Search

Purpose: To understand the influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on clinical autonomic education and research in Europe. Methods: We invited 84 European autonomic centers to complete an online survey, recorded the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic percentage of junior participants in the annual congresses of the European Federation of Autonomic Societies (EFAS) and European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic number of PubMed publications on neurological disorders. Results: Forty-six centers answered the survey (55%). Twenty-nine centers were involved in clinical autonomic education and experienced pandemic-related didactic interruptions for 9 (5; 9) months. Ninety percent (n = 26/29) of autonomic educational centers reported a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education quality, and 93% (n = 27/29) established e-learning models. Both the 2020 joint EAN–EFAS virtual congress and the 2021 (virtual) and 2022 (hybrid) EFAS and EAN congresses marked higher percentages of junior participants than in 2019. Forty-one respondents (89%) were autonomic researchers, and 29 of them reported pandemic-related trial interruptions for 5 (2; 9) months. Since the pandemic begin, almost half of the respondents had less time for scientific writing. Likewise, the number of PubMed publications on autonomic topics showed the smallest increase compared with other neurological fields in 2020–2021 and the highest drop in 2022. Autonomic research centers that amended their trial protocols for telemedicine (38%, n = 16/41) maintained higher clinical caseloads during the first pandemic year. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial negative impact on European clinical autonomic education and research. At the same time, it promoted digitalization, favoring more equitable access to autonomic education and improved trial design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the benefits of physical exercise for a healthy aging are well-recognized, a growing body of evidence shows that sedentary behavior has deleterious health effects independently, to some extent, of physical activity levels. Yet, the increasing prevalence of sedentariness constitutes a major public health issue that contributes to premature aging but the potential cellular mechanisms through which prolonged immobilization may accelerate biological aging remain unestablished. This narrative review summarizes the impact of sedentary behavior using different models of extreme sedentary behaviors including bedrest, unilateral limb suspension and space travel studies, on the hallmarks of aging such as genomic instability, telomere attrition, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, deregulated nutrient sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, stem cell exhaustion, and altered intercellular communication. We further highlight the remaining knowledge gaps that need more research in order to promote healthspan extension and to provide future contributions to the field of geroscience. • Sedentary behavior promotes most of the hallmarks of aging in muscular cells. • Its impact may be modulated by age, muscle fiber typology, and sedentary duration. • More research is needed regarding genetic-related hallmarks and cellular senescence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiovascular deconditioning after long duration spaceflight is especially challenging in women who have a lower orthostatic tolerance (OT) compared with men. We hypothesized that an exercise prescription, combining supine aerobic treadmill exercise in a lower body negative pressure (LBNP) chamber followed by 10 min of resting LBNP, three to four times a week, and flywheel resistive training every third day would maintain orthostatic tolerance (OT) in women during a 60-day head-down-tilt bed rest (HDBR). Sixteen women were assigned to two groups (exercise, control). Pre and post HDBR OT was assessed with a tilt/LBNP test until presyncope. OT time (mean +/- SE) decreased from 17.5 +/- 1.0 min to 9.1 +/- 1.5 min (-50 +/- 6%) in control group (P < 0.001) and from 19.3 +/- 1.3 min to 13.0 +/- 1.9 min (-35 +/- 7%) in exercise group (P < 0.001), with no significant difference in OT time between the two groups after HDBR (P = 0.13). Nevertheless, compared with controls post HDBR, exercisers had a lower heart rate during supine rest (mean +/- SE, 71 +/- 3 vs. 85 +/- 4, P < 0.01), a slower increase in heart rate and a slower decrease in stroke volume over the course of tilt/LBNP test (P < 0.05). Blood volume (mean +/- SE) decreased in controls (-9 +/- 2%, P < 0.01) but was maintained in exercisers (-4 +/- 3%, P = 0.17).Our results suggest that the combined exercise countermeasure did not significantly improve OT but protected blood volume and cardiovascular response to sub tolerance levels of orthostatic stress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]