San Francisco. The team conducted its study using data from the on-going Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP), a prospective, cohort study. More than 1,000 individuals, with an average age of 81, were provided Actical, a watch-like device, to wear on their non-dominant wrist for up to 14 days. The team identified sleep episodes using a previously validated sleep scoring algorithm that considers wrist activity counts. After napping episodes were identified, the nap duration and frequency were calculated.

Through the novel cohort study, researchers learned that nap duration and nap frequency were positively correlated with age and found a bi-directional, longitudinal relationship between daytime sleep and Alzheimer’s. Independent of known risk factors for dementia, including age and nighttime sleep duration and fragmentation, longer and more frequent daytime naps were a risk factor for developing Alzheimer’s in cognitively normal older men and women. Besides, annual increases in napping duration and frequency were accelerated as the disease progressed, especially after the clinical manifestation of Alzheimer’s. Ultimately, the authors describe the relationship between daytime napping and cognition to be a “vicious cycle.”

“The vicious cycle we observed between daytime sleep and Alzheimer’s disease offers a basis for better understanding the role of sleep in the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease in older adults,” said Li.

The authors acknowledge three primary study limitations. First, although actigraphy has been widely used in sleep field studies and validated, researchers recognize that polysomnography is the gold standard for sleep scoring. Second, the participants studied were older, and, therefore, the findings may not be easily translated to younger cohorts. Third, future studies should test whether a direct intervention in daytime napping can lower the risk of Alzheimer’s or cognitive decline.

“Our hope is to draw more attention to daytime sleep patterns and the importance of patients noting if their sleep schedule is changing over time,” said co-senior author Kun Hu of the Medical Biodynamics Program in the Brigham’s Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders. “Sleep changes are critical in shaping the internal changes in the brain related to the circadian clocks, cognitive decline, and the risk of dementia.”

This work was supported by the NIH (RF1AG064312, RF1AG059867, R01AG56352, R01AG17917, T32GM007592, and R03AG067985), and the BrightFocus Foundation Alzheimer’s Research Program (A2020886S).

As a neurologist working in the COVID Survivorship Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, I find that my patients all have similar issues. It’s hard to concentrate, they say. They can’t think of a specific word they want to use, and they are uncharacteristically forgetful.

Those who come to our cognitive clinic are among the estimated 22 to 32 percent of patients who recovered from COVID-19, yet find they still have brain fog as part of their experience of long COVID, or post-acute sequelae of SARS CoV-2 infection (PASC), as experts call it.

What is brain fog?

Brain fog, a term used to describe slow or sluggish thinking, can occur under many different circumstances — for example, when someone is sleep-deprived or feeling unwell, or due to side effects from medicines that cause drowsiness. Brain fog can also occur following chemotherapy or a concussion.

In many cases, brain fog is temporary and gets better on its own. However, we don’t really understand why brain fog happens after COVID-19, or how long these symptoms are likely to last. But we do know that this form of brain fog can affect different aspects of cognition.

What is cognition?

Cognition refers to processes in the brain that we use to think, read, learn, remember, reason, and pay attention. Cognitive impairment is a reduction in your ability to perform one or more thinking skills.

Among people who were hospitalized for COVID, a wide range of problems with cognition have been reported.

People struggling with the effects of long COVID may have noticeable problems with attention, memory, and executive function. Studies report these issues both in people who were not hospitalized with COVID and in those who were, as well as in people who had severe cases. These findings raise some important questions about how COVID-19 infection affects cognition.

Less obvious lapses in memory and attention may occur even with mild COVID

A recent study published by a group of German researchers suggests that even people who don’t notice signs of cognitive impairment can have problems with memory and attention after recovering from a mild case of COVID-19.

This is an excerpt from an article that appears on the Harvard Health Publishing website.

To read the full story

Tamara Fong is an assistant scientist in the Aging Brain Center at the Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, and associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.