Faatih

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

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

First things first: Vaccinate everyone

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

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

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

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

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

Getting the timing and dose right on vaccine boosters

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

But there are downsides to providing boosters too early:

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

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

Recommendations for vaccine boosters

For the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, a booster is recommended at least six months after the second dose for those who are

• 65 or older
• 18 to 64 and at high risk for severe illness from COVID, such as people with chronic lung disease, cancer, or diabetes
• living or working in a high-exposure setting, such as residents of long-term care facilities, healthcare workers, teachers and day care staff, grocery workers, and prisoners.

No Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna boosters are recommended for the general population yet. That’s because the initial doses still appear to be providing good protection against severe illness and death for those at lower risk of severe COVID-related illness.

For the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, a booster is recommended for everyone 18 or older two or more months after the first dose. 

Mixing or matching booster shots

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

Plenty of unknowns

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

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

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

What’s next?

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

If you frequently find yourself stepping on a building block, tripping over a doll, or stumbling over a race car, then you know the challenges of getting younger children to put away their toys. Below are a few strategies to encourage children to clean up after themselves and keep the house tidy.

Make specific and focused requests

Asking your child to put many different things away all at the same time can leave room for children unintentionally to forget at least one of your requests — or intentionally skip a few. Make one specific request at a time, such as "Please put your blocks back in the bin on the shelf." After your child has finished one task, then you can request that your child puts a different toy away.

Make requests in the form of a command, not framed as a question like "Will you please clean up your blocks?" Asking a question leaves room for the child to reply, "No." Also, unless you want this to be a group activity, frame the request for just your child: "Please put your blocks back in the bin on the shelf" instead of "Let’s clean up the blocks."

Give your child time to comply, and repeat yourself only once

Children, especially young children, take more time than adults to process information. Count to five in your head after you make an initial request, to give a child time to process what you said and to comply.

If you don’t see the required action after five seconds, repeat your request in a neutral tone followed by a potential logical consequence. For example, "If you do not put your blocks away in the bin on the shelf, then you will not get to play with the blocks for the rest of the day. You can play with them tomorrow."

Count to five in your head again. If your child still does not do what you asked, say the following in a neutral tone: "Okay, you did not put the blocks away in the bin on the shelf, so you do not get to play with them for the rest of the day. You can play with them tomorrow." You can then put the blocks away and out of reach from the child so that the toys are not in use for the remainder of the day.

Stay calm and choose logical consequences

Two key elements of this approach are to remain as calm as possible and create a logical consequence.

• Staying calm helps. Understandably, you may be very frustrated. However, it’s best to give as little attention to noncompliance as possible. Attention, even in the form of a negative tone, can make the behavior happen more often.
• Logical consequences matter. Creating consequences that are for extensive periods of time and do not make sense to the child may spark more frustration and refusals. For example, it would not be logical for the child to lose TV time for a week if the child did not put their blocks away. Instead, limiting access to the toy is a logical consequence.

Praise behaviors you want to see

Shine attention on behaviors you’d like to see more often. Any time your child does put toys away, praise them specifically. "Good job" can confuse: the child will not know exactly what was good — sitting quietly, putting toys away, or something else. Instead, say, "Great job putting the blocks in the bin on the shelf!"

Praise with enthusiasm, and use touch, such as a pat on the back, to strengthen a behavior. If you have a child who has sensory processing difficulties, especially with tactile stimuli like a pat on the back, you can reinforce the behavior with a nonverbal gesture, such as a thumbs up.

Your days of repeating commands until you’re blue in the face and cleaning up after your children do not have to continue. The steps above can give you a breather and help your children learn to pick up after themselves.

In science, advances are a daily occurrence, but true breakthroughs are rare. What does it take to achieve world-changing scientific breakthroughs? Some are the result of a lucky accident, combined with curiosity: scientists traveling down one road suddenly find reason to veer onto another road, one they never planned to travel — a road that may well lead nowhere.

Other major breakthroughs stem from scientists pursuing a very specific dream. One day, usually early in their career, they get an idea that they can’t stop thinking about. It’s crazy, they say to themselves, but is it really impossible? They talk to respected colleagues who often remind them of all the reasons their idea might not work, and how damaging this could be for their career. It’s a sobering message, yet the idea won’t die. So, they scramble to find financial support and seek out colleagues willing to risk traveling that road with them — a road that may well lead nowhere. But sometimes the road leads to major breakthroughs like penicillin and mRNA vaccines.

Breakthroughs due to lucky accidents and curiosity

One day in 1928, Dr. Alexander Fleming at St. Mary’s Hospital in London was growing bacteria in a laboratory dish. Fleming was not pursuing a scientific dream. He was a microbiologist, just doing his job.

Then he noticed something odd: overnight, another kind of microbe, a fungus, had traveled through the air, landed on the laboratory dish, and started to grow and spread on the dish where the bacteria were growing. Fleming soon noticed that the growing fungus seemed to be killing the bacteria. He surmised that it was making some substance that killed the bacteria. Because the name of the fungus was Penicillium rubens, he called the substance the fungus was making “penicillin.”

When Fleming published a paper about his discovery, few were interested. It took another 10 years before other scientists tried to generate large amounts of penicillin to see if it might be able to cure bacterial infections and save lives. We all know how that worked out.

Fleming’s scientific breakthrough, like some others, occurred not because Fleming had a brilliant idea and exclaimed “Eureka!” Instead, it occurred because he noticed something and said, “That’s odd,” and then tried to figure it out.

Breakthroughs due to persistence and resilience in pursuit of a dream

The story of mRNA vaccines, like the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19, is very different from the story of penicillin. For 30 years, a small group of scientists believed that mRNA vaccines would have great advantages over traditional vaccines — if only several obstacles could be overcome. Many of these scientists gave up as they encountered those obstacles, but a few persisted and, ultimately, succeeded. (I described what mRNA vaccines are, how they work, and how obstacles were overcome in a previous blog post.)

One scientist, Dr. Katalin Karikó, joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1990s with the dream of creating an mRNA vaccine. She applied for grants to support her work, but was repeatedly rejected: the reviewers stated that it was so unlikely that she or anyone could overcome the obstacles that supporting her research would be a wasted investment. Her university only agreed to continue supporting her work if she accepted a demotion and a pay cut. She accepted both, and doggedly pursued her dream.

One major obstacle to mRNA vaccines particularly fascinated her: the violent reaction of the immune system when it encounters mRNA from a virus. Ten years of dogged work helped Karikó and her colleague Drew Weissman figure out how to make a small change in mRNA that prevented that violent immune response — a major step in making all mRNA vaccines possible. Without this, the world wouldn’t have mRNA COVID vaccines today.

Two other scientists who created the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine, Uğur Şahin and Őzlem Turëci, are Turkish immigrants to Germany who met, fell in love with the idea of creating an mRNA vaccine, and then fell in love with each other. According to The Wall Street Journal, one day in 2002 they took a break for lunch, got married, and then returned in the afternoon to their laboratory to finish an experiment — just one more among many conducted over 30 years. Each experiment was one more possible step toward their ultimate dream until finally, in 2020, they achieved that dream: their mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 proved to be very safe and effective.

Holding hard to their dreams

Whichever path scientists who achieve lifesaving breakthroughs travel, they often endure disinterest, like Fleming, or repeated skepticism, ridicule, and rejection, like Karikó, Weissman, Şahin, and Turëci. Only through sheer persistence did these scientists bring their dreams to life. They have been rewarded with fame and wealth and something even more valuable: the knowledge that because of their work hundreds of millions of people around the world never got sick, and millions never died before their time.

Of course, a relentless obsession with an improbable dream fails to pay off for many scientists. Their ideas, while quite brilliant, in the end are proved wrong: nature doesn’t turn out to operate the way they predicted. In the end, their beautiful theory is murdered by a brutal gang of facts.

Still other scientific dreamers ultimately prove to have been on the right track all along and would have achieved their dream — if only they had done the experiment a little differently, if only they had persisted a little longer, or if only the support for their work had not run out. As a result, neither they nor the rest of us benefitted from what would have been — until other scientists rediscovered their work years later.

Ultimately, scientific breakthroughs are possible only if a society is willing to invest in dreamers, recognizing that not all investments will lead to major breakthroughs. However, the investments that do lead to breakthroughs bring an economic return that is far greater than the investment — as well as preventing suffering and death and changing the world.

Want to participate in COVID-19 research? Download the COVID Symptom Study app to help researchers track symptoms and hot spots across the US. Click here for information.

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

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

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

Overstated study findings

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

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

Faulty logic

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

Hazy on key details

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

One story, many headlines

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

Three headlines covering this research spun the story this way:

Coming Soon: An Implanted Pacemaker That Dissolves Away After Use

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

First-ever transient pacemaker harmlessly dissolves in body

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

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

The bottom line

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

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

By 2050, 13.8 million people in the US will likely have Alzheimer’s disease, and two-thirds will be women. The economic cost is staggering, as it is estimated to rise to more than $2 trillion. Women are at the epicenter of this because the economic threat is especially dire for women, given they are an increasingly powerful element of our global economy and the vast majority of unpaid caregivers. Thus, maintaining intact memory starting early in midlife with the transition to menopause is critical not only for women themselves, but also for their families, society, and our economic health.

Preventing memory decline starts in early midlife

The decline in cognitive ability is not limited to neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but also part of healthy aging, with consequences for our quality of life. Most studies of aging and cognitive decline, particularly studies of AD, begin in people in their 70s. However, understanding factors that happen earlier in life, and how they impact age-related brain changes, is critical for developing prevention strategies for one of the major public health challenges of our time.

What happens to women’s brains through the transition into menopause?

In addition to chronological aging, women undergo reproductive aging in early midlife: menopause, during which they experience a depletion over time of ovarian hormones such as estradiol, the primary form of estrogen that works in the brain. Our research team and others have demonstrated that estradiol directly relates to changes in memory performance and reorganization of our brain circuitry that regulates memory function. Thus, women and men undergo different aging processes, especially in early midlife when reproductive aging is more critical for women than chronological aging. However, cognitive aging is rarely considered a women’s health issue. This is essential, because viewing brain aging as beginning in early midlife, and understanding the impact of menopause on the brain, will allow for development of strategies to prevent memory loss for women.

On average, women perform better than men on measures of verbal memory, beginning as early as post-puberty. However, women’s advantage for verbal memory performance is reduced with menopause. Many women report increased forgetfulness and “brain fog” during the menopausal transition. All women eventually undergo menopause, but there is a large age range for when it begins (from late 40s to early 60s), and substantial variation in women’s experience of its impact.

Over the last 15 years, an increasing number of studies are mapping out the intricate ways in which menopause affects the brain and what helps maintain intact memory. For example, menopause can affect how brain cells are generated, connect with each other, and even die, and these processes impact brain regions that are critical for memory. Menopause also lowers the level of glucose in the brain, the primary fuel used by brain cells. The brain then looks to other metabolic sources to provide the necessary fuel to function — that is, the brain adapts to a new hormonal environment in order to maintain functioning.

Further, women with other medical conditions like diabetes and hypertension are at increased risk for cognitive decline. Research into understanding this is focusing, in part, on how the brain and body share similar processes to produce energy to function (metabolism), and how blood pressure and other aspects of the vascular system function similarly in the brain and body.

Can hormone replacement treatment help?

Research shows that timing matters. Initiation of hormone replacement (HR) in perimenopause (roughly four to eight years before menopause) or early menopause may have positive effects on brain activity and memory function, although systematic HR trials have not been conducted during perimenopause. Initiation of HR in late menopause may have adverse effects on the brain, and increase risk of disorders like Alzheimer’s disease. Research is critically needed to establish the most effective timing of administration, hormonal formula, dose, route of administration (for example, orally or by skin patch), and duration.

Further, to date much of the HR research has been conducted in healthy women, and little is known about its impact in women with chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. Finally, there may be differences in responses in women who are genetically at high risk for brain disorders, like AD, that show increased benefits for using HR. Research shows us that one size does not fit all, and precision medicine is needed to identify which women may benefit the most. One example is for women with bilateral removal of the ovaries, particularly at a young age, for whom HR has been found to be very beneficial for brain function. In some women HR may not be an option, and alternative mechanisms may need to be identified, such as targeting levels of glucose and other effects associated with estradiol regulation of the brain.

What can women do to maintain brain health?

There are three major pillars for maintaining intact memory: effortful physical activity, effortful cognitive activity, and social contact. Research shows that the first two of these have direct beneficial effects on the brain, even at the level of cellular function. Social contact is another form of keeping our brains active by external stimuli, novel experiences, and perspectives outside of ourselves. Dietary habits (such as the Mediterranean diet, or intake of omega-3 fatty acids like in fish oil) have also had beneficial effects on memory function. The good news is that these are modifiable lifestyle habits, which may be particularly important for women with hypertension or diabetes who are at higher risk for cognitive decline.

Finally, adequate sleep (currently suggested as seven hours a night) is critical for brain health. Research has shown that during certain periods of sleep, learning is consolidated; that is, sleep plays a key role in storing and maintaining what we learned during the day, and even helps in clearing the brain of amyloid, one of the markers of potential AD pathology. More research is required to fully understand the beneficial impacts of these modifiable lifestyle factors. However, the time to start incorporating them into your life is now.

Editor's note: In this blog post, Dr. Sharon Levy interviews her son Isaiah Levy, a college student. We appreciate Isaiah’s insights and comments on social media's impact on teens and young adults.

It is hard to remember (or for younger people, hard to imagine) a world without social media, but indeed such a world once existed — and in fact, it is the world humans evolved in.

Humans are social animals. Friendly interactions release dopamine in our brains’ reward centers to get us to repeat the behavior. Until recently, that feedback loop suited us very well, with little opportunity to get off track. Social media changed things by providing the opportunity for nearly infinite interactions. This excess exploits our natural inclination for social contact in the same way that sweets exploit our natural drive to eat ripe fruit. Too much refined sugar can cause a cascade of medical problems; too much social media can also affect health — especially mental health.

Beyond sheer volume, social media interactions are qualitatively different from in-person meetings. For one thing, social media platforms have developed easy opportunities for viewers to react to content, resulting in objective feedback metrics for the content creator. Because the denominator is essentially infinite, no matter how many likes a post gets, the numerator may not feel like enough. Feeling insufficient, not liked enough, judged by others, or excluded from an "in group" takes a heavy toll on mental health.

For perspective from a digital native, I posed questions about social media to my son Isaiah Levy, a computer science major at New York University.

What do you see as the benefits of social media?

Theoretically, social media can connect people across the globe at scale, presenting an opportunity for users to form relationships beyond their geographic boundaries. Popular social media platforms can also provide a stage with a potential audience of one billion eyes. Social media offers tremendous potential for people who want to be noticed. However, most connections are extensions of our real-life relationships, and many users say that social media enriches friendships. For example, a Pew survey found that a majority of teenage respondents said that Instagram enhanced their connections with people they already knew (many of whom are classmates).

Why is Instagram so popular with young people?

Web developers and graphic designers created Instagram using sophisticated algorithms and attractive visual presentation, to keep users engaged and interacting with its nearly limitless content for as long as possible. According to surveys done by Facebook (owner of Instagram), youth describe Instagram as current, friendly, trendy, and creative. Many teens say that Instagram helps define who they are and makes them feel more connected to the people they know. Another significant source of Instagram's allure, particularly for younger users, are the objective feedback measures that can make users feel important or of high social status.

The flip side is that the drive for attention creates its own problems. The Pew survey linked to above found that more than one-third of teen Instagram users said they feel pressure to post content that will get a lot of likes and comments, and more than 40% feel pressure to only post content that makes them look good. According to Facebook’s own internal surveys, more than 13% of teen girls said that Instagram worsens suicidal thoughts, and 17% said their eating disorders got worse with Instagram use.

As the government considers regulating social media, what suggestions do you have in regard to protecting mental health?

Government regulations should protect our freedom of expression while mediating risks, especially to children. The government could consider regulating some of the advanced algorithms that social media corporations use to increase user time expenditure (and thus profits). For example, "infinite swiping" is a design feature that continuously pushes forward new content after a user has exhausted content from the people they follow. These tactics pose serious threats. Just like use of alcohol, nicotine, or drugs, the act of swiping triggers neurological reward. Over time, the brain learns to seek social media instead of more natural rewards, putting users at risk of dissociation with meaningful priorities. As with drug addiction, younger users are at greatest risk. Government regulation of the most sticky algorithms would help promote a healthier balance for users. Deciding which algorithms to ban and how to implement such a ban is certainly a difficult task, and the solution will not be perfect; however, given what we know of the impact of social media on children’s mental health, it should be a federal priority.

While the government grapples with regulation, parents can step in. First, set a good example by putting your own screens down when interacting with your children. Talk to your teen about the pros and cons of social media: while it can be fun, it can also become a distraction. Set limits on your child’s social media use. Most importantly, talk to your children about their experiences, including who they are interacting with and what they are talking about. We know social media can harm mental health, so be on the lookout and intervene if you have concerns.

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

What are common treatment options used for insomnia?

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

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

Integrative treatment approaches are popular

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

An integrative option for people with insomnia and a psychiatric disorder

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

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

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

What did the researchers learn?

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

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

Should you buy a weighted blanket?

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

When a child starts to stutter, it can be alarming for parents. But most of the time, it’s nothing to worry about.

Stuttering is very common. In fact, according to the National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), 5% to 10% of all children stutter at some point, usually between 2 and 6 years of age.

Stuttering takes different forms

Children who stutter know what they want to say; they simply run into trouble when saying it. There are three different kinds of stuttering:

• Repetitions, when children repeat a word or parts of a word (“Can I pet your d-d-d-d-dog?”)
• Prolongations, when they stretch a sound for a long period of time (“Sssssssssstop it!”)
• Blocks, when they have a hard time getting words out.

Stuttering is more common in boys than girls and can run in families. We do not understand exactly what causes it. Most likely, it occurs due to a combination of factors, which may differ in each child who stutters.

Developmental stuttering, the most common form of this speech disorder, happens as children are learning speech and language skills. Stuttering can be caused by a brain injury, but that’s far less common. Contrary to what many people believe, it is rare for stuttering to be caused by psychological factors.

Helping your child manage stuttering

Nonetheless, stuttering can cause distress and stress for children and parents alike. That’s why the best way to manage stuttering is not to focus on it, but rather to be patient and supportive. For example, the NIDCD suggests that parents of children who stutter should

• create relaxed environments for conversation: set aside time each day to catch up with your child
• speak in a slow and relaxed way yourself
• resist the temptation to finish your child’s words or sentences yourself; let them finish
• focus on the content of the message rather than how it is delivered.

To the extent that you can, ignore the stuttering — but if your child brings it up or seems bothered by it, be open and accepting. Acknowledge that it is happening, but tell your child that it is fine and they shouldn’t worry. Also see additional tips from the American Academy of Pediatrics on ways parents can help toddlers and preschoolers with stuttering.

When to get more help with stuttering

Most stuttering goes away by itself within about six months; overall, 75% of children who stutter stop completely. You should talk to your pediatrician or a speech-language pathologist if

• the stuttering has continued for more than 6 to 12 months
• the stuttering started after ages 3 to 4 years, as this may make it more likely to continue
• the stuttering has increased in severity or frequency
• there is a family history of stuttering that continued past early childhood
• your child is upset or frustrated by the stuttering.

Follow me on Twitter @drClaire

Last week, the FDA authorized the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine for children ages 5 to 11. After conducting their own review, the CDC now recommends this vaccine for children in this age range, who can begin receiving their first dose within the week.

While many families have been eagerly awaiting the opportunity for their children to be immunized, others are hesitant. And most parents have questions about how COVID-19 affects younger children, vaccine safety in this age range, and whether the benefits outweigh potential risks. As a pediatric infectious disease specialist, I hear certain questions crop up repeatedly. Here’s what we know so far.

How does COVID-19 affect children in this age range?

While children continue to be much less likely than adults — especially adults 65 and older — to get severely ill from COVID-19, some children do get very sick. Thousands of children 5 to 11 have been hospitalized or need ICU-level support to recover from this infection. Almost 150 children in this age range have died from COVID-19. Additionally, over 5,000 cases of a serious inflammatory condition known as MIS-C that can follow COVID-19 infection have been reported. The majority of cases of MIS-C have occurred in children in this age range.

How has the Delta strain of the virus affected children?

The Delta strain of the virus that causes COVID spreads easily, particularly among people who haven’t received the vaccine. Children ages 5 to 11 remain more susceptible to infection, given their ineligibility to be vaccinated. In fact, more than one in five new cases recorded over the past two months while Delta infections surged in the US occurred in this age group, according to weekly reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Can children spread the virus to others?

Several detailed reports describing outbreaks associated with settings such as summer camps, daycares, and schools, and those tracing transmission of COVID-19 within households, clearly demonstrate that children can spread this virus and infect others with whom they come into close contact.

Which COVID vaccines and doses are authorized for children ages 5 to 11?

Pfizer/BioNTech is the first COVID vaccine authorized by the FDA for this age group, based on results from a randomized controlled trial evaluating safety and immune responses. A separate trial launched by Moderna is being considered separately.

In a small number of children, the Pfizer/BioNTech trial compared three doses:

• 30 micrograms (the dose adults receive)
• 20 micrograms
• 10 micrograms.

This part of the trial showed that 10 micrograms, the smallest dose, resulted in fewer side effects while still generating robust immune responses similar to responses achieved with higher doses.

In the next part of the trial, more than 2,200 children ages 5 to 11 were randomly assigned to receive either a 10-microgram dose of the vaccine (two-thirds of participants) or a placebo dose (one-third of participants). All received two shots, spaced three weeks apart.

Those given the vaccine had similar immune responses as 16-to-25-year-olds who had received the full-dose series of two shots.

When Pfizer/BioNTech submitted data to the FDA, there were not many cases of symptomatic COVID-19 infections in trial participants. Out of 19 documented cases, most had received the placebo shots. Estimates suggest the efficacy rate of the vaccine is 90%. (Efficacy measures how much a vaccine reduces infection in a controlled trial.) Tests confirmed that the Delta viral strain had caused the infections.

What do we know about side effects for children this age?

Most children had no side effects other than pain at the injection site. Those who did have side effects most commonly experienced fatigue, headaches, and/or muscle aches after the second dose rather than the first dose. For example, only 6% of children had fever after the second vaccine dose. There were no cases of severe allergic reaction to the vaccine.

What is not yet known?

In very rare instances, the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is linked to myocarditis, which is an inflammation of the heart. When this occurs, it is mostly seen in young males following their second dose of an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna). Most cases are mild, and children show no signs of long-term injury to the heart.

Among the 5-to-11-year-olds who received the Pfizer vaccine during the trial, there were no cases of myocarditis. However, this side effect is very rare and might not be noted until the number of children receiving the vaccine is much higher. The FDA and Pfizer/BioNTech will continue to closely monitor this age group for any occurrence of this rare side effect.

Can children get vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza at the same time?

Yes. Children and adults can safely get both vaccines at the same time. The CDC urges everyone to get flu shots to help stay healthy during this flu season.

A randomized, controlled trial in the UK evaluated adults who received a flu shot or placebo shot in one arm and their second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in the other arm. The researchers reported in Preprints with The Lancet that side effects and immune responses were similar, whether the flu shot or a placebo shot was given at the same time as the COVID vaccine.

What other steps can parents take to protect children against COVID-19?

Parents should remember that an individual is not fully immunized and protected by the vaccine until 14 days after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Masks are recommended for anyone who is unvaccinated, or not fully immunized, when indoors with people outside of their household. If rates of COVID-19 are high where you live, masks may be recommended indoors for vaccinated individuals as well.

Parents can continue to encourage other simple habits that help prevent colds, flu, and COVID-19, such as washing hands often, coughing or sneezing into an elbow, throwing away used tissues quickly, and avoiding crowded places and people who are ill when possible.

What can you add to a wide variety of foods, from cereals to salads, that’s crunchy, filling, and flavorful — and good for your heart? The answer is nuts. While all varieties of nuts are chock full of important nutrients, walnuts may be especially good for protecting cardiovascular health, according to a recent study in the journal Circulation that supports earlier research in this realm.

What is the study?

The Walnuts and Healthy Aging study is a randomized controlled trial supported by a grant from the California Walnut Commission that tracked healthy older adults living in two communities. For the study, researchers recruited 708 adults ages 63 to 79 living in Loma Linda, California, or Barcelona, Spain, and split them into two groups. One group added a half-cup of walnuts to their daily diet for two years, while the other group ate no walnuts.

After two years, average levels of harmful low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were modestly lower in the walnut group. Of note: nearly a third of the participants were taking cholesterol-lowering statins, so the average cholesterol levels of both groups were already in a normal range. The researchers speculate that the cholesterol-lowering benefits from walnuts might be more pronounced in people with elevated cholesterol levels. There is no way to know from the current data if this is true.

"This recent trial confirms what earlier studies have found, namely, that that adding walnuts to your diet appears to improve your cholesterol levels," says Dr. Deirdre Tobias, an obesity and nutritional epidemiologist at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The new trial also lasted much longer than past walnut studies. However, it’s not clear what foods were being replaced by the walnuts in the participants’ diets, which might affect the magnitude of benefits the researchers saw. For example, replacing unhealthful, ultra-processed snacks with walnuts would presumably have a greater benefit than a lateral move from healthy options to walnuts, Dr. Tobias explains.

Lower levels of harmful blood fats, no additional weight

The researchers also analyzed the concentration and size of the LDL particles. Smaller, more dense LDL particles are more likely to trigger atherosclerosis, the buildup of fatty plaque inside arteries that’s the hallmark of most cardiovascular disease that results in heart attacks or strokes.

The walnut eaters had lower levels of these smaller particles. They also had decreased levels of intermediate-density lipoproteins (IDL), which are also linked to a rise in cardiovascular-related risks. And even though a half-cup of walnuts contains about 185 calories, the walnut eaters did not pack on any extra pounds.

Earlier research has found that people who eat nuts regularly are less likely to have heart disease, and many studies have focused specifically on walnuts. In 2018, Dr. Tobias and colleagues published a meta-analysis and systematic review of studies that examined how eating walnuts affects a person’s blood lipids and other heart-related risks. The review included 26 controlled trials involving a total of more than 1,000 people. It found that walnut-enriched diets led to lower total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, the most common form of fat in the bloodstream.

What’s special about walnuts?

Although all nuts are good sources of healthy unsaturated fats, walnuts are especially rich in alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). This is a precursor to the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA found in fatty fish that are known for their heart-protecting powers. Our bodies convert ALA to EPA and DHA, although the efficiency of this varies from person to person.

What’s more, walnuts are usually eaten raw. So they have greater antioxidant abilities than nuts that are usually eaten roasted. (Antioxidants help prevent or reduce the artery-damaging oxidation that contributes to heart disease).

Adding walnuts to your diet

If a half-cup of walnuts a day sounds like a lot, it’s good to know that eating even half that much may still be beneficial. In fact, the FDA allows a qualified health claim on some nuts (including walnuts). Foods made with them are permitted to include the following statement: "Eating a diet that includes one ounce of nuts daily can reduce your risk of heart disease." An ounce of walnuts is about a handful, or one-quarter cup.

You can sprinkle walnuts onto oatmeal or other hot or cold cereals; stir them into pancakes, muffins, or other quick breads; or toss them with vegetables or into salads. If high cholesterol is a health concern for you, there are other foods that may help lower your LDL cholesterol and boost your heart health.