Search

Background: An attenuated heart rate response to exercise, termed chronotropic incompetence, has been reported in Parkinson's disease (PD). Chronotropic incompetence may be a marker of autonomic dysfunction and a cause of exercise intolerance in early stages of PD., Objective: To investigate the relationship between chronotropic incompetence, orthostatic blood pressure change (supine - standing), and exercise performance (maximal oxygen consumption, VO2peak) in individuals with early PD within 5 years of diagnosis not on dopaminergic medications., Methods: We performed secondary analyses of heart rate and blood pressure data from the Study in Parkinson's Disease of Exercise (SPARX)., Results: 128 individuals were enrolled into SPARX (63.7±9.3 years; 57.0% male, 0.4 years since diagnosis [median]). 103 individuals were not taking chronotropic medications, of which 90 had a normal maximal heart rate response to exercise testing (155.3±14.0 bpm; PDnon-chrono) and 13 showed evidence of chronotropic incompetence (121.3±11.3 bpm; PDchrono, p < 0.05). PDchrono had decreased VO2peak compared to PDnon-chrono (19.7±4.5 mL/kg/min and 24.3±5.8 mL/kg/min, respectively, p = 0.027). There was a positive correlation between peak heart rate during exercise and the change in systolic blood pressure from supine to standing (r = 0.365, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: A subgroup of individuals with early PD not on dopaminergic medication had chronotropic incompetence and decreased VO2peak, which may be related to autonomic dysfunction. Evaluation of both heart rate responses to incremental exercise and orthostatic vital signs may serve as biomarkers of early autonomic impairment and guide treatment. Further studies should investigate whether cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction affects the ability to exercise and whether exercise training improves autonomic dysfunction.

As COVID-19 evolves from a pandemic to an endemic disease, the already staggering number of people that have been or will be infected with SARS-CoV-2 is only destined to increase, and the majority of humanity will be infected. It is well understood that COVID-19, like many other viral infections, leaves a significant fraction of the infected with prolonged consequences. Continued high number of SARS-CoV-2 infections, viral evolution with escape from post-infection and vaccinal immunity, and reinfections heighten the potential impact of Long COVID. Hence, the impact of COVID-19 on human health will be seen for years to come until more effective vaccines and pharmaceutical treatments become available. To that effect, it is imperative that the mechanisms underlying the clinical manifestations of Long COVID be elucidated. In this article, we provide an in-depth analysis of the evidence on several potential mechanisms of Long COVID and discuss their relevance to its pathogenesis., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns - conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we - a broad group of working virologists - seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.