Dentists Are Pulling ‘Healthy’ and Treatable Teeth To Profit From Implants, Experts Warn
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Becky Carroll was missing a few teeth, and others were stained or crooked. Ashamed, she smiled with lips pressed closed. Her dentist offered to fix most of her teeth with root canals and crowns, Carroll said, but she was wary of traveling a long road of dental work.
Then Carroll saw a TV commercial for another path: ClearChoice Dental Implant Centers. The company advertises that it can give patients “a new smile in as little as one day” by surgically replacing teeth instead of fixing them.
So Carroll saved and borrowed for the surgery, she said. In an interview and a lawsuit, Carroll said that at a ClearChoice clinic in New Jersey in 2021, she agreed to pay $31,000 to replace all her natural upper teeth with pearly-white prosthetic ones. What came next, Carroll said, was “like a horror movie.”
Carroll alleged that her anesthesia wore off during implant surgery, so she became conscious as her teeth were removed and titanium screws were twisted into her jawbone. Afterward, Carroll’s prosthetic teeth were so misaligned that she was largely unable to chew for more than two years until she could afford corrective surgery at another clinic, according to a sworn deposition from her lawsuit.
ClearChoice has denied Carroll’s claims of malpractice and negligence in court filings and did not respond to requests for comment on the ongoing case.
“I thought implants would be easier, and all at once, so you didn’t have to keep going back to the dentist,” Carroll, 52, said in an interview. “But I should have asked more questions … like, Can they save these teeth?”
Dental implants have been used for more than half a century to surgically replace missing or damaged teeth with artificial duplicates, often with picture-perfect results. While implant dentistry was once the domain of a small group of highly trained dentists and specialists, tens of thousands of dental providers now offer the surgery and place millions of implants each year in the U.S.
Amid this booming industry, some implant experts worry that many dentists are losing sight of dentistry’s fundamental goal of preserving natural teeth and have become too willing to remove teeth to make room for expensive implants, according to a months-long investigation by KFF Health News and CBS News. In interviews, 10 experts said they had each given second opinions to multiple patients who had been recommended for mouths full of implants that the experts ultimately determined were not necessary. Separately, lawsuits filed across the country have alleged that implant patients like Carroll have experienced painful complications that have required corrective surgery, while other lawsuits alleged dentists at some implant clinics have persuaded, pressured, or forced patients to remove teeth unnecessarily.
The experts warn that implants, for a single tooth or an entire mouth, expose patients to costs and surgery complications, plus a new risk of future dental problems with fewer treatment options because their natural teeth are forever gone.
“There are many cases where teeth, they’re perfectly fine, and they’re being removed unnecessarily,” said William Giannobile, dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. “I really hate to say it, but many of them are doing it because these procedures, from a monetary standpoint, they’re much more beneficial to the practitioner.”
Giannobile and nine other experts say they are combating a false public perception that implants are more durable and longer-lasting than natural teeth, which some believe stems in part from advertising on TV and social media. Implants require upkeep, and although they can’t get cavities, studies have shown that patients can be susceptible to infections in the gums and bone around their implants.
“Just because somebody can afford implants doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re a good candidate,” said George Mandelaris, a Chicago-area periodontist and member of the American Academy of Periodontology Board of Trustees. “When an implant has infection, or when an implant has bone loss, an implant dies a much quicker death than do teeth.”
In its simplest form, implant surgery involves extracting a single tooth and replacing it with a metal post that is screwed into the jaw and then affixed with a prosthetic tooth commonly made of porcelain, also known as a crown. Patients can also use “full-arch” or “All-on-4” implants to replace all their upper or lower teeth — or all their teeth.
For this story, KFF Health News and CBS News sought interviews with large dental chains whose clinics offer implant surgery — ClearChoice, Aspen Dental, Affordable Care, and Dental Care Alliance — each of which declined to be interviewed or did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Association of Dental Support Organizations, which represents these companies and others like them, also declined an interview request.
ClearChoice, which specializes in full-arch implants, did not answer more than two dozen questions submitted in writing. In an emailed statement, the company said full-arch implants “have become a well-accepted standard of care for patients with severe tooth loss and teeth with poor prognosis.”
“The use of full-arch restorations reflects the evolution of modern dentistry, offering patients a solution that restores their ability to eat, speak, and live comfortably — far beyond what traditional dentures can provide,” the company said.
Carroll said she regrets not letting her dentist try to fix her teeth and rushing to ClearChoice for implants.
“Because it was a nightmare,” she said.
‘They Are Not Teeth’
Dental implant surgery can be a godsend for patients with unsalvageable teeth. Several experts said implants can be so transformative that their invention should have contended for a Nobel Prize. And yet, these experts still worry that implants are overused, because it is generally better for patients to have their natural teeth.
Paul Rosen, a Pennsylvania periodontist who said he has worked with implants for more than three decades, said many patients believe a “fallacy” that implants are “bulletproof.”
“You can’t just have an implant placed and go off riding into the sunset,” Rosen said. “In many instances, they need more care than teeth because they are not teeth.”
Generally, a single implant costs a few thousand dollars while full-arch implants cost tens of thousands. Neither procedure is well covered by dental insurance, so many clinics partner with credit companies that offer loans for implant surgeries. At ClearChoice, for example, loans can be as large as $65,000 paid off over 10 years, according to the company’s website.
Despite the price, implants are more popular than ever. Sales increased by more than 6% on average each year since 2010, culminating in more than 3.7 million implants sold in the U.S. in 2022, according to a 2023 report produced by iData Research, a health care market research firm.
Some worry implant dentistry has gone too far. In 10 interviews, dentists and dental specialists with expertise in implants said they had witnessed the overuse of implants firsthand. Each expert said they’d examined multiple patients in recent years who were recommended for full-arch implants by other dentists despite their teeth being treatable with conventional dentistry.
Giannobile, the Harvard dean, said he had given second opinions to “dozens” of patients who were recommended for implants they did not need.
“I see many of these patients now that are coming in and saying, ‘I’ve been seen, and they are telling me to get my entire dentition — all of my teeth — extracted.’ And then I’ll take a look at them and say that we can preserve most of your teeth,” Giannobile said.
Tim Kosinski, who is a representative of the Academy of General Dentistry and said he has placed more than 19,000 implants, said he examines as many as five patients a month who have been recommended for full-arch implants that he deems unnecessary.
“There is a push in the profession to remove teeth that could be saved,” Kosinski said. “But the public isn’t aware.”
Luiz Gonzaga, a periodontist and prosthodontist at the University of Florida, said he, too, had turned away patients who wanted most or all their teeth extracted. Gonzaga said some had received implant recommendations that he considered “an atrocity.”
“You don’t go to the hospital and tell them ‘I broke my finger a couple of times. This is bothering me. Can you please cut my finger off?’ No one will do that,” Gonzaga said. “Why would I extract your tooth because you need a root canal?”
Jaime Lozada, director of an elite dental implant residency program at Loma Linda University, said he’d not only witnessed an increase in dentists extracting “perfectly healthy teeth” but also treated a rash of patients with mouths full of ill-fitting implants that had to be surgically replaced.
Lozada said in August that he’d treated seven such patients in just three months.
“When individuals just make a decision of extracting teeth to make it simple and make money quick, so to speak, that’s where I have a problem,” Lozada said. “And it happens quite often.”
When full-arch implants fail, patients sometimes don’t have enough jawbone left to anchor another set. These patients have little choice but to get implants that reach into cheekbones, said Sohail Saghezchi, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at the University of California-San Francisco.
“It’s kind of like a last resort,” Saghezchi said. “If those fail, you don’t have anywhere else to go.”
‘It Was Horrendous Dentistry’
Most of the experts interviewed for this article said their rising alarm corresponded with big changes in the availability of dental implants. Implants are now offered by more than 70,000 dental providers nationwide, two-thirds of whom are general dentists, according to the iData Research report.
Dentists are not required to learn how to place implants in dental school, nor are they required to complete implant training before performing the surgery in nearly all states. This year, Oregon started requiring dentists to complete 56 hours of hands-on training before placing any implants. Stephen Prisby, executive director of the Oregon Board of Dentistry, said the requirement — the first and only of its kind in the U.S. — was a response to dozens of investigations in the state into botched surgeries and other implant failures, split evenly between general dentists and specialists.
“I was frankly stunned at how bad some of these dentists were practicing,” Prisby said. “It was horrendous dentistry.”
Many dental clinics that offer implants have consolidated into chains owned by private equity firms that have bought out much of implant dentistry. In health care, private equity investment is sometimes criticized for overtreatment and prioritizing short-term profit over patients.
Private equity firms have spent about $5 billion in recent years to buy large dental chains that offer implants at hundreds of clinics owned by individual dentists and dental specialists. ClearChoice was bought for an estimated $1.1 billion in 2020 by Aspen Dental, which is owned by three private equity firms, according to PitchBook, a research firm focused on the private equity industry. Private equity firms also bought Affordable Care, whose largest clinic brand is Affordable Dentures & Implants, for an estimated $2.7 billion in 2021, according to PitchBook. And the private equity wing of the Abu Dhabi government bought Dental Care Alliance, which offers implants at many of its affiliated clinics, for an estimated $1 billion in 2022, according to PitchBook.
ClearChoice and Aspen Dental each said in email statements that the companies’ private equity owners “do not have influence or control over treatment recommendations.” Both companies said dentists or dental specialists make all clinical decisions.
Private equity deals involving dental practices increased ninefold from 2011 to 2021, according to an American Dental Association study published in August. The study also said investors showed an interest in oral surgery, possibly because of the “high prices” of implants.
“Some argue this is a negative thing,” said Marko Vujicic, vice president of the association’s Health Policy Institute, who co-authored the study. “On the other hand, some would argue that involvement of private equity and outside capital brings economies of scale, it brings efficiency.”
Edwin Zinman, a San Francisco dental malpractice attorney and former periodontist who has filed hundreds of dental lawsuits over four decades, said he believed many of the worst fears about private equity owners had already come true in implant dentistry.
“They’ve sold a lot of [implants], and some of it unnecessarily, and too often done negligently, without having the dentists who are doing it have the necessary training and experience,” Zinman said. “It’s for five simple letters: M-O-N-E-Y.”
Hundreds of Implant Clinics With No Specialists
For this article, journalists from KFF Health News and CBS News analyzed the webpages for more than 1,000 clinics in the nation’s largest private equity-owned dental chains, all of which offer some implants. The analysis found that more than 70% of those clinics listed only general dentists on their websites and did not appear to employ the specialists — oral surgeons, periodontists, or prosthodontists — who traditionally have more training with implants.
Affordable Dentures & Implants listed specialists at fewer than 5% of its more than 400 clinics, according to the analysis. The rest were staffed by general dentists, most of whom did not list credentialing from implant training organizations, according to the analysis.
ClearChoice, on the other hand, employs at least one oral surgeon or prosthodontist at each of its more than 100 centers, according to the analysis. But its new parent company, Aspen Dental, which offers implants in many of its more than 1,100 clinics, does not list any specialists at many of those locations.
Not everyone is worried about private equity in implant dentistry. In interviews arranged by the American Academy of Implant Dentistry, which trains dentists to use implants, two other implant experts did not express concerns about private equity firms.
Brian Jackson, a former academy president and implant specialist in New York, said he believed dentists are too ethical and patients are too smart to be pressured by private equity owners “who will never see a patient.”
Jumoke Adedoyin, a chief clinical officer for Affordable Care, who has placed implants at an Affordable Dentures & Implants clinic in the Atlanta suburbs for 15 years, said she had never felt pressure from above to sell implants.
“I’ve actually felt more pressure sometimes from patients who have gone around and been told they need to take their teeth out,” she said. “They come in and, honestly, taking a look at them, maybe they don’t need to take all their teeth out.”
Still, lawsuits filed across the country have alleged that dentists at implant clinics have extracted patients’ teeth unnecessarily.
For example, in Texas, a patient alleged in a 2020 lawsuit that an Affordable Care dentist removed “every single tooth from her mouth when such was not necessary,” then stuffed her mouth with gauze and left her waiting in the lobby as he and his staff left for lunch. In Maryland, a patient alleged in a 2021 lawsuit that ClearChoice “convinced” her to extract “eight healthy upper teeth,” by “greatly downplay[ing] the risks.” In Florida, a patient alleged in a 2023 lawsuit that ClearChoice provided her with no other treatment options before extracting all her teeth, “which was totally unnecessary.”
ClearChoice and Affordable Care denied wrongdoing in their respective lawsuits, then privately settled out of court with each patient. ClearChoice and Affordable Care did not respond to requests for comment submitted to the companies or attorneys. Lawyers for all three plaintiffs declined to comment on these lawsuits or did not respond to requests for comment.
Fred Goldberg, a Maryland dental malpractice attorney who said he has represented at least six clients who sued ClearChoice, said each of his clients agreed to get implants after meeting with a salesperson — not a dentist.
“Every client I’ve had who has gone to ClearChoice has started off meeting a salesperson and actually signing up to get their financing through ClearChoice before they ever meet with a dentist,” Goldberg said. “You meet with a salesperson who sells you on what they like to present as the best choice, which is almost always that they’re going to take out all your natural teeth.”
Becky Carroll, the ClearChoice patient from New Jersey, told a similar story.
Carroll said in her lawsuit that she met first with a ClearChoice salesperson referred to as a “patient education consultant.” In an interview, Carroll said the salesperson encouraged her to borrow money from family members for the surgery and it was not until after she agreed to a loan and passed a credit check that a ClearChoice dentist peered into her mouth.
“It seems way backwards,” Carroll said. “They just want to know you’re approved before you get to talk to a dentist.”
CBS News producer Nicole Keller contributed to this report.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
A New $16,000 Postpartum Depression Drug Is Here. How Will Insurers Handle It?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
A much-awaited treatment for postpartum depression, zuranolone, hit the market in December, promising an accessible and fast-acting medication for a debilitating illness. But most private health insurers have yet to publish criteria for when they will cover it, according to a new analysis of insurance policies.
The lack of guidance could limit use of the drug, which is both novel — it targets hormone function to relieve symptoms instead of the brain’s serotonin system, as typical antidepressants do — and expensive, at $15,900 for the 14-day pill regimen.
Lawyers, advocates, and regulators are watching closely to see how insurance companies will shape policies for zuranolone because of how some handled its predecessor, an intravenous form of the same drug called brexanolone, which came on the market in 2019. Many insurers required patients to try other, cheaper medications first — known as the fail-first approach — before they could be approved for brexanolone, which was shown in early trials reviewed by the FDA to provide relief within days. Typical antidepressants take four to six weeks to take effect.
“We’ll have to see if insurers cover this drug and what fail-first requirements they put in” for zuranolone, said Meiram Bendat, a licensed psychotherapist and an attorney who represents patients.
Most health plans have yet to issue any guidelines for zuranolone, and maternal health advocates worry that the few that have are taking a restrictive approach. Some policies require that patients first try and fail a standard antidepressant before the insurer will pay for zuranolone.
In other cases, guidelines require psychiatrists to prescribe it, rather than obstetricians, potentially delaying treatment since OB-GYN practitioners are usually the first medical providers to see signs of postpartum depression.
Advocates are most worried about the lack of coverage guidance.
“If you don’t have a published policy, there is going to be more variation in decision-making that isn’t fair and is less efficient. Transparency is really important,” said Joy Burkhard, executive director of the nonprofit Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, which commissioned the study.
With brexanolone, which was priced at $34,000 for the three-day infusion, California’s largest insurer, Kaiser Permanente, had such rigorous criteria for prescribing it that experts said the policy amounted to a blanket denial for all patients, according to an NPR investigation in 2021.
KP’s written guidelines required patients to try and fail four medications and electroconvulsive therapy before they would be eligible for brexanolone. Because the drug was approved only for up to six months postpartum, and trials of typical antidepressants take four to six weeks each, the clock would run out before a patient had time to try brexanolone.
An analysis by NPR of a dozen other health plans at the time showed Kaiser Permanente’s policy on brexanolone to be an outlier. Some did require that patients fail one or two other drugs first, but KP was the only one that recommended four.
Miriam McDonald, who developed severe postpartum depression and suicidal ideation after giving birth in late 2019, battled Kaiser Permanente for more than a year to find effective treatment. Her doctors put her on a merry-go-round of medications that didn’t work and often carried unbearable side effects, she said. Her doctors refused to prescribe brexanolone, the only FDA-approved medication specifically for postpartum depression at the time.
“No woman should suffer like I did after having a child,” McDonald said. “The policy was completely unfair. I was in purgatory.”
One month after NPR published its investigation, KP overhauled its criteria to recommend that women try just one medication before becoming eligible for brexanolone.
Then, in March 2023, after the federal Department of Labor launched an investigation into the insurer — citing NPR’s reporting — the insurer revised its brexanolone guidelines again, removing all fail-first recommendations, according to internal documents recently obtained by NPR. Patients need only decline a trial of another medication.
“Since brexanolone was first approved for use, more experience and research have added to information about its efficacy and safety,” the insurer said in a statement. “Kaiser Permanente is committed to ensuring brexanolone is available when physicians and patients determine it is an appropriate treatment.”
“Kaiser basically went from having the most restrictive policy to the most robust,” said Burkhard of the Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health. “It’s now a gold standard for the rest of the industry.”
McDonald is hopeful that her willingness to speak out and the subsequent regulatory actions and policy changes for brexanolone will lead Kaiser Permanente and other health plans to set patient-friendly policies for zuranolone.
“This will prevent other women from having to go through a year of depression to find something that works,” she said.
Clinicians were excited when the FDA approved zuranolone last August, believing the pill form, taken once a day at home over two weeks, will be more accessible to women compared with the three-day hospital stay for the IV infusion. Many perinatal psychiatrists told NPR it is imperative to treat postpartum depression as quickly as possible to avoid negative effects, including cognitive and social problems in the baby, anxiety or depression in the father or partner, or the death of the mother to suicide, which accounts for up to 20% of maternal deaths.
So far, only one of the country’s six largest private insurers, Centene, has set a policy for zuranolone. It is unclear what criteria KP will set for the new pill. California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, has not yet established coverage criteria.
Insurers’ policies for zuranolone will be written at a time when the regulatory environment around mental health treatment is shifting. The U.S. Department of Labor is cracking down on violations of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, which requires insurers to cover psychiatric treatments the same as physical treatments.
Insurers must now comply with stricter reporting and auditing requirements intended to increase patient access to mental health care, which advocates hope will compel health plans to be more careful about the policies they write in the first place.
In California, insurers must also comply with an even broader state mental health parity law from 2021, which requires them to use clinically based, expert-recognized criteria and guidelines in making medical decisions. The law was designed to limit arbitrary or cost-driven denials for mental health treatments and has been hailed as a model for the rest of the country. Much-anticipated regulations for the law are expected to be released this spring and could offer further guidance for insurers in California setting policies for zuranolone.
In the meantime, Burkhard said, patients suffering from postpartum depression should not hold back from asking their doctors about zuranolone. Insurers can still grant access to the drug on a case-by-case basis before they formalize their coverage criteria.
“Providers shouldn’t be deterred from prescribing zuranolone,” Burkhard said.
This article is from a partnership that includes KQED, NPR and KFF Health News.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
Share This Post
-
Long-Covid Patients Are Frustrated That Federal Research Hasn’t Found New Treatments
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Erica Hayes, 40, has not felt healthy since November 2020 when she first fell ill with covid.
Hayes is too sick to work, so she has spent much of the last four years sitting on her beige couch, often curled up under an electric blanket.
“My blood flow now sucks, so my hands and my feet are freezing. Even if I’m sweating, my toes are cold,” said Hayes, who lives in Western Pennsylvania. She misses feeling well enough to play with her 9-year-old son or attend her 17-year-old son’s baseball games.
Along with claiming the lives of 1.2 million Americans, the covid-19 pandemic has been described as a mass disabling event. Hayes is one of millions of Americans who suffer from long covid. Depending on the patient, the condition can rob someone of energy, scramble the autonomic nervous system, or fog their memory, among many other http://symptoms.in/ addition to the brain fog and chronic fatigue, Hayes’ constellation of symptoms includes frequent hives and migraines. Also, her tongue is constantly swollen and dry.
“I’ve had multiple doctors look at it and tell me they don’t know what’s going on,” Hayes said about her tongue.
Estimates of prevalence range considerably, depending on how researchers define long covid in a given study, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts it at 17 million adults.
Despite long covid’s vast reach, the federal government’s investment in researching the disease — to the tune of $1.15 billion as of December — has so far failed to bring any new treatments to market.
This disappoints and angers the patient community, who say the National Institutes of Health should focus on ways to stop their suffering instead of simply trying to understand why they’re suffering.
“It’s unconscionable that more than four years since this began, we still don’t have one FDA-approved drug,” said Meighan Stone, executive director of the Long COVID Campaign, a patient-led advocacy organization. Stone was among several people with long covid who spoke at a workshop hosted by the NIH in September where patients, clinicians, and researchers discussed their priorities and frustrations around the agency’s approach to long-covid research.
Some doctors and researchers are also critical of the agency’s research initiative, called RECOVER, or Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery. Without clinical trials, physicians specializing in treating long covid must rely on hunches to guide their clinical decisions, said Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development with the VA St Louis Healthcare System.
“What [RECOVER] lacks, really, is clarity of vision and clarity of purpose,” said Al-Aly, saying he agrees that the NIH has had enough time and money to produce more meaningful progress.
Now the NIH is starting to determine how to allocate an additional $662 million of funding for long-covid research, $300 million of which is earmarked for clinical trials. These funds will be allocated over the next four http://years.at/ the end of October, RECOVER issued a request for clinical trial ideas that look at potential therapies, including medications, saying its goal is “to work rapidly, collaboratively, and transparently to advance treatments for Long COVID.”
This turn suggests the NIH has begun to respond to patients. This has stirred cautious optimism among those who say that the agency’s approach to long covid has lacked urgency in the search for effective treatments.Stone calls this $300 million a down payment. She warns it’s going to take a lot more money to help people like Hayes regain some degree of health.“There really is a burden to make up this lost time now,” Stone said.
The NIH told KFF Health News and NPR via email that it recognizes the urgency in finding treatments. But to do that, there needs to be an understanding of the biological mechanisms that are making people sick, which is difficult to do with post-infectious conditions.
That’s why it has funded research into how long covid affects lung function, or trying to understand why only some people are afflicted with the condition.
Good Science Takes Time
In December 2020, Congress appropriated $1.15 billion for the NIH to launch RECOVER, raising hopes in the long-covid patient community.
Then-NIH Director Francis Collins explained that RECOVER’s goal was to better understand long covid as a disease and that clinical trials of potential treatments would come later.
According to RECOVER’s website, it has funded eight clinical trials to test the safety and effectiveness of an experimental treatment or intervention. Just one of those trials has published results.
On the other hand, RECOVER has supported more than 200 observational studies, such as research on how long covid affects pulmonary function and on which symptoms are most common. And the initiative has funded more than 40 pathobiology studies, which focus on the basic cellular and molecular mechanisms of long covid.
RECOVER’s website says this research has led to crucial insights on the risk factors for developing long covid and on understanding how the disease interacts with preexisting conditions.
It notes that observational studies are important in helping scientists to design and launch evidence-based clinical trials.
Good science takes time, said Leora Horwitz, the co-principal investigator for the RECOVER-Adult Observational Cohort at New York University. And long covid is an “exceedingly complicated” illness that appears to affect nearly every organ system, she said.
This makes it more difficult to study than many other diseases. Because long covid harms the body in so many ways, with widely variable symptoms, it’s harder to identify precise targets for treatment.
“I also will remind you that we’re only three, four years into this pandemic for most people,” Horwitz said. “We’ve been spending much more money than this, yearly, for 30, 40 years on other conditions.”
NYU received nearly $470 million of RECOVER funds in 2021, which the institution is using to spearhead the collection of data and biospecimens from up to 40,000 patients. Horwitz said nearly 30,000 are enrolled so far.
This vast repository, Horwitz said, supports ongoing observational research, allowing scientists to understand what is happening biologically to people who don’t recover after an initial infection — and that will help determine which clinical trials for treatments are worth undertaking.
“Simply trying treatments because they are available without any evidence about whether or why they may be effective reduces the likelihood of successful trials and may put patients at risk of harm,” she said.
Delayed Hopes or Incremental Progress?
The NIH told KFF Health News and NPR that patients and caregivers have been central to RECOVER from the beginning, “playing critical roles in designing studies and clinical trials, responding to surveys, serving on governance and publication groups, and guiding the initiative.”But the consensus from patient advocacy groups is that RECOVER should have done more to prioritize clinical trials from the outset. Patients also say RECOVER leadership ignored their priorities and experiences when determining which studies to fund.
RECOVER has scored some gains, said JD Davids, co-director of Long COVID Justice. This includes findings on differences in long covid between adults and kids.But Davids said the NIH shouldn’t have named the initiative “RECOVER,” since it wasn’t designed as a streamlined effort to develop treatments.
“The name’s a little cruel and misleading,” he said.
RECOVER’s initial allocation of $1.15 billion probably wasn’t enough to develop a new medication to treat long covid, said Ezekiel J. Emanuel, co-director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Healthcare Transformation Institute.
But, he said, the results of preliminary clinical trials could have spurred pharmaceutical companies to fund more studies on drug development and test how existing drugs influence a patient’s immune response.
Emanuel is one of the authors of a March 2022 covid roadmap report. He notes that RECOVER’s lack of focus on new treatments was a problem. “Only 15% of the budget is for clinical studies. That is a failure in itself — a failure of having the right priorities,” he told KFF Health News and NPR via email.
And though the NYU biobank has been impactful, Emanuel said there needs to be more focus on how existing drugs influence immune response.
He said some clinical trials that RECOVER has funded are “ridiculous,” because they’ve focused on symptom amelioration, for example to study the benefits of over-the-counter medication to improve sleep. Other studies looked at non-pharmacological interventions, such as exercise and “brain training” to help with cognitive fog.
People with long covid say this type of clinical research contributes to what many describe as the “gaslighting” they experience from doctors, who sometimes blame a patient’s symptoms on anxiety or depression, rather than acknowledging long covid as a real illness with a physiological basis.
“I’m just disgusted,” said long-covid patient Hayes. “You wouldn’t tell somebody with diabetes to breathe through it.”
Chimére L. Sweeney, director and founder of the Black Long Covid Experience, said she’s even taken breaks from seeking treatment after getting fed up with being told that her symptoms were due to her diet or mental health.
“You’re at the whim of somebody who may not even understand the spectrum of long covid,” Sweeney said.
Insurance Battles Over Experimental Treatments
Since there are still no long-covid treatments approved by the Food and Drug Administration, anything a physician prescribes is classified as either experimental — for unproven treatments — or an off-label use of a drug approved for other conditions. This means patients can struggle to get insurance to cover prescriptions.
Michael Brode, medical director for UT Health Austin’s Post-COVID-19 Program — said he writes many appeal letters. And some people pay for their own treatment.
For example, intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, low-dose naltrexone, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy are all promising treatments, he said.
For hyperbaric oxygen, two small, randomized controlled studies show improvements for the chronic fatigue and brain fog that often plague long-covid patients. The theory is that higher oxygen concentration and increased air pressure can help heal tissues that were damaged during a covid infection.
However, the out-of-pocket cost for a series of sessions in a hyperbaric chamber can run as much as $8,000, Brode said.
“Am I going to look a patient in the eye and say, ‘You need to spend that money for an unproven treatment’?” he said. “I don’t want to hype up a treatment that is still experimental. But I also don’t want to hide it.”
There’s a host of pharmaceuticals that have promising off-label uses for long covid, said microbiologist Amy Proal, president and chief scientific officer at the Massachusetts-based PolyBio Research Foundation. For instance, she’s collaborating on a clinical study that repurposes two HIV drugs to treat long covid.
Proal said research on treatments can move forward based on what’s already understood about the disease. For instance, she said that scientists have evidence — partly due to RECOVER research — that some patients continue to harbor small amounts of viral material after a covid infection. She has not received RECOVER funds but is researching antivirals.
But to vet a range of possible treatments for the millions suffering now — and to develop new drugs specifically targeting long covid — clinical trials are needed. And that requires money.
Hayes said she would definitely volunteer for an experimental drug trial. For now, though, “in order to not be absolutely miserable,” she said she focuses on what she can do, like having dinner with her http://family.at/ the same time, Hayes doesn’t want to spend the rest of her life on a beige couch.
RECOVER’s deadline to submit research proposals for potential long-covid treatments is Feb. 1.
This article is from a partnership that includes NPR and KFF Health News.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Share This Post
-
Making Friends With Your Gut (You Can Thank Us Later)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Gut Health 101
We have so many microorganisms inside us, that by cell count, their cells outnumber ours more than ten-to-one. By gene count, we have 23,000 and they have more than 3,000,000. In effect, we are more microbe than we are human. And, importantly: they form a critical part of what keeps our overall organism ticking on.
Read all about it: The role of the gut microbiota in nutrition and health
Our trillions of tiny friends keep us alive, so it really really pays to return the favor.
But how?
Probiotics and fermented foods
You probably guessed this one, but it’d be remiss not to mention it first. It’s no surprise that probiotics help; the clue is in the name. In short, they help add diversity to your microbiome (that’s a good thing).
Read from the NIH: Probiotics: What You Need To Know
As for fermented foods, not every fermented food will boost your microbiota, but great options include…
- Fermented vegetables (sauerkraut, pickles, etc)
- You’ll often hear kimchi mentioned; that is also pickled vegetables, usually mostly cabbage. It’s just the culinary experience that differs. Unlike sauerkraut, kimchi is usually spiced, for example.
- Kombucha (a fermented sweet tea)
- Miso & tempeh (different preparations of fermented soy)
The health benefits vary based on the individual strains of bacteria involved in the fermentation, so don’t get too caught up on which is best.
The best one is the one you enjoy, because then you’ll have it regularly!
Feed them plenty of prebiotic fibers
Those probiotics you took? The bacteria in them eat the fiber that you can’t digest without them. So, feed them those sorts of fibers.
Great options include:
- Bananas
- Garlic
- Onions
- Whole grains
Read more: Effects of Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics on Human Health
Don’t feed them sugar and sweeteners
Sugar and (and, counterintuitively, aspartame) can cause unfortunate gut microbe imbalances. Put simply, they kill some of your friends and feed some of your enemies. For example…
Candida, which we all have in us to some degree, feeds on sugar (including the sugar formed from breaking down alcohol, by the way) and refined carbs. Then it grows, and puts its roots through your intestinal walls, linking with your neural system. Then it makes you crave the very things that will feed it and allow it to put bigger holes in your intestinal walls.
Do not feed the Candida.
Don’t believe us? Read: Candida albicans-Induced Epithelial Damage Mediates Translocation through Intestinal Barriers
(That’s scientist-speak for “Candida puts holes in your intestines, and stuff can then go through those holes”)
And as for how that comes about, it’s like we said:
❝Colonization of the intestine and translocation through the intestinal barrier are fundamental aspects of the processes preceding life-threatening systemic candidiasis. In this review, we discuss the commensal lifestyle of C. albicans in the intestine, the role of morphology for commensalism, the influence of diet, and the interactions with bacteria of the microbiota.❞
Source: Candida albicans as a commensal and opportunistic pathogen in the intestine
The usual five things
- Good diet (Mediterranean Diet is good; plant-based version of it is by far the best for this)
- Good exercise (yes, really)
- Good sleep (helps them, and they’ll help you get better sleep in return)
- Limit or eliminate alcohol consumption (what a shocker)
- Don’t smoke (it’s bad for everything, including gut health)
One last thing you should know:
If you’re used to having animal products in your diet, and make a sudden change to all plants, your gut will object very strongly. This is because your gut microbiome is used to animal products, and a plant-based diet will cause many helpful microbes to flourish in great abundance, and many less helpful microbes will starve and die. And they will make it officially Not Fun™ for you.
So, you have two options to consider:
- Do it anyway, and sit it out (and believe us, you’ll be sitting), get the change over with quickly, and enjoy the benefits and much happier gut that follows.
- Make the change gradual. Reduce portions of animal products slowly, have “Meatless Mondays” etc, and slowly make the change over. This—for most people—is pretty comfortable, easy, and effective.
And remember: the effects of these things we’ve talked about today compound when you do more than one of them, but if you don’t want to take probiotics or really hate kombucha or absolutely won’t consider a plant-based diet or struggle to give up sugar or alcohol, etc… Just do what you can do, and you’ll still have a net improvement!
Share This Post
- Fermented vegetables (sauerkraut, pickles, etc)
Related Posts
-
Debunking the vitamin D fad
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Throughout the pandemic, many unproven miracle COVID-19 “cures” emerged, and vitamin D claims have been one of the most persistent. This is not new for the vitamin. It’s been touted in recent decades as a way to “boost” the immune system, improve overall health, prevent a host of diseases, and allegedly even substitute for vaccines.
But as with many internet-popular health “remedies,” the reality is far less flashy and far more nuanced.
What is vitamin D, and why is it important?
Vitamin D is a nutrient that helps the body absorb calcium, which is essential for bone health. In the sunlight, your skin naturally produces vitamin D that is then stored in fat cells until it is used.
The skin pigment melanin absorbs the UV rays necessary for vitamin D production, meaning that more highly pigmented or darker skin produces less vitamin D than lighter skin with the same amount of sun exposure. Thus, people with darker skin are at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency.
Most of our vitamin D comes from the sun. An additional 10 percent to 20 percent of our vitamin D comes from foods like fatty fish (such as salmon), eggs, and mushrooms. Vitamin D supplements are another source of the nutrient for people who are unable to get enough from sun exposure and diet.
Vitamin D deficiency is real, but there’s no epidemic
Some people who promote vitamin D supplements claim that vitamin D deficiency is an epidemic causing widespread health issues. There is little evidence to support this claim. A 2022 analysis of 2001-2018 data found that 2.6 percent of people in the U.S. had severe vitamin D deficiency.
Severe vitamin D deficiency can cause serious health issues, such as muscle weakness, bone loss in adults, and rickets (weak bones) in children. Some people are at higher risk for the deficiency, including individuals with certain disorders that prevent the body from absorbing or processing vitamin D or those with a family history of vitamin D deficiency.
Black Americans have the highest rates of severe vitamin D deficiency at nearly 12 percent. Severe vitamin D deficiency is also slightly higher in the U.S. during the winter when people get less sun exposure. Rates of moderate vitamin D deficiency are higher at 22 percent overall and are highest among Black Americans (49 percent) and Mexican Americans (35 percent).
Although severe vitamin D deficiency exists in the U.S., it is far from common. Most tellingly, conditions that are directly linked to vitamin D deficiency are not widespread. There is no epidemic of rickets, for example, or bone loss in adults.
There’s little evidence that vitamin D supplements improve overall health
Vitamin D supplements have clear, proven positive effects for people with vitamin D deficiency. Other health benefits of vitamin D supplements are less certain.
There is some evidence that the supplement may reduce the risk of fracture in adults with osteoporosis, a condition that causes weak, fragile bones. However, the benefit appears to be limited to people who have low vitamin D levels. In adults with normal vitamin D levels, supplements have no effect on fracture risk.
The largest randomized controlled trial of vitamin D, called VITAL, investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation in people without an existing deficiency. The study found that vitamin D supplements had no effects on the risk of cancer, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke. The study concluded that more research is necessary to determine who may benefit from vitamin D supplements.
Independent analyses found that vitamin D supplementation may be associated with a long-term decrease in cancer mortality, but results are mixed and also require more investigation.
A 2021 analysis of past vitamin D trials found no overall health benefits from vitamin D supplements in people with normal vitamin D levels. Most large-scale studies have found no link between vitamin D supplements and lower all-cause mortality (deaths from any cause), except in older adults and those with vitamin D deficiency.
Vitamin D provides modest protection against respiratory infections
Vitamin D is important for immune function, but this is often misconstrued as vitamin D “boosting” the immune system.
Some people falsely believe that taking vitamin D supplements will keep them healthy and prevent infections like the flu or COVID-19. In reality, clinical trials and large-scale studies of vitamin D have found only minimal protective effects against respiratory infections.
A 2021 analysis of 46 trials found that 61.3 percent of participants who took daily vitamin D supplements got respiratory infections during the study periods—compared to 62.3 percent of people who did not take the supplements. A 2024 meta-analysis of 43 trials found no overall protective effect against respiratory infections, but it detected a slight decrease in risk among people who took specific doses daily.
In young children, there is some evidence that vitamin D supplementation may reduce the length of respiratory infections. However, it does not affect the number or severity of infections that children have.
Despite claims that taking vitamin D can protect against COVID-19, two clinical trials found that taking daily vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk or severity of COVID-19 infections, even at high doses.
Context is key when considering vitamin D’s benefits
None of these studies contradict the well-established evidence that people with vitamin D deficiency benefit from vitamin D supplements. But it’s important to remember that many of the most popular health claims about vitamin D’s benefits are based on research in people with vitamin D deficiency.
Research in vitamin D-deficient populations is important, but it tells us little about how vitamin D will affect people with normal or close to normal vitamin D levels. A closer look at vitamin D research in people without low levels reveals little evidence to support the idea that the general population benefits from taking vitamin D supplements.
For more information, or to learn about your vitamin D levels, talk to your health care provider.
This article first appeared on Public Good News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
How To Prevent And Reverse Type 2 Diabetes
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Turn back the clock on insulin resistance
This is Dr. Jason Fung. He’s a world-leading expert on intermittent fasting and low carbohydrate approaches to diet. He also co-founded the Intensive Dietary Management Program, later rebranded to the snappier title: The Fasting Method, a program to help people lose weight and reverse type 2 diabetes. Dr. Fung is certified with the Institute for Functional Medicine, for providing functional medicine certification along with educational programs directly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME).
Why Intermittent Fasting?
Intermittent fasting is a well-established, well-evidenced, healthful practice for most people. In the case of diabetes, it becomes complicated, because if one’s blood sugars are too low during a fasting period, it will need correcting, thus breaking the fast.
Note: this is about preventing and reversing type 2 diabetes. Type 1 is very different, and sadly cannot be prevented or reversed in this fashion.
However, these ideas may still be useful if you have T1D, as you have an even greater need to avoid developing insulin resistance; you obviously don’t want your exogenous insulin to stop working.
Nevertheless, please do confer with your endocrinologist before changing your dietary habits, as they will know your personal physiology and circumstances in ways that we (and Dr. Fung) don’t.
In the case of having type 2 diabetes, again, please still check with your doctor, but the stakes are a lot lower for you, and you will probably be able to fast without incident, depending on your diet itself (more on this later).
Intermittent Fasting can be extra helpful for the body in the case of type 2 diabetes, as it helps give the body a rest from high insulin levels, thus allowing the body to become gradually re-sensitised to insulin.
Why low carbohydrate?
Carbohydrates, especially sugars, especially fructose*, cause excess sugar to be quickly processed by the liver and stored there. When the body’s ability to store glycogen is exceeded, the liver stores energy as fat instead. The resultant fatty liver is a major contributor to insulin resistance, when the liver can’t keep up with the demand; the blood becomes spiked full of unprocessed sugars, and the pancreas must work overtime to produce more and more insulin to deal with that—until the body starts becoming desensitized to insulin. In other words, type 2 diabetes.
There are other factors that affect whether we get type 2 diabetes, for example a genetic predisposition. But, our carb intake is something we can control, so it’s something that Dr. Fung focuses on.
*A word on fructose: actual fruits are usually diabetes-neutral or a net positive due to their fiber and polyphenols.
Fructose as an added ingredient, however, not so much. That stuff zips straight into your veins with nothing to slow it down and nothing to mitigate it.
The advice from Dr. Fung is simple here: cut the carbs. If you are already diabetic and do this with no preparation, you will probably simply suffer hypoglycemia, so instead:
- Enjoy a fibrous starter (a salad, some fruit, or perhaps some nuts)
- Load up with protein first, during your main meal—this will start to trigger your feelings of satedness
- Eat carbs last (preferably whole, unprocessed carbohydrates), and stop eating when 80% full.
Adapting Intermittent Fasting to diabetes
Dr. Fung advocates for starting small, and gradually increasing your fasting period, until, ideally, fasting 16 hours per day. You probably won’t be able to do this immediately, and that’s fine.
You also probably won’t be able to do this, if you don’t also make the dietary adjustments that help to give your liver a break, and thus by knock-on-effect, give your pancreas a break too.
With the dietary adjustments too, however, your insulin production-and-response will start to return to its pre-diabetic state, and finally its healthy state, after which, it’s just a matter of maintenance.
Want to hear more from Dr. Fung?
You may enjoy his blog, and for those who like videos, here is his YouTube channel:
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The Best Mobility Exercises For Each Joint
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Stiff joints and tight muscles limit movement, performance, and daily activities. They also increase the risk of injury, and increase recovery time if the injury happens. So, it’s pretty important to take care of that!
Here’s how
Key to joint health involves understanding mobility, flexibility, and stability:
- Mobility: active joint movement through a range of motion.
- Flexibility: muscle lengthening passively through a range of motion.
- Stability: body’s ability to return to position after disturbance.
Different body parts have different needs when it comes to prioritizing mobility, flexibility, and stability exercises. So, with that in mind, here’s what to do for your…
- Wrists: flexibility and stability (e.g., wrist circles, loaded flexions/extensions).
- Elbows: Stability is key; exercises like wrist and shoulder movements benefit elbows indirectly.
- Shoulders: mobility and stability; exercises include prone arm circles, passive hangs, active prone raises, easy bridges, and stick-supported movements.
- Spine: mobility and stability; recommended exercises include cat-cow and quadruped reach.
- Hips: mobility and flexibility through deep squat hip rotations; beginners can use hands for support.
- Knees: stability; exercises include elevated pistols, Bulgarian split squats, lunges, and single-leg balancing.
- Ankles: flexibility and stability; exercises include lunges, prying goblet squats, and deep squats with support if necessary.
For more on all of these, plus visual demonstrations, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Building & Maintaining Mobility
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: