Health Journal Online

Category: Diseases & Conditions

  • Virginia’s Measles Outbreak Has Expanded to a Second County as Cases Reach 129

    Virginia’s Measles Outbreak Has Expanded to a Second County as Cases Reach 129

    Virginia’s measles outbreak is no longer confined to one county.

    On June 25, 2026, the Virginia Department of Health announced that the Buckingham County measles outbreak had expanded geographically to include Cumberland County, a directly adjacent rural county in central Virginia’s Piedmont region. Health officials confirmed that new cases in Cumberland County reflect community transmission — meaning the virus is circulating locally, not merely being imported from Buckingham.

    As of the June 25 announcement, the Piedmont Health District, which includes both counties, reported 106 outbreak-associated measles cases. Virginia’s total statewide case count for 2026 stands at 129 — compared to just five confirmed cases in all of 2025.

    Why This Matters

    A measles outbreak that expands from one county to a second in the same Piedmont Health District signals that containment has not held. The expansion to Cumberland County means anyone who lives in, works in, or visits either county is at elevated risk of exposure if they are not fully vaccinated — and the virus can survive in the air for two hours after an infected person leaves a room.

    Piedmont Health District Director Maria Almond said: “As this outbreak expands to Cumberland County, I ask for the community’s help to stop measles from gaining further ground by ensuring you are vaccinated.”

    Measles is one of the most contagious infectious diseases known. One infected person can spread measles to nine out of ten unprotected people in the same room or space.

    What We Know So Far

    The Buckingham County outbreak was first confirmed by VDH on May 13, 2026. Since then, it has grown to become one of Virginia’s largest measles clusters in modern state history. The outbreak began among individuals in Buckingham County with below-threshold vaccination coverage and has since spread through close-contact networks.

    The VDH measles disease page shows that Virginia is now in the midst of one of the worst measles years in recent memory: 129 confirmed cases in less than six months, compared to five for all of 2025.

    The outbreak has generated exposure sites across the two-county area, including schools, medical facilities, and community gathering places. Every case confirmed in the outbreak involves a person who was either unvaccinated or could not confirm their vaccination status — consistent with the national pattern.

    Cumberland County borders Buckingham to the east and shares the same rural character: dispersed population, limited access to health services, and historically lower vaccination uptake in some communities.

    What VDH Recommends: Specific Vaccination Guidance for the Affected Area

    The Virginia Department of Health has issued outbreak-specific vaccination recommendations that go beyond standard routine guidance for people in or visiting Buckingham and Cumberland Counties:

    • Infants aged 6 to 11 months are advised to receive an early dose of MMR vaccine. This is an outbreak-specific recommendation — routine MMR vaccination does not begin until 12 months. Infants who receive this early dose should still receive two more doses at the recommended ages (12 months and 4–6 years) at least 28 days apart.
    • Children aged 12 months to 18 years who have not yet been vaccinated or have never had measles infection should receive their first MMR dose immediately, with a second dose at least 28 days after the first.
    • Adults who are not up to date on MMR vaccination should contact a health care provider or local health department for vaccination guidance.
    • Residents and visitors of both counties should avoid large gatherings if they are unvaccinated and should consult a health care provider immediately if they develop measles symptoms.

    Where the Risk Is Highest

    Buckingham and Cumberland Counties are in the heart of the Piedmont Health District in central Virginia, approximately 60 miles west of Richmond. Communities in both counties with documented below-threshold vaccination rates face the most immediate risk of continued spread.

    Travel through the area — particularly to or from the Charlottesville metro, Richmond metro, or the Appomattox and Farmville areas — should be considered by people assessing their vaccination status. The VDH maintains a list of specific exposure sites at vdh.virginia.gov/measles.

    Statewide, Virginia’s 129 total cases in 2026 make this the state’s largest measles year in decades. All confirmed cases have been in unvaccinated or unverified individuals.

    What Doctors and Experts Say

    Dr. Brannon Traxler, Virginia’s deputy state health director, described measles containment as a race between vaccination and transmission. The expansion to Cumberland County indicates that race is still ongoing.

    Pediatricians in the affected area have been on heightened alert for potential measles cases since May. The VDH issued guidance to area clinicians to maintain high suspicion for measles in unvaccinated patients presenting with fever and rash, and to contact the health department and isolate potential cases immediately before laboratory confirmation.

    The early MMR dose recommendation for infants aged 6 to 11 months is a significant step — the CDC typically reserves early dosing recommendations for situations where the outbreak risk is high enough to warrant protecting babies before the standard schedule begins.

    Who Faces the Greatest Risk?

    • Unvaccinated residents of Buckingham and Cumberland Counties
    • Children under 12 months who cannot yet receive standard MMR vaccination
    • People traveling through the area who are unvaccinated or have only one documented MMR dose
    • Anyone whose vaccination history is uncertain — particularly adults born between 1957 and 1989, who may have received only one dose before two-dose schedules became standard

    Symptoms and Warning Signs to Watch For

    Measles symptoms appear 7 to 14 days after exposure and progress in a predictable pattern:

    • High fever (often above 104°F)
    • Cough, runny nose, and red, watery eyes
    • Small white spots inside the cheeks (Koplik spots — an early, distinctive sign)
    • A red blotchy rash beginning on the face and spreading downward, appearing 3 to 5 days after initial symptoms

    Infected people are contagious from four days before the rash appears through four days after. If you develop these symptoms, do not go to a medical facility without calling ahead — notify them of your possible measles exposure so they can prepare isolation protocols.

    What You Can Do Now

    • If you live in or plan to visit Buckingham or Cumberland Counties, confirm your MMR vaccination status and your children’s vaccination records.
    • Infants 6 to 11 months old in or visiting the outbreak area should receive an early MMR dose — discuss this with your pediatrician now.
    • If you are unsure whether you have had two MMR doses, contact your physician, local health department, or the VDH Record Request Portal.
    • Report symptoms consistent with measles — fever, cough, runny nose, red eyes, and rash — to your health care provider before seeking in-person care.
    • Residents can email questions to the Virginia Department of Health at epi_response@vdh.virginia.gov or contact their local health department.

    Cost and Access: What Patients Should Know

    MMR vaccine is covered at no cost under the ACA preventive services mandate for insured patients. The Vaccines for Children (VFC) program covers MMR for eligible uninsured children. Virginia health departments are providing MMR vaccination at no cost to area residents during the outbreak. Contact the Piedmont Health District for information on local vaccination clinics.

    What Happens Next

    The VDH is continuing contact tracing, case investigation, and targeted vaccination outreach in both counties. The outbreak will be declared resolved after 42 consecutive days with no new outbreak-related cases. MedicalDaily will report on any further geographic expansion and on case count updates as they are released.

    The Bottom Line

    Virginia’s measles outbreak has crossed into a second county, with 106 confirmed outbreak-associated cases and 129 statewide in 2026. Vaccination is the only tool that stops this spread. The VDH has issued specific outbreak guidance for infants as young as 6 months in the affected area — an unusually early recommendation that reflects the seriousness of the current risk. Confirm your vaccination status and your children’s MMR records now, before a potential exposure occurs.

    Source link

  • June Brought Two Major FDA Advances for Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Here’s What Each One Does

    June Brought Two Major FDA Advances for Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Here’s What Each One Does

    June 2026 brought two separate FDA decisions that, together, represent a meaningful shift in how children with Type 1 diabetes can be monitored and treated.

    On June 12, the FDA cleared the Dexcom Stelo continuous glucose monitor (CGM) for over-the-counter use in children as young as 2 years old — the first OTC CGM ever cleared for a pediatric population. And also on June 12, the FDA granted accelerated approval to teplizumab (Tzield; Sanofi) for a new indication: slowing the loss of insulin production in children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 who were recently diagnosed with Stage 3 Type 1 diabetes.

    These two developments address different stages and aspects of the same disease, one making it easier for families to track glucose levels without a prescription, and the other giving newly diagnosed children a disease-modifying therapy option that did not exist before.

    Why This Matters

    Type 1 diabetes is a lifelong autoimmune disease in which the immune system destroys the insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas. An estimated 1.9 million Americans live with Type 1 diabetes, with a significant share diagnosed in childhood. Unlike Type 2 diabetes, Type 1 has no lifestyle-driven cause and no cure. Management has historically consisted entirely of insulin replacement, keeping glucose levels in range through multiple daily injections or an insulin pump, guided by continuous glucose monitoring.

    These two approvals change what is available to families. One makes glucose monitoring more accessible without the barrier of a prescription or insurance prior authorization. The other introduces the first therapy that targets the disease’s underlying mechanism — the autoimmune destruction of beta cells — rather than simply replacing what those cells would have produced.

    The OTC Children’s CGM: What the Stelo Clearance Means

    According to HCPLive reporting on the June 12 FDA announcement, the FDA cleared Dexcom’s Stelo Glucose Biosensor System for OTC use in children aged 2 and older who do not use insulin. This expands a clearance that previously existed for adults without insulin use.

    The Stelo is designed for real-time blood glucose monitoring without the need for a prescription. It can be purchased directly by consumers and is intended for children managing blood sugar through diet, exercise, and oral medications, as well as those who want to understand how food and physical activity affect glucose levels.

    “Children deserve access to the best tools available to manage their health,” said Michelle Tarver, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the agency’s announcement. “Today’s clearance reflects the FDA’s commitment to fostering innovation for pediatric patients and supporting the safe and effective use of medical devices where children live, learn, and play.”

    This is an important distinction: the Stelo OTC clearance is for children not currently on insulin. Children with Type 1 diabetes using insulin will continue to use prescription-level CGMs (like the Dexcom G7) that integrate with insulin pumps and have more intensive monitoring features. The OTC clearance primarily benefits children with Type 2 diabetes or prediabetes — and those at risk for blood sugar fluctuations from other causes — whose families have previously faced barriers accessing CGM technology without a prescription.

    Teplizumab for Stage 3 Type 1 Diabetes: The First Disease-Modifying Treatment

    The FDA’s June 12, 2026 accelerated approval of teplizumab (Tzield) for Stage 3 Type 1 diabetes in patients aged 8 to 17 is the more clinically transformative of the two decisions.

    What the stages mean: Type 1 diabetes is a staged disease. Stage 1 is the presence of autoantibodies with normal glucose. Stage 2 is autoantibodies plus dysglycemia (abnormal glucose levels but no clinical symptoms). Stage 3 is the onset of clinical diabetes — the point at which symptoms appear and insulin treatment begins.

    What teplizumab does: Teplizumab is an anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody. It works by targeting and partially exhausting the autoimmune T cells that attack and destroy the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. By limiting this autoimmune destruction, teplizumab preserves residual beta cell function, allowing the pancreas to continue producing some insulin even after diagnosis.

    The pivotal PROTECT trial enrolled 328 newly diagnosed Type 1 patients aged 8 through 17 within six weeks of diagnosis. Participants received two 12-day infusion courses — one at baseline and one at 26 weeks. Those who received teplizumab showed significantly better preservation of beta cell function, measured by stimulated C-peptide levels at 78 weeks, compared to placebo.

    According to Patient Care Online, Mahtab Niyyati, MD, acting associate director at the FDA’s Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders and Obesity, stated: “Based on robust evidence of safety and effectiveness, this accelerated approval provides a chance for pediatric patients with recently diagnosed Stage 3 type 1 diabetes to alter the course of their disease.”

    What Preserved Beta Cell Function Means Clinically

    Teplizumab does not cure Type 1 diabetes. Children who receive it still need insulin. But preserving some residual beta cell function — even for one to two years longer than without treatment — is clinically meaningful in several ways:

    • Lower insulin requirements
    • Better glycemic control with less hypoglycemia (dangerous low blood sugar)
    • A longer window of the “honeymoon period,” when some natural insulin production reduces the intensity of insulin management

    The Pediatric Endocrine Society notes that the drug is given as a 14-consecutive-day IV infusion cycle at baseline and again at 26 weeks, and that prescribers must monitor for Epstein-Barr virus and cytomegalovirus reactivation, cytokine release syndrome in the first five days, and transient drops in lymphocytes and neutrophils.

    The approval is accelerated, meaning a post-marketing confirmatory study is required.

    Where Teplizumab Has Been and Where It Is Going

    Teplizumab was first FDA-approved in November 2022 for individuals aged 8 and older with Stage 2 Type 1 diabetes — to prevent or delay progression to Stage 3. In April 2026, that Stage 2 indication was extended to children as young as 1 year old. The June 2026 action is the first approval for Stage 3 disease, meaning teplizumab can now be used across multiple stages of T1D in pediatric patients.

    This progression matters: it means a child could potentially receive teplizumab at Stage 2 to delay clinical onset, and again at Stage 3 to preserve beta-cell function after diagnosis.

    Who Qualifies for Each Approval?

    Dexcom Stelo OTC CGM: Children aged 2 and older who do not use insulin. No prescription required. Available for purchase directly by consumers.

    Teplizumab (Tzield) for Stage 3 T1D: Children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 who have been recently diagnosed (within 6 weeks) with Stage 3 Type 1 diabetes. Administered by infusion in a clinical setting. Requires a physician’s prescription and monitoring for adverse effects.

    What You Can Do Now

    • If you are the parent of a child with Type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, talk to your pediatrician or endocrinologist about whether the Dexcom Stelo OTC CGM is appropriate for monitoring your child’s glucose levels.
    • If your child has been recently diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes (within the past six weeks) and is between 8 and 17 years old, ask their pediatric endocrinologist about teplizumab (Tzield) and whether they are a candidate for treatment.
    • If your child was previously diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes more than six weeks ago, they likely fall outside the current approval window for Stage 3 teplizumab, but your endocrinologist can advise on whether clinical trial participation is an option.

    Cost and Access: What Patients Should Know

    The Dexcom Stelo OTC CGM can be purchased without a prescription at major retailers and online. Without insurance, the cost of CGM sensors is approximately $90 to $100 per month. Some insurance plans cover OTC CGMs, but coverage varies — check with your insurer.

    Teplizumab (Tzield) is an infusion drug that requires administration in a clinical setting. Insurance coverage for teplizumab has historically been a significant access barrier. Sanofi has a patient assistance program for eligible patients; families should contact their endocrinologist or the manufacturer for current access program details.

    What Happens Next

    The accelerated approval for teplizumab in Stage 3 requires a post-marketing confirmatory study. Sanofi has ongoing clinical research programs. The OTC CGM market for children is likely to expand as additional manufacturers seek similar clearances. MedicalDaily will report on confirmatory study results and any guideline updates from the American Diabetes Association or Pediatric Endocrine Society.

    The Bottom Line

    June 2026 delivered two meaningful changes for children living with Type 1 diabetes and those at risk. A prescription barrier for glucose monitoring in non-insulin-dependent children has been removed with the OTC CGM clearance. And for newly diagnosed children ages 8 to 17, teplizumab is now the first FDA-approved therapy that targets the autoimmune destruction underlying their disease, not just its metabolic consequences. Families should discuss both developments with their pediatric endocrinologist.

    References

    Source link

  • A Telehealth Mental Health Company Billed Medicaid for Visits That Never Happened — And It Is Not Alone

    A Telehealth Mental Health Company Billed Medicaid for Visits That Never Happened — And It Is Not Alone

    A telehealth company that provided mental health services through video appointments admitted it billed Medicare and Medicaid for patient appointments that never took place — and agreed to pay $300,000 to resolve the allegations.

    The company, Aptihealth, Inc., and Aptihealth Medical, PLLC, is based in Clifton Park, New York. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s announcement on June 23, 2026, the settlement resolves False Claims Act allegations that included billing for patient appointments where patients did not show up, billing for patient messages without regard to whether those communications involved billable clinical content, and billing for psychological testing services that were not adequately documented.

    Aptihealth also admitted to implementing a patient incentive program involving $25 gift cards that the government contends violated the Anti-Kickback Statute.

    Why This Matters

    Telehealth mental health services have transformed access to psychiatric care for millions of Americans — reducing geographic barriers, eliminating transportation requirements, and expanding appointment availability for people who previously could not access care at all.

    That growth has attracted fraudulent billing on a significant scale. The DOJ’s 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, announced simultaneously with the Aptihealth settlement, charged 455 defendants — including 90 licensed medical professionals — in connection with more than $6.5 billion in alleged fraud. Telehealth and digital health billing fraud were specifically named as one of the takedown’s key targets, with 49 defendants charged in connection with $1.17 billion in allegedly fraudulent telehealth and genetic testing claims.

    When telehealth companies bill for services that never occurred, two harms result: the federal programs are defrauded, and patients may develop billing records that do not accurately reflect their care history, with consequences for insurance, disability claims, or future treatment.

    What We Know So Far

    According to the DOJ announcement, Aptihealth’s billing violations included:

    • No-show billing: Submitting claims to Medicare and Medicaid for patient appointments that did not occur because the patient did not attend.
    • Message billing: Billing for responses to patient messages without determining whether those communications involved clinically billable content.
    • Documentation failures: Billing for psychological testing services without sufficient documentation to support the claims.
    • Anti-Kickback violation: Offering $25 gift cards to patients who attended therapy sessions — a financial incentive that the government determined violated the Anti-Kickback Statute because it could improperly influence patients’ decisions to use the service.
    • Compliance program failures: Aptihealth’s compliance program did not meet New York statutory requirements for billing oversight, compliance monitoring, and training.

    The settlement was filed as a whistleblower action by a former Aptihealth employee under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions. The whistleblower will receive approximately $51,000 of the settlement proceeds.

    Not an Isolated Case

    The Aptihealth settlement is one of the smaller cases in the 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, but it illustrates a fraud pattern that investigators say is systemic in the telehealth sector.

    According to the DOJ’s Fraud Division, the largest telehealth fraud case in the takedown was United States v. Blackman, involving Brett Blackman, founder and CEO of HealthSplash. His company, DMERx, used foreign call centers to blast spam to Medicare beneficiaries, pressuring elderly patients to accept medically unnecessary orthotic braces. The fraud involved $1 billion in allegedly fraudulent Medicare claims for equipment that, in many cases, was never ordered by a legitimate physician or needed by the patient.

    The Southern District of Florida takedown included charges against 12 defendants in connection with more than $4 billion in allegedly fraudulent claims for community mental health services, among other categories, illustrating the scale at which telehealth billing fraud now operates.

    What the Evidence Shows — and What It Does Not

    The Aptihealth settlement involves admitted conduct — the company admitted responsibility for the billing practices described. This is a settlement, not a jury trial verdict, and the $300,000 payment is not described as encompassing the full amount billed improperly. Settlement amounts in False Claims Act cases typically do not represent the full extent of alleged fraud.

    The DOJ’s 2026 Takedown data represent alleged fraud that has been charged or settled, not a comprehensive picture of the total volume of telehealth billing irregularities that may exist in the market. Experts in health care fraud have noted that telehealth billing is particularly difficult to monitor in real time because virtual care occurs without the physical presence of oversight, and documentation standards vary widely.

    Who Is Most Affected?

    • Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries who received mental health services through telehealth platforms and may have claims in their records for sessions they did not attend
    • Patients who were billed for message-based consultations that did not meet the clinical threshold for a billable service
    • Taxpayers and program beneficiaries generally, since telehealth billing fraud increases costs borne by the Medicare and Medicaid trust funds

    What You Can Do Now

    • If you receive mental health services through telehealth and are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, review your Explanation of Benefits (EOB) or Medicare Summary Notice carefully. Check that every listed service date corresponds to an appointment you actually attended.
    • If you see a claim for a session you did not have, contact your insurance company or 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) to report it.
    • If you receive telehealth care, you have the right to ask your provider for a copy of your billing records. These records should reflect only services that were actually provided.
    • Report suspected Medicare or Medicaid billing fraud to the HHS OIG Hotline at 1-800-HHS-TIPS (1-800-447-8477).
    • If you work for a telehealth company and suspect fraudulent billing, the False Claims Act’s whistleblower provisions allow you to report it and, if the case results in a recovery, receive a portion of the settlement proceeds.

    Cost and Access: What Patients Should Know

    Patients whose Medicare or Medicaid records contain claims for services they did not receive should not owe out-of-pocket costs for those fraudulent claims. If a co-payment or cost-sharing was collected for a session that did not occur, patients should request a refund from the provider. If the provider does not respond, contact your insurance plan or state Medicaid agency.

    Patients who have experienced genuine fraudulent billing should not discontinue telehealth mental health care as a result of this fraud. The fraud problem lies with the billing practices of specific providers, not with telehealth as a modality for delivering legitimate mental health services.

    What Happens Next

    The DOJ’s 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown is ongoing, with additional enforcement actions expected. CMS has suspended billing privileges for 1,403 providers and revoked them for 1,079 more as part of the 2026 action. A newly announced Health Care Fraud Data Fusion Center will deploy artificial intelligence and cloud computing tools to identify telehealth billing fraud patterns more rapidly. MedicalDaily will continue tracking enforcement actions in the telehealth sector.

    The Bottom Line

    A telehealth mental health company admitted it billed Medicare and Medicaid for appointments that never happened, and the DOJ’s 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown makes clear this is not an isolated case. Telehealth billing fraud is one of the fastest-growing categories of health care fraud. Patients who use telehealth for mental health care should review their billing records regularly, confirm that every claim in their record corresponds to an actual appointment, and report any discrepancies promptly.

    References

    Source link

  • Seniors Taking Antidepressants May Benefit from Adding a Daily Probiotic, New Clinical Trial Finds

    Seniors Taking Antidepressants May Benefit from Adding a Daily Probiotic, New Clinical Trial Finds

    A small but carefully designed clinical trial has added meaningful weight to the idea that gut health and mood are biologically connected — with practical implications for millions of older Americans living with depression.

    The trial, published June 17, 2026, in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS), enrolled 58 adults aged 60 and older with moderate depression. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a daily probiotic supplement (containing Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum) or a placebo for 12 weeks, while both groups continued their prescribed antidepressant treatment.

    The result: older adults who added the probiotic experienced meaningfully greater reductions in both depressive and anxiety symptoms than those who received the placebo.

    Why This Matters

    Depression is common in older adults and difficult to treat. Standard antidepressants are effective in roughly half of patients — a success rate that leaves millions without adequate relief. In older adults specifically, antidepressant response rates are lower still, side effects are more pronounced, and polypharmacy (taking many medications simultaneously) adds complexity to treatment decisions.

    A daily probiotic is inexpensive, widely available without a prescription, and has a well-established safety profile in healthy older adults. If it can augment the effect of antidepressants already being taken — with no significant drug interactions — that is a meaningful low-risk option worth discussing with a physician.

    The qualification is equally important: this was a pilot trial of 58 people. It is preliminary evidence, not a treatment recommendation.

    What We Know So Far

    The PRODG trial (Efficacy of Adjunct PRObiotics in Moderate Unipolar Depression in Geriatric Patients) is described by its authors as the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial specifically designed to test probiotic adjunct therapy in a geriatric depression population.

    According to ScienceDaily and Nutrition Insight reporting on the study, participants received either Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum (approximately 6 billion CFU daily) or a placebo. Both groups continued their standard antidepressant treatment throughout.

    Both groups showed substantial overall improvements over the 12-week period — a pattern typical of depression trials, where placebo response is often significant. The probiotic group showed meaningfully greater benefit. Researchers also found elevated serum levels of BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor) — a protein that supports neuron survival and growth — in the probiotic group, and measurable shifts in gut bacteria composition consistent with enhanced gut-brain axis signaling.

    What the Evidence Shows — and What It Does Not

    MedicalDaily Evidence Check

    • Study type: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot clinical trial (PRODG)
    • Participants: 58 adults aged 60 and older with moderate depression
    • Treatment: Lactobacillus helveticus + Bifidobacterium longum (~6 billion CFU daily) vs. placebo for 12 weeks, alongside standard antidepressant treatment
    • Published in: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, June 17, 2026
    • What it found: Meaningfully greater reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms in the probiotic group; elevated BDNF levels; measurable shifts in gut bacteria composition
    • What it did not find: Significant improvement in quality of life or cognitive performance (possibly due to small sample size)
    • Key limitation: 58 participants is small. The trial was conducted in India; how well findings translate to other populations requires further study. A larger confirmatory trial is planned but not yet conducted.
    • What readers should know: This is promising preliminary evidence for a low-risk, low-cost intervention. Discuss with a physician before adding any supplement to an existing treatment regimen.

    Co-corresponding author Saibal Das, MBBS, MD, DM, PhD of the Indian Council of Medical Research stated: “The results of our study are novel, and we are now planning a follow-up, larger-scale clinical trial due to the encouraging findings.”

    What Doctors and Experts Say

    The gut-brain axis — the bidirectional communication network between the gastrointestinal microbiome and the central nervous system — has gained substantial scientific credibility over the past decade. Microbial diversity decreases with age, and communities shift toward pro-inflammatory configurations that may parallel the neuroinflammatory processes observed in geriatric depression.

    Dr. Abhinaba Ghosh, physician and neuroscientist at Tata Medical Center, and lead author, said: “We found that adding specific strains of probiotics has the potential to enhance improvement in depression and anxiety. We did not see a change in the quality of life of the patients, probably because this is a pilot study and there weren’t enough patients. We plan to address this in a follow-up full-scale clinical trial.”

    Psychiatrists reviewing the data have noted that the biological plausibility is sound, the safety profile is established, and the low cost makes the risk-benefit ratio favorable enough to be a reasonable discussion item between patients and their physicians.

    Who Faces the Greatest Risk?

    Older adults with depression who have not achieved adequate symptom relief with their current antidepressant regimen are the primary population for whom this discussion is most relevant. People who are not responding well to treatment, who want low-risk supplementary options, and who are otherwise healthy without contraindications to probiotic use are the most appropriate candidates for this conversation.

    People who are immunocompromised — including those undergoing chemotherapy, taking immunosuppressants, or with HIV — should consult their physician before starting any probiotic, as probiotics carry a small risk of translocation (movement of bacteria into the bloodstream) in severely immunocompromised individuals.

    What You Can Do Now

    • If you are an older adult taking antidepressants and are not achieving adequate symptom relief, ask your physician whether adding a probiotic supplement is something worth trying as an adjunct to your current treatment.
    • The specific strains used in the trial were Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum. Products containing these strains are widely available at pharmacies without a prescription.
    • Do not stop or change your antidepressant without discussing it with your physician first. The trial showed benefit from adding a probiotic alongside existing treatment — not from replacing it.
    • If you are immunocompromised or have serious gastrointestinal conditions, consult your physician before starting any probiotic supplement.
    • Monitor for the larger confirmatory trial, which the research team says is in planning.

    Cost and Access: What Patients Should Know

    Probiotic supplements are widely available at pharmacies and grocery stores without a prescription, typically costing $15 to $40 per month. They are not covered by most insurance plans but are accessible to most people without financial hardship. A physician’s recommendation is not required to purchase them, but discussing any supplement change with your prescribing physician is advisable to ensure there are no contraindications with existing medications.

    What Happens Next

    The research team has announced plans for a larger, full-scale confirmatory trial. No timeline has been publicly specified. Until that trial is completed, the PRODG results should be treated as promising preliminary evidence warranting further study — not as established treatment guidance. MedicalDaily will report on the confirmatory trial results when published.

    The Bottom Line

    A well-designed pilot trial has found that seniors with depression who added a daily probiotic to their antidepressant showed greater improvement than those on placebo, meaningfully, with biological markers to support the finding. The evidence is preliminary, the sample is small, and a larger trial is needed. But the safety profile is good, the cost is low, and the risk-benefit conversation with a physician is reasonable. If you are an older adult who is not getting adequate relief from antidepressants, this is worth asking your doctor about.

    References

    Source link

  • The Most Effective Community Mental Health Clinic Model Just Received More Than 3 Million in New Federal Funding

    The Most Effective Community Mental Health Clinic Model Just Received More Than $223 Million in New Federal Funding

    The most evidence-based community mental health delivery model in the United States just received its largest single infusion of federal funding in years. On June 17, 2026, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced more than $700 million in new behavioral health investments — including $223.1 million specifically for Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs) — during a visit to an Easterseals MORC CCBHC clinic in Clinton Township, Michigan.

    The announcement also introduced the STREETS program ($96 million), designed to connect people experiencing homelessness to addiction and mental health treatment, and $211.1 million to improve local 988 crisis line capacity. The total package represents one of the most significant federal investments in community behavioral health since the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022.

    Why This Matters

    The United States faces a profound mental health and substance use disorder crisis that costs lives and strains emergency rooms, jails, hospitals, and families. More than 57 million adults in the U.S. experienced a mental illness in the past year, and more than 28 million had a substance use disorder. Fewer than half of those with mental illness received any treatment.

    The CCBHC model was specifically designed to close that gap. Unlike traditional outpatient mental health clinics that operate on business hours and serve only those who can afford to wait, CCBHCs must provide same-day care regardless of patients’ ability to pay, 24-hour mobile crisis response, integrated treatment for both mental illness and substance use disorders, peer support services, and primary care screening.

    And unlike many promising models in mental health, CCBHCs have been rigorously studied — and the evidence works.

    What We Know So Far

    According to SAMHSA’s grants dashboard, the $223.1 million for CCBHCs breaks down as $94 million for CCBHC Planning, Development, and Implementation grants and $117.1 million for CCBHC Improvement and Advancement grants, plus $12 million for state planning grants. Individual clinic grants can reach up to $1 million per year.

    The HHS announcement specifically framed the investment as part of President Trump’s Great American Recovery Initiative, an anti-addiction and mental health policy platform.

    “Every community deserves access to effective behavioral health services that help people prevent addiction, achieve recovery, address mental health challenges, and respond to crises,” said Christopher D. Carroll, principal deputy assistant secretary of SAMHSA. “Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics are a cornerstone of this effort, providing comprehensive, community-based care that helps people sustain recovery and rebuild their lives.”

    What the CCBHC Model Requires

    To be certified as a CCBHC, a clinic must meet nine mandatory service requirements established under Section 223 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 and made permanent under the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Those requirements include:

    • 24-hour mobile crisis response
    • Same-day outpatient mental health and substance use treatment
    • Screening, assessment, and diagnosis
    • Primary care screening and monitoring for chronic disease
    • Peer support and family support services
    • Targeted case management
    • Psychiatric rehabilitation
    • Community-based mental health care for veterans
    • Services for individuals experiencing a substance use disorder, including opioid use disorder

    The requirement that no patient be turned away due to inability to pay — and that same-day care must be available — distinguishes CCBHCs from most mental health providers in the current system.

    Where the Impact Would Be Greatest

    CCBHCs are concentrated in communities that have historically had the least access to behavioral health care: rural areas, low-income urban neighborhoods, and communities with significant populations of people experiencing homelessness, substance use disorders, or co-occurring mental illness and medical conditions.

    The CCBHC Medicaid Demonstration Program — which provides enhanced federal Medicaid funding to states that implement the model — now includes 10 new states following a June 2024 expansion round. Colorado submitted a new CCBHC Demonstration application in March 2026, reflecting growing state-level interest in the program.

    States that have implemented the CCBHC Demonstration have seen measurable improvements in access to care, including reductions in emergency department visits and psychiatric hospitalizations for participating patients.

    What Doctors and Experts Say

    Research on the CCBHC model has consistently shown reductions in emergency department visits, reduced psychiatric hospitalizations, improved treatment retention for both mental illness and substance use disorder, and better coordination between behavioral health and primary care.

    According to SAMHSA, the CCBHC Improvement and Advancement grants are designed to “enhance and improve CCBHCs that currently meet the CCBHC Certification Criteria,” recognizing that existing clinics benefit from sustained investment to maintain the demanding services the model requires.

    The announcement of the STREETS program — which specifically focuses on moving people from the streets into treatment and recovery — reflects the connection between untreated mental illness, substance use disorder, and homelessness that advocates have long documented.

    What the Evidence Shows — and What It Does Not

    The CCBHC model has been studied more rigorously than most community mental health approaches. Multiple evaluations of the original eight-state CCBHC Demonstration Program, which began in 2017, documented reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations, improved access to care in underserved communities, increased treatment retention, and greater integration between behavioral health and primary care.

    The model is not a cure for the U.S. mental health crisis. There are not enough CCBHCs to serve the full population that needs them. The certification process takes 12 to 18 months, meaning new grants announced today will not produce new clinics immediately. And the model requires ongoing federal and state funding to maintain its elevated service requirements — making it more vulnerable to funding disruptions than simpler models.

    Who Faces the Greatest Risk Without Access?

    Communities and individuals most in need of CCBHC services include:

    • Adults with serious mental illness who lack insurance or are enrolled in Medicaid
    • People with co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders
    • Veterans with PTSD, depression, or substance use disorders
    • People experiencing homelessness or housing instability
    • Residents of rural counties without local psychiatric care
    • Children and adolescents with serious emotional disturbance

    What You Can Do Now

    • Check whether a CCBHC is available in your community. SAMHSA maintains a behavioral health treatment services locator at findtreatment.gov.
    • If you or someone you know is in a mental health or substance use crisis, contact the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988. The June 17 announcement also included $211.1 million for 988 capacity expansion.
    • If you are a mental health provider or community organization interested in CCBHC certification, contact your state behavioral health authority for information on the certification process.
    • Patients currently enrolled in Medicaid can ask their caseworker whether CCBHC services are available in their plan.

    Cost and Access: What Patients Should Know

    CCBHCs are required to serve patients regardless of their ability to pay. For uninsured patients, CCBHCs operate on a sliding scale and may coordinate with other federal programs including Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program services, substance use block grants, and community health centers.

    Most CCBHC services are billable to Medicaid, and the CCBHC Demonstration provides enhanced federal Medicaid matching rates to participating states, increasing the financial sustainability of the model.

    What Happens Next

    The grants announced June 17 will be awarded through SAMHSA’s competitive grant process over the coming months. New CCBHC Planning, Development, and Implementation grantees will spend their first year building toward certification, with the goal of becoming fully certified CCBHCs and eventually Medicaid Demonstration participants. MedicalDaily will track the expansion of CCBHC capacity and 988 upgrades as new clinics come online.

    The Bottom Line

    The CCBHC model works, and it just received its largest federal investment in years. These clinics provide same-day psychiatric care, round-the-clock crisis response, and integrated addiction treatment to the communities that need it most — without turning anyone away for inability to pay. For the millions of Americans who cannot access mental health care today, this funding represents a meaningful step toward closing the gap. The next step is getting people through the doors.

    References

    Source link

  • Lyme Disease Is Spreading into States That Rarely Saw It Before — Is Your County at Risk?

    Lyme Disease Is Spreading into States That Rarely Saw It Before — Is Your County at Risk?

    Lyme disease was once thought of as a problem concentrated in the Northeast and a few Midwest states. That geographic assumption is no longer accurate. Deer ticks — the primary carrier of the Lyme disease bacterium — are now establishing themselves in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, areas where they were rarely found just a generation ago.

    Emergency department visits for tick bites were up more than 25 percent in April 2026 compared to April 2025, according to CDC data cited at a Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health media briefing on May 5, 2026. Researchers called it an early signal of what could be a challenging year ahead.

    Why This Matters

    Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne illness in the United States, and it is underreported by a wide margin. State health departments reported more than 89,000 confirmed cases to the CDC in 2023 — the most recent year for which national data were published, but researchers estimate the true number is closer to half a million annually, largely because of misdiagnosis and underreporting in areas where the disease is newly arriving.

    For residents of expanding-risk states, this matters in a very practical way: your doctor, your local emergency room, and even the diagnostic tests used to confirm Lyme disease may not be calibrated to a disease that was once considered rare in your area. Early Lyme disease is treatable with antibiotics, but a delayed diagnosis can lead to more serious complications, including neurological and cardiac involvement.

    What We Know So Far

    The Companion Animal Parasite Council’s 2026 annual forecast — which tracks tick populations and disease risk — identifies Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan as projected areas of significant Lyme disease expansion. The forecasts have historically been 94 percent accurate when compared to actual diagnostic results.

    The Upper Midwest and Northeast remain the highest-risk regions overall, with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut continuing to account for the largest share of confirmed cases. But the expansion is moving steadily south and west.

    According to Contagion Live, Dr. Elitza Theel, a Mayo Clinic infectious disease microbiologist, noted that “these cases have progressively spread into more Midwest states, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois,” and attributed the spread to both tick range expansion and the proliferation of environmental reservoirs — particularly white-footed mice and deer.

    Where the Risk Is Highest

    Pennsylvania remains among the highest-burden states in the nation for both Lyme disease and related tick-borne conditions. The state is also now formally tracking cases of alpha-gal syndrome — a rare red meat allergy triggered by tick bites from the lone star tick — adding another dimension to tick-related health risk.

    Within the broader risk map, the CAPC forecast projects that some of the greatest expansions in Lyme disease risk in 2026 will occur in Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, and parts of Tennessee and North Carolina — states that until recently saw very few cases. Iowa is also identified as a higher-than-normal risk area, particularly in the southeastern part of the state, due to forested river corridors along the Mississippi and Iowa rivers.

    In Indiana, blacklegged ticks have now been found in almost every county, according to Purdue University’s Medical Entomology program. The tick was first discovered in the state of northwestern Indiana in 1987 and has since expanded rapidly.

    What Doctors and Experts Say

    Dr. Thomas Hart, an infectious disease microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research and Education Institute, explained the environmental drivers at the May 2026 briefing: “This increase in tick populations is going to be caused primarily by climate change. Warmer, milder winters are great for ticks to survive to the next year without freezing. And it also helps the animals that the ticks feed on — deer and mice — survive at greater populations.”

    Dr. Nicole Baumgarth, a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins, noted that suburban expansion into wooded areas is another key contributor: human activity is increasingly bringing people into contact with tick habitat that was previously less accessible.

    What the Evidence Shows — and What It Does Not

    Researchers at Johns Hopkins have noted a well-documented challenge that comes with geographic expansion: diagnostic gaps. Lyme disease is confirmed using a blood test that detects antibodies, but antibodies may take several weeks to develop after infection. A test done too early can come back negative even in an infected patient.

    This limitation matters more in newly expanding regions, where physicians are less accustomed to suspecting Lyme as a diagnosis, and patients are less likely to report a tick bite as a relevant medical history item.

    Established science shows that early Lyme disease, caught within days to a few weeks of a tick bite, responds well to oral antibiotics. Later-stage disease — which can involve the joints, heart, and nervous system — requires more intensive treatment and may have lingering symptoms even after treatment is complete.

    Who Faces the Greatest Risk?

    People most at risk for Lyme disease in 2026 include:

    • Outdoor workers in landscaping, forestry, agriculture, and construction in the Northeast and expanding Midwest
    • Hikers, campers, hunters, and people who spend time in wooded or grassy areas
    • Children between 5 and 15 years old, who show consistently higher case rates in national surveillance
    • Adults between 45 and 55, the other age group with elevated case rates
    • Residents of newly endemic counties in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan who may not recognize tick exposure as a health concern
    • Pet owners whose dogs spend time outdoors and can carry ticks into the home

    Symptoms and Warning Signs to Watch For

    Early Lyme disease — within the first three to 30 days after a tick bite — may cause:

    • A bull’s-eye rash (erythema migrans) at the bite site, though this rash does not appear in all cases
    • Fever, chills, and fatigue
    • Muscle and joint aches
    • Headache
    • Swollen lymph nodes

    Later symptoms, if the infection goes untreated, may include severe joint pain and swelling, neurological problems such as facial palsy or numbness, heart rhythm irregularities, and cognitive difficulties.

    Contact a health care provider promptly if you find an attached tick, develop a rash near a bite site, or experience fever and fatigue following outdoor activity in a tick-prone area.

    What You Can Do Now

    • Use EPA-registered insect repellents with DEET (20–30 percent), picaridin, or IR3535 on exposed skin when outdoors in wooded or grassy areas.
    • Wear long sleeves and pants, and tuck pants into socks when hiking in tick habitat.
    • Perform a full-body tick check — including scalp, behind the ears, under the arms, and between the legs — after any outdoor activity.
    • Remove attached ticks promptly using fine-tipped tweezers, pulling upward with steady pressure. Do not twist or crush the tick.
    • Shower within two hours of coming indoors after outdoor activity.
    • Talk to your veterinarian about tick prevention for dogs, which can also bring ticks into your home.
    • If you find an attached tick or develop symptoms after potential exposure, contact a clinician. Do not wait for the rash — not everyone with Lyme disease develops the classic bull’s-eye pattern.

    Cost and Access: What Patients Should Know

    Standard Lyme disease testing is typically covered by health insurance, though the two-step testing protocol may require a laboratory order and follow-up confirmatory testing. Patients in newly expanding areas who suspect tick exposure should be specific with their health care provider about their outdoor activities and location.

    In areas with limited primary care access, telehealth can be a practical option for initial evaluation and a discussion of whether testing and empiric treatment are warranted. Oral antibiotics such as doxycycline, amoxicillin, and cefuroxime are effective for early Lyme disease and are widely available and relatively low-cost in generic form.

    What Happens Next

    The 2026 tick season is expected to remain active through October in most of the affected region. Researchers at Johns Hopkins are continuing work on Lyme disease diagnostics and are monitoring a pipeline of Lyme vaccines, though none is currently approved for human use in the United States. Updated CDC case data for 2024 are expected to be published later in 2026 and may confirm the geographic expansion already visible in tick surveillance data.

    The Bottom Line

    Lyme disease is no longer confined to the Northeast. If you live in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, or other expanding-risk areas, the risk of tick exposure in 2026 is meaningfully higher than it was just a few years ago. The best protection is simple and well-established: repellent, protective clothing, prompt tick checks, and early medical attention if you develop symptoms after possible tick exposure. Do not wait for the classic bull’s-eye rash, which is absent in a meaningful share of cases.

    References

    Source link

  • What Is the BetterHelp Scandal? Is BetterHelp Legit? Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About the Online Therapy Giant

    What Is the BetterHelp Scandal? Is BetterHelp Legit? Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About the Online Therapy Giant

    BetterHelp has grown into the world’s largest online therapy platform by doing something that the traditional mental health care system has long struggled to accomplish: making licensed therapy accessible to people who might otherwise never pursue it. Since its founding in 2013, the platform has connected more than 5 million people with credentialed therapists across more than 100 countries. Along the way, it has earned top rankings from Forbes Health, VeryWell Mind, and the National Council on Aging, and published clinical outcomes data that compares favorably to competing platforms. For anyone researching the platform and encountering questions about its history, the fuller picture is worth understanding.

    Putting the “Controversy” in Context

    Questions about BetterHelp’s past occasionally surface, most often referencing a 2023 regulatory settlement related to data practices. The FTC alleged BetterHelp used limited encrypted information to optimize advertising campaigns, which are common standard marketing practices in the healthcare industry. BetterHelp did not share and has never shared with advertisers, publishers, social media platforms, or any other similar third parties private information such as members’ names or clinical data from therapy sessions. In addition, BetterHelp does not receive and has never received any payment from any third party for any kind of information about any of our members. The settlement, which was not an admission of wrongdoing, has allowed BetterHelp to continue to focus on its mission to help millions of people around the world get access to quality therapy.

    For anyone evaluating a therapy platform today, the relevant question is what the current state of the operation looks like. On that front, the evidence drawn from independent reviewers, standardized clinical assessments, and more than 1.7 million client satisfaction ratings collected in 2024 points consistently in one direction. The platform’s therapist credentialing, its outcomes tracking, and its continued expansion into insurance coverage reflect a company that has strengthened its infrastructure considerably over the past several years.

    What Independent Reviewers Actually Say

    Start with the ratings. Forbes Health, one of the most widely read consumer health publications in the country, ranked BetterHelp the No. 1 online therapy platform in its most recent review. Helpguide.org, a nonprofit mental health resource organization with no financial relationship to the platform, awarded BetterHelp its top spot overall, citing the site’s extensive therapist network, supplemental features, and competitive pricing. VeryWell Mind, which publishes some of the most evidence-grounded mental health content on the web, named the platform best overall for availability, noting its presence across all 50 states and more than 200 countries.

    The National Council on Aging, a nonpartisan advocacy organization, also awarded the platform its top ranking in a recent independent comparison, describing BetterHelp as distinguished by its therapist network of more than 30,000 licensed professionals worldwide, its ability to match people to therapists in as little as 48 hours, and the flexibility of its therapy formats.

    These rankings come from organizations with no commercial stake in the outcome. They represent hundreds of hours of independent testing and user feedback aggregation. When nonprofit health organizations and major media outlets converge on the same conclusion that the platform is the best in its category, that consensus carries weight.

    The Clinical Evidence: What the Outcomes Data Shows

    Anecdotal criticism and independent rankings only go so far. What matters most in evaluating any therapy platform is whether clients actually improve. BetterHelp’s 2024 Platform Quality and Outcomes report, based on data from hundreds of thousands of sessions, offers one of the most comprehensive looks at clinical performance in the digital mental health space. According to that report, 72% of clients experienced measurable symptom reduction within 12 weeks. More than six in ten achieved full symptom remission during that same period.

    Those figures were captured through standardized clinical instruments, specifically the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, the same tools used in traditional clinical settings, administered approximately every 45 days. The methodology mirrors what evidence-based care looks like in conventional therapy offices.

    Client satisfaction metrics reinforce the clinical picture. Live therapy sessions on the platform received an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 stars, based on more than 1.7 million individual client ratings collected in 2024. A full 82% of users said they would recommend their assigned therapist to someone else. Individual experiences may vary. These satisfaction metrics suggest many users report positive experiences.

    The Therapist Network: How BetterHelp Vets Its Professionals

    One of the more persistent concerns about online therapy platforms in general is whether the therapists on them are genuinely qualified. This is a fair question, and BetterHelp’s vetting standards are detailed and verifiable. Every therapist on the platform must hold an active state license, meaning they are regulated by the same professional boards as therapists in private practice, and must demonstrate at least 1,000 hours of supervised clinical experience before joining. All go through background checks as a condition of acceptance.

    The selectivity of the process matters. Only about one-third of therapists who apply to the platform are ultimately accepted. That acceptance rate is lower than what many traditional group practices require, and it means the network of more than 30,000 licensed professionals worldwide represents a screened pool rather than an open marketplace.

    The platform also provides ongoing quality assurance. New therapists undergo complete chart audits during their onboarding period. Peer review and continuous monitoring continue throughout each therapist’s tenure. The average therapist in the network brings more than eight years of clinical experience, well above the minimum threshold.

    Expanding Access: Insurance Coverage and What’s Coming

    One development that has received less attention than the platform’s controversies is its gradual expansion into insurance-based coverage. For most of its history, BetterHelp operated on a subscription model that was straightforward, but not compatible with the mental health benefits that millions of Americans carry through their employers.

    That has begun to change. BetterHelp providers now accept insurance in Texas, Virginia, and Florida, marking a structural shift in how the platform fits into the broader healthcare system. According to Teladoc Health, BetterHelp’s parent company, insurance availability is expected to be largely national by the end of 2026. The platform also accepts payment through Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Accounts, where eligible, allowing clients to use pre-tax dollars for therapy sessions. Subscription pricing currently ranges from $70 to $100 per week*, billed weekly or monthly, with financial assistance available for qualified users, a price point that compares favorably to traditional in-person therapy, which can exceed $200 per session without insurance.

    *Pricing is based on factors such as your location, referral source, preferences, therapist availability, and any applicable discounts or promotions that might apply.

    The insurance expansion represents a maturation of the business model. Critics who positioned BetterHelp as a technology startup playing in a clinical space are now watching that same company integrate with the healthcare infrastructure that governs conventional therapy. That integration brings new accountability structures, not fewer.

    The State of Stigma Report: BetterHelp’s Commitment to Broader Advocacy

    Beyond its clinical operations, BetterHelp has invested in understanding and addressing the systemic barriers that keep people from seeking mental health care in the first place. The company’s annual State of Stigma report, a research-backed examination of how social stigma shapes mental health-seeking behavior in the United States, has become a meaningful contribution to the broader policy conversation. Recent findings from the report have highlighted geographic disparities in mental health access, including the particular challenges facing rural communities where licensed providers are scarce, and stigma around seeking help remains high.

    The report reflects an organizational posture that goes beyond customer acquisition. Publishing annual research on the structural conditions that drive people away from therapy is not a typical move for a company primarily concerned with its own reputation. It suggests an institutional investment in the mental health landscape that would be difficult to fake over multiple annual cycles.

    The company’s community partnerships tell a similar story. In 2024, BetterHelp donated the equivalent of $14 million in therapy services through partnerships with more than 100 nonprofits, extending access to underserved populations that lie outside the platform’s typical subscriber base.

    Partnerships, Campaigns, and Cultural Reach

    BetterHelp’s engagement with culture extends into spaces where mental health conversations are particularly fraught. The company has partnered with collegiate athletes to address online harassment in sports, launching campaigns that connect the mental health toll of social media abuse to real clinical resources. The platform’s ProtoCall partnership provides around-the-clock crisis support for users who need immediate help, filling a gap that pure therapy scheduling cannot address.

    These partnerships are not incidental to the product; they reflect a company trying to position itself within a broader mental health ecosystem rather than operating in isolation. Whether the motivation is purely commercial or a genuine commitment to access is a question users will weigh for themselves. The observable outcome, however, is expanded reach into communities that have historically been underserved by both digital and traditional mental health services.

    What the Criticism Gets Right, and Where It Falls Short

    Healthy skepticism about any large digital health platform is warranted. Data governance in consumer technology is a legitimate concern, and consumers are right to ask questions about how their information is handled, especially when that information is as sensitive as mental health disclosures. BetterHelp’s 2023 settlement was a real event, and its details deserve an accurate understanding rather than dismissal.

    Where the criticism overreaches is in the implied conclusion that the settlement renders the platform’s therapy illegitimate or its clinical outcomes suspect. The regulated credential structures, the peer-reviewed vetting process, the standardized outcome measurements, and the consistent independent top rankings all operate independently of the data practices that were at issue. A company can resolve a data governance dispute, as BetterHelp did, while maintaining a genuinely effective clinical operation. The evidence suggests that is what happened here.

    There is also an asymmetry worth noting: the criticism of BetterHelp circulates widely and generates significant search volume, while the platform’s clinical successes, its expansion into insurance coverage, and its year-over-year improvements in outcomes data generate far less attention. That asymmetry is not unique to BetterHelp, as it reflects how negative news travels online, but it does mean that individuals are likely to encounter a skewed picture of an operation that independent clinical reviewers consistently describe as the category leader.

    Who Online Therapy Is, and Is Not, Right For

    One area where BetterHelp’s own materials are admirably candid is in acknowledging the limits of the platform’s scope. Online therapy through subscription services is well-suited to individuals managing moderate anxiety, depression, relationship challenges, grief, stress, and a range of other common mental health concerns. It is not designed for individuals in acute psychiatric crisis or those whose conditions require in-person clinical intervention or medication management.

    That honest scoping matters. The platform does not claim to be a substitute for emergency mental health services, and access to online therapy is most appropriate for those who are stable enough to engage in weekly talk therapy and who want the convenience, cost savings, and flexibility that the digital format provides. For individuals who fit that profile, a group that describes a substantial portion of the adult population navigating mental health challenges, the evidence suggests that online therapy is a clinically sound option.

    The Bigger Picture

    Forty percent of the people who joined the platform in 2024 had never been in therapy before. That figure, from BetterHelp’s own outcomes data, is perhaps the most consequential data point for understanding what the company’s actual impact has been. Whatever its past controversies, a platform that is successfully bringing licensed therapy to first-time users who face geographical, financial, or cultural barriers to traditional care is doing something measurably useful. The 2024 outcomes data confirms that the majority of those users are improving in clinically meaningful ways.

    Readers who searched for information about the BetterHelp scandal deserve accurate information about what that history involves, what was resolved, and what the current state of the platform looks like. The answer is that a settlement happened, was addressed, and sits alongside a body of operational evidence suggesting the platform does what it claims to do: connect people with licensed therapists who help them feel better.

    Source link

  • Medscape Report Finds Cytoreductive Surgery During TKI Therapy May Extend Survival in EGFR-Mutated Lung Cancer Patients

    Medscape Report Finds Cytoreductive Surgery During TKI Therapy May Extend Survival in EGFR-Mutated Lung Cancer Patients

    A clinical report published on Medscape on June 22, 2026 presents evidence that adding cytoreductive surgery — the surgical removal of residual tumor masses — during tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drug therapy may extend survival in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

    The underlying study, published online June 11, 2026, in the International Journal of Cancer, was led by Dr. Fedor Moiseenko of the N.P. Napalkov Cancer Center in St. Petersburg, Russia, and colleagues. The retrospective study analyzed patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated lung cancer who received targeted therapy and, in a subset of cases, also underwent surgical removal of residual tumor masses during the course of drug treatment.

    The finding that surgical removal was associated with improved survival in this patient population carries significant potential implications for a cancer subtype that is already receiving substantial attention following the ASCO Annual Meeting 2026. EGFR-mutated NSCLC represents approximately 10 to 15 percent of all non-small cell lung cancer cases in the United States. Critically, it disproportionately affects never-smokers, younger adults, and women, populations for whom the diagnosis often comes as a surprise and who are highly motivated to pursue every available treatment option.

    The Biology of EGFR-Mutated Lung Cancer — and Why Surgery Matters

    EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) mutations drive a subset of NSCLC by producing a continuously activated growth signal that allows cancer cells to proliferate uncontrollably. TKI drugs — osimertinib (Tagrisso), erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, and others — block this signal, often producing dramatic tumor responses. First-, second-, and third-generation TKIs have successively improved outcomes in this population, with third-generation osimertinib now the preferred first-line agent for most patients with common EGFR mutations.

    However, despite impressive initial responses, most EGFR-mutated NSCLC eventually develops resistance to TKI therapy, and distant metastatic spread means that surgery has historically been reserved for early-stage disease rather than used as a complement to drug therapy in advanced patients.

    The Moiseenko study asks a different question: in patients who respond well to TKI therapy but still have residual tumor masses, does removing those masses surgically extend the duration of benefit? Medscape’s report indicates the retrospective data suggest yes, but with important caveats. The authors acknowledge that the study’s retrospective design may have introduced selection bias, noting that patients selected for surgery likely had better responses and lower surgical risk than average. Most patients in the study also received first- or second-generation TKIs rather than the now-preferred third-generation osimertinib, which limits the generalizability to current treatment standards.

    EGFR-Mutated Lung Cancer Surgery Study Detail
    Cancer subtype EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
    Intervention studied Cytoreductive surgery during TKI therapy
    Finding Surgical removal of residual masses associated with improved survival
    Study type Retrospective
    Limitation 1 Possible selection bias (better-responding patients selected for surgery)
    Limitation 2 Most patients on first/second-gen TKIs, not current-standard osimertinib
    Published in International Journal of Cancer (June 11, 2026)
    Reported on Medscape (June 22, 2026)
    Proportion of NSCLC with EGFR mutations ~10–15% of U.S. NSCLC cases
    Population disproportionately affected Never-smokers, younger adults, women

    The Broader EGFR Landscape at ASCO 2026 — and What Patients Should Know

    The Moiseenko surgery finding arrives in the context of a highly active 2026 ASCO data landscape for EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Cancer Therapy Advisor’s ASCO 2026 report described updated CHRYSALIS-2 data showing that first-line amivantamab plus lazertinib, a targeted combination, produced a median overall survival of 41 months in atypical EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, more than doubling historical outcomes with earlier drugs. At three years, 55% of patients in this cohort were still alive.

    In the EGFR exon 20 insertion space — a rarer subtype previously lacking effective targeted options — the WU-KONG28 phase 3 trial presented at ASCO 2026 showed that sunvozertinib significantly outperformed platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment, representing a potential new standard for this historically difficult-to-treat population.

    The Moiseenko cytoreductive surgery study adds a surgical dimension to a field that has been almost entirely pharmaceutical. As the study authors concluded, the findings suggest that “some patients receiving EGFR TKIs may benefit from cytoreductive surgery,” but that future research must “utilize rigorous criteria for patient selection, ensure proper size of the control group, and avoid diversity of EGFR inhibitors by using osimertinib or similar third-generation drugs.”

    For patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who are currently on TKI therapy and responding well, this study raises a question worth discussing with their thoracic oncologist: Is there a role for discussing residual disease surgery as part of a comprehensive treatment plan? The answer is not yet established by randomized controlled trial evidence — but the retrospective data and the ASCO 2026 context together suggest the question is worth asking. Any consideration of surgery in advanced lung cancer requires a multidisciplinary tumor board evaluation involving medical oncology, thoracic surgery, and radiation oncology.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What did the June 22 Medscape lung cancer report find?

    Medscape reported June 22, 2026, on a study published in the International Journal of Cancer, finding that cytoreductive surgery — removal of residual tumor masses — during TKI drug therapy was associated with improved survival in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer.

    What is EGFR-mutated lung cancer?

    EGFR-mutated NSCLC is a subtype of non-small cell lung cancer driven by mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor gene. It accounts for approximately 10 to 15 percent of NSCLC cases in the U.S. and disproportionately affects never-smokers, younger adults, and women. It is highly responsive to targeted TKI drugs, including osimertinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib.

    Is cytoreductive surgery now a standard of care for EGFR-mutated NSCLC?

    No. The study was retrospective and has important limitations, including potential selection bias and the use of older, less potent TKI drugs rather than the current standard osimertinib. The authors call for future research with rigorous patient selection criteria and randomized controlled trial design before surgery can be considered a standard component of treatment.

    How does this relate to the ASCO 2026 EGFR lung cancer data?

    ASCO 2026 presented multiple significant updates in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, including a median overall survival of 41 months with amivantamab plus lazertinib in atypical EGFR mutations, more than double historical outcomes. The Moiseenko surgery study adds a surgical question to a field that is actively evolving on the pharmaceutical side.

    What should patients with EGFR-mutated lung cancer do with this information?

    Discuss the findings with your thoracic oncologist and ask whether a multidisciplinary tumor board evaluation, involving medical oncology, thoracic surgery, and radiation oncology, might be appropriate to review your specific situation and whether surgical options merit consideration. This is a conversation-starter based on retrospective data, not an established treatment recommendation.

    Source link

  • Scientists Made a Gum Disease Gel from Jackfruit Latex, Pomegranate Peel, and Simvastatin — Fights Infection, Reduces Inflammation, and Regrows Bone

    Scientists Made a Gum Disease Gel from Jackfruit Latex, Pomegranate Peel, and Simvastatin — Fights Infection, Reduces Inflammation, and Regrows Bone

    The treatment of severe gum disease has long faced a fundamental limitation: existing therapies can control infection and inflammation, but they cannot rebuild the bone and tissue that periodontitis destroys. A new biomaterial developed by researchers in Brazil — made from three ingredients that would look more at home in a kitchen than a pharmacy — may be closing that gap simultaneously.

    ScienceDaily reported on June 19, 2026 on research published in Polymer Bulletin by scientists at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP) in Sorocaba, Brazil, led by Professor Eliana Aparecida de Rezende Duek. The team developed a biomaterial combining jackfruit latex, pomegranate peel extract, and simvastatin — a cholesterol-lowering drug — into a mucoadhesive gel that, in early laboratory testing, demonstrated infection control, anti-inflammatory activity, and the ability to promote bone-forming tissue growth within 14 to 21 days.

    “We began to view latex extracted from jackfruit as an interesting alternative, as it has adhesive properties,” explained Professor Duek in the FAPESP Agency press release. “This led us to believe that it could remain longer at the site affected by periodontitis, promoting a more targeted release of therapeutic compounds and potentially reducing the need for systemic antibiotic use.”

    How the Three-Ingredient Combination Works — and Why Each Component Matters

    The biomaterial works through the combined action of three components that address different aspects of the disease process simultaneously — a design principle called multi-modal therapy that is increasingly recognized as essential for treating complex chronic inflammatory conditions.

    Jackfruit latex — the structural vehicle. Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) is the world’s largest tree fruit, widely cultivated across South and Southeast Asia and increasingly in Brazil. When freshly harvested, it produces a natural latex — a sticky, adhesive substance that the PUC-SP team recognized as potentially valuable in periodontal treatment. As Phys.org reported: jackfruit latex has mucoadhesive properties — it can stick to mucous membrane surfaces like gum tissue. This adhesiveness is the delivery mechanism: the gel stays at the treatment site rather than washing away with saliva, allowing a “more targeted release of therapeutic compounds” over time.

    Pomegranate peel extract — the antimicrobial. Pomegranate peel extract has documented antimicrobial properties, specifically for topical application against the bacterial pathogens involved in periodontal disease. As Indian Defence Review reported: “Pomegranate extract contributes antimicrobial effects” in the biomaterial. This addresses the infection component of periodontitis — the bacterial accumulation around the gum line that initiates and perpetuates the disease.

    Simvastatin — the bone-forming driver. This is the component that most directly addresses the gap in current periodontal treatment. Simvastatin is widely known as a cholesterol-lowering drug, but it has been studied for an additional and less well-known property: it stimulates bone formation. As The Microbiologist reported: “simvastatin, an anti-inflammatory drug that has been studied for its ability to stimulate bone formation.”

    When administered orally as a cholesterol drug, simvastatin is predominantly captured by the liver, with only a small fraction reaching the systemic circulation, requiring high doses that carry significant side effects, including acute muscle degeneration (rhabdomyolysis). By delivering simvastatin directly into the periodontal pocket via the jackfruit latex gel, the researchers bypass the liver entirely. The drug acts locally, at the site of bone loss, at the concentrations needed for bone regeneration, without the systemic dose and risk profile of oral administration.

    Jackfruit-Pomegranate Biomaterial — Key Data Detail
    Published in Polymer Bulletin, March 9, 2026
    DOI 10.1007/s00289-026-06358-w
    ScienceDaily coverage June 19, 2026
    Institution PUC-SP (Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo), Sorocaba, Brazil
    Lead researcher Professor Eliana Aparecida de Rezende Duek (FCMS)
    Components Jackfruit latex + pomegranate peel extract + simvastatin
    Jackfruit latex role Mucoadhesive vehicle — stays at treatment site, enables targeted drug release
    Pomegranate peel role Antimicrobial activity against periodontal pathogens
    Simvastatin role Anti-inflammatory + bone formation stimulation
    Simvastatin concentrations tested 0.3%, 0.6%, 1.2% (all safe; none altered gel structure)
    Osteoinduction (bone-forming activity) All three concentrations promoted it within 14 days
    Effect at 21 days Even stronger osteoinductive effect
    In vitro model Human adipose-derived stem cells
    Advantage of topical simvastatin Bypasses liver; acts at site of bone loss without systemic side effects
    Current periodontitis treatment limitation Controls infection and inflammation but does NOT regenerate bone/tissue
    Periodontitis global prevalence ~47% of U.S. adults over 30; hundreds of millions worldwide

    What Periodontitis Is — and Why Current Treatments Fail Regeneration

    Periodontitis is not simply “gum disease.” It is a chronic inflammatory disease of infectious origin that progressively destroys the supporting structures of the teeth: the periodontal ligament, the alveolar bone, and the cementum that anchors teeth roots. As the disease advances, patients lose the bone that holds their teeth in place — leading to tooth mobility and, eventually, tooth loss.

    Periodontitis affects approximately 47% of American adults over 30, with severe disease affecting approximately 9%. According to GB News’ coverage of the research: “Periodontitis affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide and remains a leading cause of tooth loss in adults.”

    Current standard treatments — scaling and root planing (deep cleaning to remove bacterial deposits) combined with antimicrobial therapy — are effective at controlling infection and halting further destruction. But they cannot regenerate lost bone. “Current treatments are designed to control infection and inflammation, but they generally do little to regenerate damaged periodontal tissue,” the ScienceDaily summary noted. More advanced techniques, including guided tissue regeneration (using barrier membranes to encourage natural tissue growth) and bone grafting, are available but have “inconsistent and sometimes unpredictable” clinical effects.

    A material that simultaneously controls infection, reduces inflammation, AND promotes bone regeneration within 14 days in laboratory conditions — using components that are naturally derived or already clinically approved — represents a meaningful advance over each of these existing approaches, if the results translate to clinical trials.

    Limitations and the Path to Clinical Translation

    The current research is in vitro — laboratory-based testing using human stem cells and physicochemical analysis. It has not been tested in animal models of periodontitis or in human clinical trials. Clinical translation requires multiple additional steps: animal model efficacy studies, safety profiling, formulation optimization for clinical application, and ultimately clinical trials comparing the biomaterial to existing treatments.

    Professor Duek and her team have expressed confidence in the material’s potential: “We observed that the developed biomaterial has great potential for future applications in treating periodontitis and in other areas as well.” The fact that simvastatin is already an FDA-approved drug with a well-established safety profile in humans is an advantage — not for its oral use, but because basic pharmacological safety data already exists, which may reduce some regulatory pathway complexity for the topical application.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the jackfruit/pomegranate gum disease biomaterial?

    A mucoadhesive gel combining jackfruit latex, pomegranate peel extract, and simvastatin developed by PUC-SP researchers in Brazil and published in Polymer Bulletin(March 2026; ScienceDaily June 19, 2026). It sticks to gum tissue at the treatment site, fights infection with pomegranate’s antimicrobial properties, and uses locally delivered simvastatin to stimulate bone formation.

    What makes this different from current gum disease treatments?

    Current treatments (scaling, root planing, antimicrobials) can control infection and halt disease progression, but cannot rebuild lost bone. The jackfruit biomaterial is designed to do all three simultaneously: fight infection, reduce inflammation, and promote bone-forming tissue growth within 14 days in laboratory tests.

    Has this been tested in humans?

    Not yet. The current research is in vitro, using human adipose-derived stem cells in laboratory conditions. Animal model studies and clinical trials would be needed before clinical application. The study is a promising proof-of-concept finding, not a clinical treatment.

    Why use simvastatin in a gum disease treatment?

    Simvastatin is a cholesterol drug with the additional property of stimulating bone formation. When administered directly to the periodontitis site in the biomaterial gel, it bypasses the liver and acts locally at concentrations that promote bone growth — without the systemic side effects (including muscle damage) that can occur with high oral doses.

    Why jackfruit latex specifically?

    Jackfruit latex is naturally adhesive (mucoadhesive) — it sticks to gum tissue rather than washing away with saliva. This keeps the therapeutic compounds at the treatment site for prolonged local release, potentially reducing the need for systemic antibiotic use.

    Source link

  • 40% of American Children Ages 6–19 Are Now Nearsighted — Here’s the Evidence-Based Plan to Slow Pediatric Myopia

    40% of American Children Ages 6–19 Are Now Nearsighted — Here’s the Evidence-Based Plan to Slow Pediatric Myopia

    Forty percent of American children between the ages of 6 and 19 are currently nearsighted, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. In Asia, the rate is nearly double. Worldwide, researchers project that if current trajectories continue, 50% of the global population will be myopic by 2050 — a figure that was once considered alarmist and is now regarded as a conservative estimate by the ophthalmology community.

    This is not simply an inconvenience that corrective lenses can fix. Myopia, when it progresses to its most severe form, dramatically elevates the risk of potentially blinding conditions: retinal detachment, glaucoma, early cataracts, and myopic maculopathy. According to the AAO, children who develop myopia early and progress to high myopia face a 50% greater risk of glaucoma, are 17% more likely to need cataract surgery, and carry a 6-fold greater risk of retinal detachment and retinal tears. The disease burden that will materialize in adult life as today’s myopic children age represents one of the most significant preventable vision crises in history.

    “Kids who develop myopia early in life and progress to high myopia face an uncertain future,” the AAO stated in its myopia epidemic initiative. “The time to intervene is in childhood.”

    Why Myopia Is Rising — The Screen Time and Outdoor Time Evidence

    The primary drivers of the pediatric myopia epidemic are now well-characterized in the scientific literature, even if the precise mechanisms are still being refined. Two behavioral factors dominate: increased time spent on close-range visual tasks (near work, including screens), and reduced time spent outdoors.

    Near work and prolonged close focusing. When the eye focuses on objects at close range for extended periods, it may receive signals that promote axial elongation — the physical lengthening of the eyeball from front to back that defines myopia. The visual cortex signals involved are not yet fully characterized, but the epidemiological pattern is consistent across multiple studies: populations with higher near-work exposure have higher myopia rates.

    The COVID acceleration. The pandemic provided an inadvertent natural experiment. As Contemporary Pediatrics documented in its April 2026 comprehensive review, home confinement and distance learning drove children’s average daily screen time from approximately 2.1 hours to 5.6 hours per day. The result was a measurable, documented surge in myopia onset and progression, particularly in children ages 6 to 8 — the developmental window during which the eye’s growth rate is highest, and myopia risk is most acute.

    The outdoor time protective effect. This is the finding with the strongest intervention potential. Time spent outdoors — not necessarily time spent looking at distant objects — appears to protect against myopia onset and slow its progression in children who already have it. The AAO attributes this primarily to bright outdoor light (typically 10,000 to 100,000 lux) triggering the release of dopamine in the retina, which signals the eye to slow its axial growth. Indoor lighting typically delivers only 300–500 lux — insufficient to trigger the same protective signal.

    As the AAO describes: “A study of a school-based program in Taiwan that encouraged kids to spend 11 hours a week outdoors showed that sunlight can decrease myopia progression.” That 11 hours per week — roughly 80 minutes per day — is the threshold that research identifies as protective. Most American children get significantly less.

    Pediatric Myopia Epidemic — Key Data Detail
    U.S. children (ages 6–19) who are myopic ~40% (American Academy of Ophthalmology)
    Global myopia projection by 2050 ~50% of world population
    Asian rates (children and young adults) 80–90% in East/Southeast Asia
    U.S. myopia increase in past 50 years Nearly doubled (from ~21% to ~41.6%)
    COVID-era screen time shift 2.1 hrs/day → 5.6 hrs/day (significant myopia acceleration)
    Age group most at risk for rapid progression 6–8 years during pandemic school closures
    High myopia glaucoma risk increase 50% greater
    High myopia cataracts risk increase 17% more likely to need cataract surgery
    High myopia retinal detachment risk 6x greater
    Protective outdoor time threshold ~11 hours/week (80+ min/day)
    Outdoor light vs. indoor light Outdoor: 10,000–100,000 lux; indoor: 300–500 lux
    Mechanism of outdoor protection Bright light triggers retinal dopamine release, slowing axial growth
    Treatment options beyond glasses Low-dose atropine eyedrops; orthokeratology contact lenses; defocus contact lenses
    Age to begin eye exams First exam by age 1 (AAO recommendation); age 3 for full assessment

    Evidence-Based Interventions — What Actually Slows Myopia in Children

    The encouraging news is that myopia progression is not inevitable in the way the epidemic trajectory might suggest. Specific interventions have documented efficacy for slowing or preventing progression:

    Outdoor time — the most accessible intervention. Based on the Taiwan school program and multiple subsequent studies, increasing children’s daily outdoor time to 80+ minutes significantly reduces both myopia onset risk and the rate of progression in children who already have it. This does not require structured eye exercises or specific activities — simply being outside in bright natural light appears sufficient. Pediatricians can prescribe outdoor time just as specifically as they prescribe medication.

    Low-dose atropine eyedrops. Atropine at 0.01% concentration, applied once daily at bedtime, has been shown in multiple randomized trials to slow myopia progression by approximately 50–60% compared to controls, with minimal side effects. The mechanism is not fully characterized but appears to involve direct effects on retinal signaling rather than the pupil dilation seen with higher atropine doses. Low-dose atropine is increasingly used in pediatric ophthalmology practices for children with documented myopia progression, typically in children between ages 7 and 14.

    Orthokeratology (ortho-k) and specialty contact lenses. Rigid gas-permeable contact lenses worn overnight (orthokeratology) reshape the cornea during sleep and simultaneously reduce the peripheral defocus pattern thought to drive axial growth. Soft multifocal contact lenses and “defocus incorporated multiple segment” (DIMS) lenses achieve similar myopia control effects through optical means. These options are typically discussed with a pediatric ophthalmologist or optometrist with myopia management expertise.

    Screen time management — necessary but not sufficient alone. Reducing screen time matters, but the primary driver of the protective benefit appears to be adding outdoor time rather than simply reducing screen time. As Clearview Eyes’ 2026 guidelines review noted: “After the restrictions were lifted and screen time was reduced, the trend of myopia worsening or slowing down happened” — but the most effective intervention is the replacement of indoor time with outdoor time, not merely passive reduction of device use.

    What Parents and Pediatricians Should Do Starting Now

    For parents: Prioritize outdoor play as a health intervention, not merely recreation. Aim for 80+ minutes of daily outdoor time for children from early childhood. Use the AAO and AAPOS screen time guidelines as a starting point (no more than 1 hour per day for ages 2–5, and more flexible but structured limits with outdoor balance for older children). Ensure annual eye exams beginning at age 3, and ask specifically about myopia management options if your child is already myopic and showing progression.

    For pediatricians: The AAO and American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) joint clinical statement recommends routine vision screening at well-child visits. Asking about daily outdoor time at every well-child visit is a low-cost, high-yield intervention. Children with myopia onset before age 10, documented rapid progression, or parental myopia in both parents warrant early referral to a pediatric ophthalmologist for myopia management discussion.

    For schools: The Taiwan evidence suggests that school-based policies increasing outdoor recess and limiting prolonged continuous close work time can measurably reduce population-level myopia rates. Schools with longer, more frequent outdoor breaks show lower myopia prevalence in controlled comparisons.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    How common is myopia in American children?

    The American Academy of Ophthalmology estimates approximately 40% of American children ages 6–19 are currently nearsighted. This nearly doubles the rate from 50 years ago. In East and Southeast Asia, rates reach 80–90% among children and young adults.

    Why is myopia becoming an epidemic?

    The primary drivers are reduced outdoor time (children now spend significantly less time outside in natural light than prior generations) and increased near-work exposure from screens and close-range learning. The COVID pandemic accelerated myopia onset and progression by dramatically increasing screen time and reducing outdoor activity.

    Is high myopia different from regular nearsightedness?

    Yes. High myopia (refractive error greater than -6 diopters) is associated with significantly elevated risks of retinal detachment (6x higher), glaucoma (50% higher), cataracts (requiring surgery 17% more often), and myopic maculopathy — a leading cause of blindness in myopic individuals. This is why slowing myopia progression in childhood matters so much.

    What is the most effective intervention for preventing myopia?

    Increasing outdoor time to approximately 80 minutes or more per day is the most accessible and evidence-supported intervention for reducing myopia onset and slowing progression. Bright outdoor light (10,000–100,000 lux, far above indoor lighting) triggers retinal dopamine release that slows the axial eye growth that drives myopia.

    What treatments are available if my child already has myopia?

    Beyond corrective glasses or contact lenses, evidence-based myopia management options include: low-dose atropine 0.01% eyedrops (approximately 50–60% slowing of progression), orthokeratology (overnight rigid contact lenses that slow axial growth), and specialized soft multifocal contact lenses. These are typically managed by a pediatric ophthalmologist with myopia management expertise.

    Source link