Clinical Psychiatry News

Physicians are bracing for upcoming changes in reimbursement that may start within a few months. As doctors gear up for another wave of COVID, payment trends may not be the top priority, but some “uh oh” announcements in the fall of 2021 could have far-reaching implications that could affect your future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule in the summer covering key aspects of physician payment. Although the rule contained some small bright lights, the most important changes proposed were far from welcome.

Here’s what could be in store:

1. The highly anticipated Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ruling confirmed a sweeping payment cut. The drive to maintain budget neutrality forced the federal agency to reduce Medicare payments, on average, by nearly 4%. Many physicians are outraged at the proposed cut.

2. More bad news for 2022: Sequestration will be back. Sequestration is the mandatory, pesky, negative 2% adjustment on all Medicare payments. It had been put on hold and is set to return at the beginning of 2022.

Essentially, sequestration reduces what Medicare pays its providers for health services, but Medicare beneficiaries bear no responsibility for the cost difference. To prevent further debt, CMS imposes financially on hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers.

The Health Resources and Services Administration has funds remaining to reimburse for all COVID-related testing, treatment, and vaccines provided to uninsured individuals. You can apply and be reimbursed at Medicare rates for these services when COVID is the primary diagnosis (or secondary in the case of pregnancy). Patients need not be American citizens for you to get paid.

3. Down to a nail-biter: The final ruling is expected in early November. The situation smacks of earlier days when physicians clung to a precipice, waiting in anticipation for a legislative body to save them from the dreaded income plunge. Indeed, we are slipping back to the decade-long period when Congress kept coming to the rescue simply to maintain the status quo.

Many anticipate a last-minute Congressional intervention to save the day, particularly in the midst of another COVID spike. The promises of a stable reimbursement system made possible by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act have been far from realized, and there are signs that the payment landscape is in the midst of a fundamental transformation.

Other changes proposed in the 1,747-page ruling include:
 

Positive:

• More telehealth services will be covered by Medicare, including home visits.
• Tele–mental health services got a big boost; many restrictions were removed so that now the patient’s home is considered a permissible originating site. It also allows for audio-only (no visual required) encounters; the audio-only allowance will extend to opioid use disorder treatment services. Phone treatment is covered.
• Permanent adoption of G2252: The 11- to 20-minute virtual check-in code wasn’t just a one-time payment but will be reimbursed in perpetuity.
• Boosts in reimbursement for chronic care and principal care management codes, which range on the basis of service but indicate a commitment to pay for care coordination.
• Clarification of roles and billing opportunities for split/shared visits, which occur if a physician and advanced practice provider see the same patient on a particular day. Prepare for new coding rules to include a modifier. Previously, the rules for billing were muddled, so transparency helps guide payment opportunities.
• Delay of the appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging for 1 (more) year, a welcome postponement of the ruling that carries a significant administrative burden.
• Physician assistants will be able to bill Medicare directly, and referrals to be made to medical nutrition therapy by a nontreating physician.
• A new approach to patient cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings will be phased in. This area has caused problems in the past when the physician identifies a need for additional services (for example, polyp removal by a gastroenterologist during routine colonoscopy).
•  

Not positive:

• Which specialties benefit and which get zapped? The anticipated impact by specialty ranges from hits to interventional radiologists (–9%) and vascular surgeons (–8%), to increases for family practitioners, hand surgeons, endocrinologists, and geriatricians, each estimated to gain a modest 2%. (The exception is portable x-ray supplier, with an estimated increase of 10%.) All other specialties fall in between.
• The proposed conversion factor for 2022 is $33.58, a 3.75% drop from the 2021 conversion factor of $34.89.

The proposed ruling also covered the Quality Payment Program, the overarching program of which the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the main track for participation. The proposal incorporates additional episode-based cost measures as well as updates to quality indicators and improvement activities.

MIPS penalties. The stakes are higher now, with 9% penalties on the table for nonparticipants. The government offers physicians the ability to officially get out of the program in 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby staving off the steep penalty. The option, which is available through the end of the year, requires a simple application that can be completed on behalf of the entire practice. If you want out, now is the time to find and fill out that application.

Exempt from technology requirements. If the proposal is accepted, small practices – defined by CMS as 15 eligible clinicians or fewer – won’t have to file an annual application to reweight the “promoting interoperability” portion of the program. If acknowledged, small practices will automatically be exempt from the program’s technology section. That’s a big plus, as one of the many chief complaints from small practices is the onus of meeting the technology requirements, which include a security risk analysis, bi-directional health information exchange, public health reporting, and patient access to health information. Meeting the requirements is no small feat. That will only affect future years, so be sure to apply in 2021 if applicable for your practice.

Changes in MIPS. MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) are anticipated for 2023, with the government releasing details about proposed models for heart disease, rheumatology, joint repair, and more. The MVPs are slated to take over the traditional MIPS by 2027.

The program will shift to 30% of your score coming from the “cost” category, which is based on the government’s analysis of a physician’s claims – and, if attributed, the claims of the patients for whom you care. This area is tricky to manage, but recognize that the costs under scrutiny are the expenses paid by Medicare on behalf of its patients.

In essence, Medicare is measuring the cost of your patients as compared with your colleagues’ costs (in the form of specialty-based benchmarks). Therefore, if you’re referring, or ordering, a more costly set of diagnostic tests, assessments, or interventions than your peers, you’ll be dinged.

However, physicians are more likely this year to flat out reject participation in the federal payment program. Payouts have been paltry and dismal to date, and the buzz is that physicians just don’t consider it worth the effort. Of course, clearing the threshold (which is proposed at 70 points next year) is a must to avoid the penalty, but don’t go crazy to get a perfect score as it won’t count for much. 2022 is the final year that there are any monies for exceptional performance.

Considering that the payouts for exceptional performance have been less than 2% for several years now, it’s hard to justify dedicating resources to achieve perfection. Experts believe that even exceptional performance will only be worth pennies in bonus payments.

The fear of the stick, therefore, may be the only motivation. And that is subjective, as physicians weigh the effort required versus just taking the hit on the penalty. But the penalty is substantial, and so even without the incentive, it’s important to participate at least at the threshold.

Fewer cost-sharing waivers. While the federal government’s payment policies have a major impact on reimbursement, other forces may have broader implications. Commercial payers have rolled back cost-sharing waivers, bringing to light the significant financial responsibility that patients have for their health care in the form of deductibles, coinsurance, and so forth.

More than a third of Americans had trouble paying their health care bills before the pandemic; as patients catch up with services that were postponed or delayed because of the pandemic, this may expose challenges for you. Patients with unpaid bills translate into your financial burden.

Virtual-first health plans. Patients may be seeking alternatives to avoid the frustrating cycle of unpaid medical bills. This may be a factor propelling another trend: Lower-cost virtual-first health plans such as Alignment Health have taken hold in the market. As the name implies, insurance coverage features telehealth that extends to in-person services if necessary.

These disruptors may have their hands at least somewhat tied, however. The market may not be able to fully embrace telemedicine until state licensure is addressed. Despite the federal regulatory relaxations, states still control the distribution of medical care through licensure requirements. Many are rolling back their pandemic-based emergency orders and only allowing licensed physicians to see patients in their state, even over telemedicine.

While seemingly frustrating for physicians who want to see patients over state lines, the delays imposed by states may actually have a welcome effect. If licensure migrates to the federal level, there are many implications. For the purposes of this article, the competitive landscape will become incredibly aggressive. You will need to compete with Amazon Care, Walmart, Cigna, and many other well-funded national players that would love nothing more than to launch a campaign to target the entire nation. Investors are eager to capture part of the nearly quarter-trillion-dollar market, with telemedicine at 38 times prepandemic levels and no signs of abating.

Increased competition for insurers. While the proposed drop in Medicare reimbursement is frustrating, keep a pulse on the fact that your patients may soon be lured by vendors like Amazon and others eager to gain access to physician payments. Instead of analyzing Federal Registers in the future, we may be assessing stock prices.

Consider, therefore, how to ensure that your digital front door is at least available, if not wide open, in the meantime. The nature of physician payments is surely changing.

Ms. Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are bracing for upcoming changes in reimbursement that may start within a few months. As doctors gear up for another wave of COVID, payment trends may not be the top priority, but some “uh oh” announcements in the fall of 2021 could have far-reaching implications that could affect your future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule in the summer covering key aspects of physician payment. Although the rule contained some small bright lights, the most important changes proposed were far from welcome.

Here’s what could be in store:

1. The highly anticipated Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ruling confirmed a sweeping payment cut. The drive to maintain budget neutrality forced the federal agency to reduce Medicare payments, on average, by nearly 4%. Many physicians are outraged at the proposed cut.

2. More bad news for 2022: Sequestration will be back. Sequestration is the mandatory, pesky, negative 2% adjustment on all Medicare payments. It had been put on hold and is set to return at the beginning of 2022.

Essentially, sequestration reduces what Medicare pays its providers for health services, but Medicare beneficiaries bear no responsibility for the cost difference. To prevent further debt, CMS imposes financially on hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers.

The Health Resources and Services Administration has funds remaining to reimburse for all COVID-related testing, treatment, and vaccines provided to uninsured individuals. You can apply and be reimbursed at Medicare rates for these services when COVID is the primary diagnosis (or secondary in the case of pregnancy). Patients need not be American citizens for you to get paid.

3. Down to a nail-biter: The final ruling is expected in early November. The situation smacks of earlier days when physicians clung to a precipice, waiting in anticipation for a legislative body to save them from the dreaded income plunge. Indeed, we are slipping back to the decade-long period when Congress kept coming to the rescue simply to maintain the status quo.

Many anticipate a last-minute Congressional intervention to save the day, particularly in the midst of another COVID spike. The promises of a stable reimbursement system made possible by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act have been far from realized, and there are signs that the payment landscape is in the midst of a fundamental transformation.

Other changes proposed in the 1,747-page ruling include:
 

Positive:

• More telehealth services will be covered by Medicare, including home visits.
• Tele–mental health services got a big boost; many restrictions were removed so that now the patient’s home is considered a permissible originating site. It also allows for audio-only (no visual required) encounters; the audio-only allowance will extend to opioid use disorder treatment services. Phone treatment is covered.
• Permanent adoption of G2252: The 11- to 20-minute virtual check-in code wasn’t just a one-time payment but will be reimbursed in perpetuity.
• Boosts in reimbursement for chronic care and principal care management codes, which range on the basis of service but indicate a commitment to pay for care coordination.
• Clarification of roles and billing opportunities for split/shared visits, which occur if a physician and advanced practice provider see the same patient on a particular day. Prepare for new coding rules to include a modifier. Previously, the rules for billing were muddled, so transparency helps guide payment opportunities.
• Delay of the appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging for 1 (more) year, a welcome postponement of the ruling that carries a significant administrative burden.
• Physician assistants will be able to bill Medicare directly, and referrals to be made to medical nutrition therapy by a nontreating physician.
• A new approach to patient cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings will be phased in. This area has caused problems in the past when the physician identifies a need for additional services (for example, polyp removal by a gastroenterologist during routine colonoscopy).
•  

Not positive:

• Which specialties benefit and which get zapped? The anticipated impact by specialty ranges from hits to interventional radiologists (–9%) and vascular surgeons (–8%), to increases for family practitioners, hand surgeons, endocrinologists, and geriatricians, each estimated to gain a modest 2%. (The exception is portable x-ray supplier, with an estimated increase of 10%.) All other specialties fall in between.
• The proposed conversion factor for 2022 is $33.58, a 3.75% drop from the 2021 conversion factor of $34.89.

The proposed ruling also covered the Quality Payment Program, the overarching program of which the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the main track for participation. The proposal incorporates additional episode-based cost measures as well as updates to quality indicators and improvement activities.

MIPS penalties. The stakes are higher now, with 9% penalties on the table for nonparticipants. The government offers physicians the ability to officially get out of the program in 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby staving off the steep penalty. The option, which is available through the end of the year, requires a simple application that can be completed on behalf of the entire practice. If you want out, now is the time to find and fill out that application.

Exempt from technology requirements. If the proposal is accepted, small practices – defined by CMS as 15 eligible clinicians or fewer – won’t have to file an annual application to reweight the “promoting interoperability” portion of the program. If acknowledged, small practices will automatically be exempt from the program’s technology section. That’s a big plus, as one of the many chief complaints from small practices is the onus of meeting the technology requirements, which include a security risk analysis, bi-directional health information exchange, public health reporting, and patient access to health information. Meeting the requirements is no small feat. That will only affect future years, so be sure to apply in 2021 if applicable for your practice.

Changes in MIPS. MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) are anticipated for 2023, with the government releasing details about proposed models for heart disease, rheumatology, joint repair, and more. The MVPs are slated to take over the traditional MIPS by 2027.

The program will shift to 30% of your score coming from the “cost” category, which is based on the government’s analysis of a physician’s claims – and, if attributed, the claims of the patients for whom you care. This area is tricky to manage, but recognize that the costs under scrutiny are the expenses paid by Medicare on behalf of its patients.

In essence, Medicare is measuring the cost of your patients as compared with your colleagues’ costs (in the form of specialty-based benchmarks). Therefore, if you’re referring, or ordering, a more costly set of diagnostic tests, assessments, or interventions than your peers, you’ll be dinged.

However, physicians are more likely this year to flat out reject participation in the federal payment program. Payouts have been paltry and dismal to date, and the buzz is that physicians just don’t consider it worth the effort. Of course, clearing the threshold (which is proposed at 70 points next year) is a must to avoid the penalty, but don’t go crazy to get a perfect score as it won’t count for much. 2022 is the final year that there are any monies for exceptional performance.

Considering that the payouts for exceptional performance have been less than 2% for several years now, it’s hard to justify dedicating resources to achieve perfection. Experts believe that even exceptional performance will only be worth pennies in bonus payments.

The fear of the stick, therefore, may be the only motivation. And that is subjective, as physicians weigh the effort required versus just taking the hit on the penalty. But the penalty is substantial, and so even without the incentive, it’s important to participate at least at the threshold.

Fewer cost-sharing waivers. While the federal government’s payment policies have a major impact on reimbursement, other forces may have broader implications. Commercial payers have rolled back cost-sharing waivers, bringing to light the significant financial responsibility that patients have for their health care in the form of deductibles, coinsurance, and so forth.

More than a third of Americans had trouble paying their health care bills before the pandemic; as patients catch up with services that were postponed or delayed because of the pandemic, this may expose challenges for you. Patients with unpaid bills translate into your financial burden.

Virtual-first health plans. Patients may be seeking alternatives to avoid the frustrating cycle of unpaid medical bills. This may be a factor propelling another trend: Lower-cost virtual-first health plans such as Alignment Health have taken hold in the market. As the name implies, insurance coverage features telehealth that extends to in-person services if necessary.

These disruptors may have their hands at least somewhat tied, however. The market may not be able to fully embrace telemedicine until state licensure is addressed. Despite the federal regulatory relaxations, states still control the distribution of medical care through licensure requirements. Many are rolling back their pandemic-based emergency orders and only allowing licensed physicians to see patients in their state, even over telemedicine.

While seemingly frustrating for physicians who want to see patients over state lines, the delays imposed by states may actually have a welcome effect. If licensure migrates to the federal level, there are many implications. For the purposes of this article, the competitive landscape will become incredibly aggressive. You will need to compete with Amazon Care, Walmart, Cigna, and many other well-funded national players that would love nothing more than to launch a campaign to target the entire nation. Investors are eager to capture part of the nearly quarter-trillion-dollar market, with telemedicine at 38 times prepandemic levels and no signs of abating.

Increased competition for insurers. While the proposed drop in Medicare reimbursement is frustrating, keep a pulse on the fact that your patients may soon be lured by vendors like Amazon and others eager to gain access to physician payments. Instead of analyzing Federal Registers in the future, we may be assessing stock prices.

Consider, therefore, how to ensure that your digital front door is at least available, if not wide open, in the meantime. The nature of physician payments is surely changing.

Ms. Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are bracing for upcoming changes in reimbursement that may start within a few months. As doctors gear up for another wave of COVID, payment trends may not be the top priority, but some “uh oh” announcements in the fall of 2021 could have far-reaching implications that could affect your future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule in the summer covering key aspects of physician payment. Although the rule contained some small bright lights, the most important changes proposed were far from welcome.

Here’s what could be in store:

1. The highly anticipated Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ruling confirmed a sweeping payment cut. The drive to maintain budget neutrality forced the federal agency to reduce Medicare payments, on average, by nearly 4%. Many physicians are outraged at the proposed cut.

2. More bad news for 2022: Sequestration will be back. Sequestration is the mandatory, pesky, negative 2% adjustment on all Medicare payments. It had been put on hold and is set to return at the beginning of 2022.

Essentially, sequestration reduces what Medicare pays its providers for health services, but Medicare beneficiaries bear no responsibility for the cost difference. To prevent further debt, CMS imposes financially on hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers.

The Health Resources and Services Administration has funds remaining to reimburse for all COVID-related testing, treatment, and vaccines provided to uninsured individuals. You can apply and be reimbursed at Medicare rates for these services when COVID is the primary diagnosis (or secondary in the case of pregnancy). Patients need not be American citizens for you to get paid.

3. Down to a nail-biter: The final ruling is expected in early November. The situation smacks of earlier days when physicians clung to a precipice, waiting in anticipation for a legislative body to save them from the dreaded income plunge. Indeed, we are slipping back to the decade-long period when Congress kept coming to the rescue simply to maintain the status quo.

Many anticipate a last-minute Congressional intervention to save the day, particularly in the midst of another COVID spike. The promises of a stable reimbursement system made possible by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act have been far from realized, and there are signs that the payment landscape is in the midst of a fundamental transformation.

Other changes proposed in the 1,747-page ruling include:
 

Positive:

• More telehealth services will be covered by Medicare, including home visits.
• Tele–mental health services got a big boost; many restrictions were removed so that now the patient’s home is considered a permissible originating site. It also allows for audio-only (no visual required) encounters; the audio-only allowance will extend to opioid use disorder treatment services. Phone treatment is covered.
• Permanent adoption of G2252: The 11- to 20-minute virtual check-in code wasn’t just a one-time payment but will be reimbursed in perpetuity.
• Boosts in reimbursement for chronic care and principal care management codes, which range on the basis of service but indicate a commitment to pay for care coordination.
• Clarification of roles and billing opportunities for split/shared visits, which occur if a physician and advanced practice provider see the same patient on a particular day. Prepare for new coding rules to include a modifier. Previously, the rules for billing were muddled, so transparency helps guide payment opportunities.
• Delay of the appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging for 1 (more) year, a welcome postponement of the ruling that carries a significant administrative burden.
• Physician assistants will be able to bill Medicare directly, and referrals to be made to medical nutrition therapy by a nontreating physician.
• A new approach to patient cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings will be phased in. This area has caused problems in the past when the physician identifies a need for additional services (for example, polyp removal by a gastroenterologist during routine colonoscopy).
•  

Not positive:

• Which specialties benefit and which get zapped? The anticipated impact by specialty ranges from hits to interventional radiologists (–9%) and vascular surgeons (–8%), to increases for family practitioners, hand surgeons, endocrinologists, and geriatricians, each estimated to gain a modest 2%. (The exception is portable x-ray supplier, with an estimated increase of 10%.) All other specialties fall in between.
• The proposed conversion factor for 2022 is $33.58, a 3.75% drop from the 2021 conversion factor of $34.89.

The proposed ruling also covered the Quality Payment Program, the overarching program of which the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the main track for participation. The proposal incorporates additional episode-based cost measures as well as updates to quality indicators and improvement activities.

MIPS penalties. The stakes are higher now, with 9% penalties on the table for nonparticipants. The government offers physicians the ability to officially get out of the program in 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby staving off the steep penalty. The option, which is available through the end of the year, requires a simple application that can be completed on behalf of the entire practice. If you want out, now is the time to find and fill out that application.

Exempt from technology requirements. If the proposal is accepted, small practices – defined by CMS as 15 eligible clinicians or fewer – won’t have to file an annual application to reweight the “promoting interoperability” portion of the program. If acknowledged, small practices will automatically be exempt from the program’s technology section. That’s a big plus, as one of the many chief complaints from small practices is the onus of meeting the technology requirements, which include a security risk analysis, bi-directional health information exchange, public health reporting, and patient access to health information. Meeting the requirements is no small feat. That will only affect future years, so be sure to apply in 2021 if applicable for your practice.

Changes in MIPS. MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) are anticipated for 2023, with the government releasing details about proposed models for heart disease, rheumatology, joint repair, and more. The MVPs are slated to take over the traditional MIPS by 2027.

The program will shift to 30% of your score coming from the “cost” category, which is based on the government’s analysis of a physician’s claims – and, if attributed, the claims of the patients for whom you care. This area is tricky to manage, but recognize that the costs under scrutiny are the expenses paid by Medicare on behalf of its patients.

In essence, Medicare is measuring the cost of your patients as compared with your colleagues’ costs (in the form of specialty-based benchmarks). Therefore, if you’re referring, or ordering, a more costly set of diagnostic tests, assessments, or interventions than your peers, you’ll be dinged.

However, physicians are more likely this year to flat out reject participation in the federal payment program. Payouts have been paltry and dismal to date, and the buzz is that physicians just don’t consider it worth the effort. Of course, clearing the threshold (which is proposed at 70 points next year) is a must to avoid the penalty, but don’t go crazy to get a perfect score as it won’t count for much. 2022 is the final year that there are any monies for exceptional performance.

Considering that the payouts for exceptional performance have been less than 2% for several years now, it’s hard to justify dedicating resources to achieve perfection. Experts believe that even exceptional performance will only be worth pennies in bonus payments.

The fear of the stick, therefore, may be the only motivation. And that is subjective, as physicians weigh the effort required versus just taking the hit on the penalty. But the penalty is substantial, and so even without the incentive, it’s important to participate at least at the threshold.

Fewer cost-sharing waivers. While the federal government’s payment policies have a major impact on reimbursement, other forces may have broader implications. Commercial payers have rolled back cost-sharing waivers, bringing to light the significant financial responsibility that patients have for their health care in the form of deductibles, coinsurance, and so forth.

More than a third of Americans had trouble paying their health care bills before the pandemic; as patients catch up with services that were postponed or delayed because of the pandemic, this may expose challenges for you. Patients with unpaid bills translate into your financial burden.

Virtual-first health plans. Patients may be seeking alternatives to avoid the frustrating cycle of unpaid medical bills. This may be a factor propelling another trend: Lower-cost virtual-first health plans such as Alignment Health have taken hold in the market. As the name implies, insurance coverage features telehealth that extends to in-person services if necessary.

These disruptors may have their hands at least somewhat tied, however. The market may not be able to fully embrace telemedicine until state licensure is addressed. Despite the federal regulatory relaxations, states still control the distribution of medical care through licensure requirements. Many are rolling back their pandemic-based emergency orders and only allowing licensed physicians to see patients in their state, even over telemedicine.

While seemingly frustrating for physicians who want to see patients over state lines, the delays imposed by states may actually have a welcome effect. If licensure migrates to the federal level, there are many implications. For the purposes of this article, the competitive landscape will become incredibly aggressive. You will need to compete with Amazon Care, Walmart, Cigna, and many other well-funded national players that would love nothing more than to launch a campaign to target the entire nation. Investors are eager to capture part of the nearly quarter-trillion-dollar market, with telemedicine at 38 times prepandemic levels and no signs of abating.

Increased competition for insurers. While the proposed drop in Medicare reimbursement is frustrating, keep a pulse on the fact that your patients may soon be lured by vendors like Amazon and others eager to gain access to physician payments. Instead of analyzing Federal Registers in the future, we may be assessing stock prices.

Consider, therefore, how to ensure that your digital front door is at least available, if not wide open, in the meantime. The nature of physician payments is surely changing.

Ms. Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

Over the past 16 months, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted not only our vulnerability to disease outbreaks but also our susceptibility to misinformation and the dangers of “fake news.”

In fact, COVID-19 is not a pandemic but rather a syndemic of viral disease and misinformation. In the current digital age, there is an abundance of information at our fingertips. This has resulted in a surplus of accurate as well as inaccurate information – information that is subject to the various biases we humans are subject to.

Bias plays a significant role in the processing and interpretation of information. Our decision making and cognition are colored by our internal and external environmental biases, whether through our emotions, societal influences, or cues from the “machines” that are now such an omnipresent part of our lives.

Let’s break them down:

• Emotional bias: We’re only human, and our emotions often overwhelm objective judgment. Even when the evidence is of low quality, emotional attachments can deter us from rational thinking. This kind of bias can be rooted in personal experiences.
• Societal bias: Thoughts, opinions, or perspectives of peers are powerful forces that may influence our decisions and viewpoints. We can conceptualize our social networks as partisan circles and “echo chambers.” This bias is perhaps most evident in various online social media platforms.
• Machine bias: Our online platforms are laced with algorithms that tailor the content we see. Accordingly, the curated content we see (and, by extension, the less diverse content we view) may reinforce existing biases, such as confirmation bias.
• Although bias plays a significant role in decision making, we should also consider intuition versus deliberation – and whether the “gut” is a reliable source of information.

Intuition versus deliberation: The power of reasoning

The dual process theory suggests that thought may be categorized in two ways: System 1, referred to as rapid, intuitive, or automatic thinking (which may be a result of personal experience); and system 2, referred to as deliberate or controlled thinking (for example, reasoned thinking). System 1 versus system 2 may be conceptualized as fast versus slow thinking.

Let’s use the Cognitive Reflection Test to illustrate the dual process theory. This test measures the ability to reflect and deliberate on a question and to forgo an intuitive, rapid response. One of the questions asks: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” A common answer is that the ball costs $0.10. However, the ball actually costs $0.05. The common response is a “gut” response, rather than an analytic or deliberate response.

This example can be extrapolated to social media behavior, such as when individuals endorse beliefs and behaviors that may be far from the truth (for example, conspiracy ideation). It is not uncommon for individuals to rely on intuition, which may be incorrect, as a driving source of truth. Although one’s intuition can be correct, it’s important to be careful and to deliberate.

But would deliberate engagement lead to more politically valenced perspectives? One hypothesis posits that system 2 can lead to false claims and worsening discernment of truth. Another, and more popular, account of classical reasoning says that more thoughtful engagement (regardless of one’s political beliefs) is less susceptible to false news (for example, hyperpartisan news).

Additionally, having good literacy (political, scientific, or general) is important for discerning the truth, especially regarding events in which the information and/or claims of knowledge have been heavily manipulated.
 

Are believing and sharing the same?

Interestingly, believing in a headline and sharing it are not the same. A study that investigated the difference between the two found that although individuals were able to discern the validity of headlines, the veracity of those headlines was not a determining factor in sharing the story on social media.

It has been suggested that social media context may distract individuals from engaging in deliberate thinking that would enhance their ability to determine the accuracy of the content. The dissociation between truthfulness and sharing may be a result of the “attention economy,” which refers to user engagement of likes, comments, shares, and so forth. As such, social media behavior and content consumption may not necessarily reflect one’s beliefs and may be influenced by what others value.

To combat the spread of misinformation, it has been suggested that proactive interventions – “prebunking” or “inoculation” – are necessary. This idea is in accordance with the inoculation theory, which suggests that pre-exposure can confer resistance to challenge. This line of thinking is aligned with the use of vaccines to counter medical illnesses. Increasing awareness of individual vulnerability to manipulation and misinformation has also been proposed as a strategy to resist persuasion.

The age old tale of what others think of us versus what we believe to be true has existed long before the viral overtake of social media. The main difference today is that social media acts as a catalyst for pockets of misinformation. Although social media outlets are cracking down on “false news,” we must consider what criteria should be employed to identify false information. Should external bodies regulate our content consumption? We are certainly entering a gray zone of “wrong” versus “right.” With the overabundance of information available online, it may be the case of “them” versus “us” – that is, those who do not believe in the existence of misinformation versus those who do.

Leanna M. W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc candidate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past 16 months, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted not only our vulnerability to disease outbreaks but also our susceptibility to misinformation and the dangers of “fake news.”

In fact, COVID-19 is not a pandemic but rather a syndemic of viral disease and misinformation. In the current digital age, there is an abundance of information at our fingertips. This has resulted in a surplus of accurate as well as inaccurate information – information that is subject to the various biases we humans are subject to.

Bias plays a significant role in the processing and interpretation of information. Our decision making and cognition are colored by our internal and external environmental biases, whether through our emotions, societal influences, or cues from the “machines” that are now such an omnipresent part of our lives.

Let’s break them down:

• Emotional bias: We’re only human, and our emotions often overwhelm objective judgment. Even when the evidence is of low quality, emotional attachments can deter us from rational thinking. This kind of bias can be rooted in personal experiences.
• Societal bias: Thoughts, opinions, or perspectives of peers are powerful forces that may influence our decisions and viewpoints. We can conceptualize our social networks as partisan circles and “echo chambers.” This bias is perhaps most evident in various online social media platforms.
• Machine bias: Our online platforms are laced with algorithms that tailor the content we see. Accordingly, the curated content we see (and, by extension, the less diverse content we view) may reinforce existing biases, such as confirmation bias.
• Although bias plays a significant role in decision making, we should also consider intuition versus deliberation – and whether the “gut” is a reliable source of information.

Intuition versus deliberation: The power of reasoning

The dual process theory suggests that thought may be categorized in two ways: System 1, referred to as rapid, intuitive, or automatic thinking (which may be a result of personal experience); and system 2, referred to as deliberate or controlled thinking (for example, reasoned thinking). System 1 versus system 2 may be conceptualized as fast versus slow thinking.

Let’s use the Cognitive Reflection Test to illustrate the dual process theory. This test measures the ability to reflect and deliberate on a question and to forgo an intuitive, rapid response. One of the questions asks: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” A common answer is that the ball costs $0.10. However, the ball actually costs $0.05. The common response is a “gut” response, rather than an analytic or deliberate response.

This example can be extrapolated to social media behavior, such as when individuals endorse beliefs and behaviors that may be far from the truth (for example, conspiracy ideation). It is not uncommon for individuals to rely on intuition, which may be incorrect, as a driving source of truth. Although one’s intuition can be correct, it’s important to be careful and to deliberate.

But would deliberate engagement lead to more politically valenced perspectives? One hypothesis posits that system 2 can lead to false claims and worsening discernment of truth. Another, and more popular, account of classical reasoning says that more thoughtful engagement (regardless of one’s political beliefs) is less susceptible to false news (for example, hyperpartisan news).

Additionally, having good literacy (political, scientific, or general) is important for discerning the truth, especially regarding events in which the information and/or claims of knowledge have been heavily manipulated.
 

Are believing and sharing the same?

Interestingly, believing in a headline and sharing it are not the same. A study that investigated the difference between the two found that although individuals were able to discern the validity of headlines, the veracity of those headlines was not a determining factor in sharing the story on social media.

It has been suggested that social media context may distract individuals from engaging in deliberate thinking that would enhance their ability to determine the accuracy of the content. The dissociation between truthfulness and sharing may be a result of the “attention economy,” which refers to user engagement of likes, comments, shares, and so forth. As such, social media behavior and content consumption may not necessarily reflect one’s beliefs and may be influenced by what others value.

To combat the spread of misinformation, it has been suggested that proactive interventions – “prebunking” or “inoculation” – are necessary. This idea is in accordance with the inoculation theory, which suggests that pre-exposure can confer resistance to challenge. This line of thinking is aligned with the use of vaccines to counter medical illnesses. Increasing awareness of individual vulnerability to manipulation and misinformation has also been proposed as a strategy to resist persuasion.

The age old tale of what others think of us versus what we believe to be true has existed long before the viral overtake of social media. The main difference today is that social media acts as a catalyst for pockets of misinformation. Although social media outlets are cracking down on “false news,” we must consider what criteria should be employed to identify false information. Should external bodies regulate our content consumption? We are certainly entering a gray zone of “wrong” versus “right.” With the overabundance of information available online, it may be the case of “them” versus “us” – that is, those who do not believe in the existence of misinformation versus those who do.

Leanna M. W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc candidate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past 16 months, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted not only our vulnerability to disease outbreaks but also our susceptibility to misinformation and the dangers of “fake news.”

In fact, COVID-19 is not a pandemic but rather a syndemic of viral disease and misinformation. In the current digital age, there is an abundance of information at our fingertips. This has resulted in a surplus of accurate as well as inaccurate information – information that is subject to the various biases we humans are subject to.

Bias plays a significant role in the processing and interpretation of information. Our decision making and cognition are colored by our internal and external environmental biases, whether through our emotions, societal influences, or cues from the “machines” that are now such an omnipresent part of our lives.

Let’s break them down:

• Emotional bias: We’re only human, and our emotions often overwhelm objective judgment. Even when the evidence is of low quality, emotional attachments can deter us from rational thinking. This kind of bias can be rooted in personal experiences.
• Societal bias: Thoughts, opinions, or perspectives of peers are powerful forces that may influence our decisions and viewpoints. We can conceptualize our social networks as partisan circles and “echo chambers.” This bias is perhaps most evident in various online social media platforms.
• Machine bias: Our online platforms are laced with algorithms that tailor the content we see. Accordingly, the curated content we see (and, by extension, the less diverse content we view) may reinforce existing biases, such as confirmation bias.
• Although bias plays a significant role in decision making, we should also consider intuition versus deliberation – and whether the “gut” is a reliable source of information.

Intuition versus deliberation: The power of reasoning

The dual process theory suggests that thought may be categorized in two ways: System 1, referred to as rapid, intuitive, or automatic thinking (which may be a result of personal experience); and system 2, referred to as deliberate or controlled thinking (for example, reasoned thinking). System 1 versus system 2 may be conceptualized as fast versus slow thinking.

Let’s use the Cognitive Reflection Test to illustrate the dual process theory. This test measures the ability to reflect and deliberate on a question and to forgo an intuitive, rapid response. One of the questions asks: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” A common answer is that the ball costs $0.10. However, the ball actually costs $0.05. The common response is a “gut” response, rather than an analytic or deliberate response.

This example can be extrapolated to social media behavior, such as when individuals endorse beliefs and behaviors that may be far from the truth (for example, conspiracy ideation). It is not uncommon for individuals to rely on intuition, which may be incorrect, as a driving source of truth. Although one’s intuition can be correct, it’s important to be careful and to deliberate.

But would deliberate engagement lead to more politically valenced perspectives? One hypothesis posits that system 2 can lead to false claims and worsening discernment of truth. Another, and more popular, account of classical reasoning says that more thoughtful engagement (regardless of one’s political beliefs) is less susceptible to false news (for example, hyperpartisan news).

Additionally, having good literacy (political, scientific, or general) is important for discerning the truth, especially regarding events in which the information and/or claims of knowledge have been heavily manipulated.
 

Are believing and sharing the same?

Interestingly, believing in a headline and sharing it are not the same. A study that investigated the difference between the two found that although individuals were able to discern the validity of headlines, the veracity of those headlines was not a determining factor in sharing the story on social media.

It has been suggested that social media context may distract individuals from engaging in deliberate thinking that would enhance their ability to determine the accuracy of the content. The dissociation between truthfulness and sharing may be a result of the “attention economy,” which refers to user engagement of likes, comments, shares, and so forth. As such, social media behavior and content consumption may not necessarily reflect one’s beliefs and may be influenced by what others value.

To combat the spread of misinformation, it has been suggested that proactive interventions – “prebunking” or “inoculation” – are necessary. This idea is in accordance with the inoculation theory, which suggests that pre-exposure can confer resistance to challenge. This line of thinking is aligned with the use of vaccines to counter medical illnesses. Increasing awareness of individual vulnerability to manipulation and misinformation has also been proposed as a strategy to resist persuasion.

The age old tale of what others think of us versus what we believe to be true has existed long before the viral overtake of social media. The main difference today is that social media acts as a catalyst for pockets of misinformation. Although social media outlets are cracking down on “false news,” we must consider what criteria should be employed to identify false information. Should external bodies regulate our content consumption? We are certainly entering a gray zone of “wrong” versus “right.” With the overabundance of information available online, it may be the case of “them” versus “us” – that is, those who do not believe in the existence of misinformation versus those who do.

Leanna M. W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc candidate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is a link between ADHD and risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other dementia types, results from a large, multigenerational study show.

“The findings suggest there are common genetic and/or environmental contributions to the association between ADHD and dementia,” study investigator Zheng Chang, PhD, from the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said in a statement.

“There have been few studies previously on the link between ADHD and dementia, all with limited sample size,” Dr. Chang said in an interview.

“This is the first study to look at ADHD and dementia within extended families. It’s a large population-based study including over 2 million individuals and their over 5 million biological relatives,” he noted.

The study was published online Sept. 9, 2021, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Shared familial risk

The researchers identified roughly 2.1 million people born in Sweden between 1980 and 2001. Overall, 3.2% of the cohort had a diagnosis of ADHD. 

Using national registries, they linked these individuals to more than 5 million of their biological relatives including parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts and determined which of these relatives developed dementia over time.

In adjusted analyses, parents of individuals with ADHD had 34% higher risk for any dementia than parents of those without ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63).

The risk for AD, the most common type of dementia, was 55% higher in parents of individuals with ADHD (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.26-1.89).

Individuals with ADHD were more likely to have parents with early-onset dementia rather than late-onset dementia. However, the absolute risk for dementia was low for the parent cohort: Only 0.17% of the parents were diagnosed with dementia during follow-up.

The association between ADHD and dementia was not as strong for second-degree relatives of individuals with ADHD. For example, grandparents of individuals with ADHD had a 10% increased risk for dementia, compared with grandparents of individuals without ADHD.

The finding of attenuated associations with decreasing genetic relatedness (parents > grandparents and uncles/aunts), points to shared familial risk between ADHD and AD, the researchers said. 

There could be “undiscovered genetic variants that contribute to either traits or family-wide environmental risk factors, such as socioeconomic status, that may have an impact on the association,” Dr. Chang said in the news release.

“There are no direct clinical implications from this study, but research like this could lead to further research with goals for improved detection, prevention, and treatment,” he said in an interview.
 

More questions than answers

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association that the way different brain diseases are linked “is a question the Alzheimer’s Association is often asked, and it is a part of our funding portfolio to get that question answered.”

This study looking at ADHD and dementia is “intriguing,” Dr. Snyder said, “because, right now, there is limited information available. That said, this is an association study; it shows that two things are somehow connected. Because of how the study was conducted, it does not – and cannot – prove causation,” Dr. Snyder said. “But it is interesting all the same. More research is needed to uncover specifically why and how these two diseases are related. That might eventually give us insight into how to manage risk or even improve treatment.”

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie, the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Stiftelse, and the Karolinska Institutet Research Foundation. Dr. Chang and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is a link between ADHD and risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other dementia types, results from a large, multigenerational study show.

“The findings suggest there are common genetic and/or environmental contributions to the association between ADHD and dementia,” study investigator Zheng Chang, PhD, from the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said in a statement.

“There have been few studies previously on the link between ADHD and dementia, all with limited sample size,” Dr. Chang said in an interview.

“This is the first study to look at ADHD and dementia within extended families. It’s a large population-based study including over 2 million individuals and their over 5 million biological relatives,” he noted.

The study was published online Sept. 9, 2021, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Shared familial risk

The researchers identified roughly 2.1 million people born in Sweden between 1980 and 2001. Overall, 3.2% of the cohort had a diagnosis of ADHD. 

Using national registries, they linked these individuals to more than 5 million of their biological relatives including parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts and determined which of these relatives developed dementia over time.

In adjusted analyses, parents of individuals with ADHD had 34% higher risk for any dementia than parents of those without ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63).

The risk for AD, the most common type of dementia, was 55% higher in parents of individuals with ADHD (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.26-1.89).

Individuals with ADHD were more likely to have parents with early-onset dementia rather than late-onset dementia. However, the absolute risk for dementia was low for the parent cohort: Only 0.17% of the parents were diagnosed with dementia during follow-up.

The association between ADHD and dementia was not as strong for second-degree relatives of individuals with ADHD. For example, grandparents of individuals with ADHD had a 10% increased risk for dementia, compared with grandparents of individuals without ADHD.

The finding of attenuated associations with decreasing genetic relatedness (parents > grandparents and uncles/aunts), points to shared familial risk between ADHD and AD, the researchers said. 

There could be “undiscovered genetic variants that contribute to either traits or family-wide environmental risk factors, such as socioeconomic status, that may have an impact on the association,” Dr. Chang said in the news release.

“There are no direct clinical implications from this study, but research like this could lead to further research with goals for improved detection, prevention, and treatment,” he said in an interview.
 

More questions than answers

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association that the way different brain diseases are linked “is a question the Alzheimer’s Association is often asked, and it is a part of our funding portfolio to get that question answered.”

This study looking at ADHD and dementia is “intriguing,” Dr. Snyder said, “because, right now, there is limited information available. That said, this is an association study; it shows that two things are somehow connected. Because of how the study was conducted, it does not – and cannot – prove causation,” Dr. Snyder said. “But it is interesting all the same. More research is needed to uncover specifically why and how these two diseases are related. That might eventually give us insight into how to manage risk or even improve treatment.”

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie, the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Stiftelse, and the Karolinska Institutet Research Foundation. Dr. Chang and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is a link between ADHD and risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other dementia types, results from a large, multigenerational study show.

“The findings suggest there are common genetic and/or environmental contributions to the association between ADHD and dementia,” study investigator Zheng Chang, PhD, from the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said in a statement.

“There have been few studies previously on the link between ADHD and dementia, all with limited sample size,” Dr. Chang said in an interview.

“This is the first study to look at ADHD and dementia within extended families. It’s a large population-based study including over 2 million individuals and their over 5 million biological relatives,” he noted.

The study was published online Sept. 9, 2021, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Shared familial risk

The researchers identified roughly 2.1 million people born in Sweden between 1980 and 2001. Overall, 3.2% of the cohort had a diagnosis of ADHD. 

Using national registries, they linked these individuals to more than 5 million of their biological relatives including parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts and determined which of these relatives developed dementia over time.

In adjusted analyses, parents of individuals with ADHD had 34% higher risk for any dementia than parents of those without ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63).

The risk for AD, the most common type of dementia, was 55% higher in parents of individuals with ADHD (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.26-1.89).

Individuals with ADHD were more likely to have parents with early-onset dementia rather than late-onset dementia. However, the absolute risk for dementia was low for the parent cohort: Only 0.17% of the parents were diagnosed with dementia during follow-up.

The association between ADHD and dementia was not as strong for second-degree relatives of individuals with ADHD. For example, grandparents of individuals with ADHD had a 10% increased risk for dementia, compared with grandparents of individuals without ADHD.

The finding of attenuated associations with decreasing genetic relatedness (parents > grandparents and uncles/aunts), points to shared familial risk between ADHD and AD, the researchers said. 

There could be “undiscovered genetic variants that contribute to either traits or family-wide environmental risk factors, such as socioeconomic status, that may have an impact on the association,” Dr. Chang said in the news release.

“There are no direct clinical implications from this study, but research like this could lead to further research with goals for improved detection, prevention, and treatment,” he said in an interview.
 

More questions than answers

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association that the way different brain diseases are linked “is a question the Alzheimer’s Association is often asked, and it is a part of our funding portfolio to get that question answered.”

This study looking at ADHD and dementia is “intriguing,” Dr. Snyder said, “because, right now, there is limited information available. That said, this is an association study; it shows that two things are somehow connected. Because of how the study was conducted, it does not – and cannot – prove causation,” Dr. Snyder said. “But it is interesting all the same. More research is needed to uncover specifically why and how these two diseases are related. That might eventually give us insight into how to manage risk or even improve treatment.”

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie, the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Stiftelse, and the Karolinska Institutet Research Foundation. Dr. Chang and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As people begin to return to offices after working remotely, a new study suggests that clutter on the job is more than just an annoyance to neatniks. It might also be an indicator that employees are unhappy at work, especially if they have upper-level positions.

Researchers surveyed 202 office workers and linked higher perceived levels of clutter to less satisfaction/pleasure from work and more work-related burnout/tension. While the findings don’t confirm which came first – clutter or unhappiness on the job – they do suggest that the office work environment is more than an matter of appearances.

Study lead author Joseph R. Ferrari, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, goes even further and suggests that clutter might undermine well-being. “If someone comes into [a therapist’s office] with lots of clutter, they probably have it at home and work, and it’s hindering their life,” Dr. Ferrari said in an interview. “Having a lot of clutter piles is really not a good thing. It makes you less effective.”

Dr. Ferrari has conducted several studies into clutter. He and colleagues launched the new study, published in the International Journal of Psychological Research and Reviews, to explore the impact of clutter at the office.

“The impact of clutter on employee well-being may affect profit, staff motivation, the buildup of slack/extraneous resources, interpersonal conflict, attitudes about work, and employee behavior,” Dr. Ferrari and colleagues wrote.

The researchers surveyed participants in 290 workers in 2019 and focused on 209 who worked in offices (60% were men, 87% were 45 years old or younger, 65% held a college or advanced degree, and 79% were White). Most were lower-level employees rather than higher-level employees with management responsibilities.

Both upper-and lower-level employees mentioned the same types of clutter most often – paper, office equipment, and trash, such as used coffee cups. The upper-level workers reported more problems with clutter, although this might be because they are more sensitive to it than lower-level workers, Dr. Ferrari said.

The researchers found that “office clutter was significantly negatively related to ... satisfaction/pleasure from work and significantly positively related to a risk for burnout/tension from work.” They also reported that “upper-level workers were significantly more likely to report clutter and being at risk for burnout/tension than lower-level workers.”

Specifically, a technique known as exploratory factor analysis determined that “63% of office clutter behavior can be explained by either satisfaction/pleasure with one’s work or risk for burnout,” Dr. Ferrari said. The findings suggest that clutter leads to negative feelings about work, not the other way around, he said.

The new study does not address whether clutter has positive attributes, as suggested by a 2013 report published in Psychological Science.

Darby Saxbe, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who studies work stress, said in an interview that it can be difficult to figure out the direction of causality in a study like this. “Someone who’s overwhelmed might generate more clutter and not have the bandwidth to put things away. If the space is really cluttered, you won’t be able to find things as effectively, or keep track of projects as well, and that will feed more feelings of stress and burnout.”

David Spiegel, MD, Willson Professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed.

“The idea of clutter in the environment having a negative effect on mood is interesting, but it is equally likely that clutter reflects burnout, inability to complete tasks and dispose of their remnants,” he said in an interview. “There may be a relationship, and they may interact, but the direction is not clear,” said Dr. Spiegel, who is also director of Stanford’s Center on Stress and Health.

Still, he said, “in these days of Zoom therapy, observing clutter in a patient’s room or office may provide a hint about potential burnout and depression.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Ferrari, Dr. Saxbe, and Dr. Spiegel reported no disclosures.

As people begin to return to offices after working remotely, a new study suggests that clutter on the job is more than just an annoyance to neatniks. It might also be an indicator that employees are unhappy at work, especially if they have upper-level positions.

Researchers surveyed 202 office workers and linked higher perceived levels of clutter to less satisfaction/pleasure from work and more work-related burnout/tension. While the findings don’t confirm which came first – clutter or unhappiness on the job – they do suggest that the office work environment is more than an matter of appearances.

Study lead author Joseph R. Ferrari, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, goes even further and suggests that clutter might undermine well-being. “If someone comes into [a therapist’s office] with lots of clutter, they probably have it at home and work, and it’s hindering their life,” Dr. Ferrari said in an interview. “Having a lot of clutter piles is really not a good thing. It makes you less effective.”

Dr. Ferrari has conducted several studies into clutter. He and colleagues launched the new study, published in the International Journal of Psychological Research and Reviews, to explore the impact of clutter at the office.

“The impact of clutter on employee well-being may affect profit, staff motivation, the buildup of slack/extraneous resources, interpersonal conflict, attitudes about work, and employee behavior,” Dr. Ferrari and colleagues wrote.

The researchers surveyed participants in 290 workers in 2019 and focused on 209 who worked in offices (60% were men, 87% were 45 years old or younger, 65% held a college or advanced degree, and 79% were White). Most were lower-level employees rather than higher-level employees with management responsibilities.

Both upper-and lower-level employees mentioned the same types of clutter most often – paper, office equipment, and trash, such as used coffee cups. The upper-level workers reported more problems with clutter, although this might be because they are more sensitive to it than lower-level workers, Dr. Ferrari said.

The researchers found that “office clutter was significantly negatively related to ... satisfaction/pleasure from work and significantly positively related to a risk for burnout/tension from work.” They also reported that “upper-level workers were significantly more likely to report clutter and being at risk for burnout/tension than lower-level workers.”

Specifically, a technique known as exploratory factor analysis determined that “63% of office clutter behavior can be explained by either satisfaction/pleasure with one’s work or risk for burnout,” Dr. Ferrari said. The findings suggest that clutter leads to negative feelings about work, not the other way around, he said.

The new study does not address whether clutter has positive attributes, as suggested by a 2013 report published in Psychological Science.

Darby Saxbe, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who studies work stress, said in an interview that it can be difficult to figure out the direction of causality in a study like this. “Someone who’s overwhelmed might generate more clutter and not have the bandwidth to put things away. If the space is really cluttered, you won’t be able to find things as effectively, or keep track of projects as well, and that will feed more feelings of stress and burnout.”

David Spiegel, MD, Willson Professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed.

“The idea of clutter in the environment having a negative effect on mood is interesting, but it is equally likely that clutter reflects burnout, inability to complete tasks and dispose of their remnants,” he said in an interview. “There may be a relationship, and they may interact, but the direction is not clear,” said Dr. Spiegel, who is also director of Stanford’s Center on Stress and Health.

Still, he said, “in these days of Zoom therapy, observing clutter in a patient’s room or office may provide a hint about potential burnout and depression.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Ferrari, Dr. Saxbe, and Dr. Spiegel reported no disclosures.

As people begin to return to offices after working remotely, a new study suggests that clutter on the job is more than just an annoyance to neatniks. It might also be an indicator that employees are unhappy at work, especially if they have upper-level positions.

Researchers surveyed 202 office workers and linked higher perceived levels of clutter to less satisfaction/pleasure from work and more work-related burnout/tension. While the findings don’t confirm which came first – clutter or unhappiness on the job – they do suggest that the office work environment is more than an matter of appearances.

Study lead author Joseph R. Ferrari, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, goes even further and suggests that clutter might undermine well-being. “If someone comes into [a therapist’s office] with lots of clutter, they probably have it at home and work, and it’s hindering their life,” Dr. Ferrari said in an interview. “Having a lot of clutter piles is really not a good thing. It makes you less effective.”

Dr. Ferrari has conducted several studies into clutter. He and colleagues launched the new study, published in the International Journal of Psychological Research and Reviews, to explore the impact of clutter at the office.

“The impact of clutter on employee well-being may affect profit, staff motivation, the buildup of slack/extraneous resources, interpersonal conflict, attitudes about work, and employee behavior,” Dr. Ferrari and colleagues wrote.

The researchers surveyed participants in 290 workers in 2019 and focused on 209 who worked in offices (60% were men, 87% were 45 years old or younger, 65% held a college or advanced degree, and 79% were White). Most were lower-level employees rather than higher-level employees with management responsibilities.

Both upper-and lower-level employees mentioned the same types of clutter most often – paper, office equipment, and trash, such as used coffee cups. The upper-level workers reported more problems with clutter, although this might be because they are more sensitive to it than lower-level workers, Dr. Ferrari said.

The researchers found that “office clutter was significantly negatively related to ... satisfaction/pleasure from work and significantly positively related to a risk for burnout/tension from work.” They also reported that “upper-level workers were significantly more likely to report clutter and being at risk for burnout/tension than lower-level workers.”

Specifically, a technique known as exploratory factor analysis determined that “63% of office clutter behavior can be explained by either satisfaction/pleasure with one’s work or risk for burnout,” Dr. Ferrari said. The findings suggest that clutter leads to negative feelings about work, not the other way around, he said.

The new study does not address whether clutter has positive attributes, as suggested by a 2013 report published in Psychological Science.

Darby Saxbe, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who studies work stress, said in an interview that it can be difficult to figure out the direction of causality in a study like this. “Someone who’s overwhelmed might generate more clutter and not have the bandwidth to put things away. If the space is really cluttered, you won’t be able to find things as effectively, or keep track of projects as well, and that will feed more feelings of stress and burnout.”

David Spiegel, MD, Willson Professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed.

“The idea of clutter in the environment having a negative effect on mood is interesting, but it is equally likely that clutter reflects burnout, inability to complete tasks and dispose of their remnants,” he said in an interview. “There may be a relationship, and they may interact, but the direction is not clear,” said Dr. Spiegel, who is also director of Stanford’s Center on Stress and Health.

Still, he said, “in these days of Zoom therapy, observing clutter in a patient’s room or office may provide a hint about potential burnout and depression.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Ferrari, Dr. Saxbe, and Dr. Spiegel reported no disclosures.

Use of antipsychotics that increase prolactin levels is significantly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says that, at this point, clinical implications are premature.

Investigators compared data from Finnish nationwide registers on more than 30,000 women diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of those patients, 1,069 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Results showed that long-term exposure to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with a 56% increased risk of developing breast cancer in comparison with exposure of short duration. No significant association was found with cumulative exposure to prolactin-sparing antipsychotics.

“In case of planning for long-term antipsychotic [therapy], prefer non–prolactin-raising antipsychotics in females and inform patients about a potential risk to allow for informed shared decision-making,” study coauthor Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.

“Monitoring prolactinemia and addressing hyperprolactinemia are important in women with schizophrenia who are treated with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics,” he said.

The study was published online Aug. 30, 2021, in The Lancet.
 

A ‘relevant contribution’

Breast cancer is 25% more prevalent among women with schizophrenia than among women in the general population. Antipsychotics have long been suspected as a potential culprit, but research results have been inconsistent, said Dr. Correll.

In addition, high concentrations of prolactin are associated with a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but most previous research did not distinguish between antipsychotics that increased prolactin levels those that did not.

Dr. Correll and colleagues “wanted to add to this literature by utilizing a generalizable nationwide sample with a sufficient large number of patients and sufficiently long follow-up to address the clinically very relevant question whether antipsychotic use could increase the risk of breast cancer.”

They also believed that grouping antipsychotics into prolactin-raising and non–prolactin-raising agents would be “a relevant contribution.”

The researchers drew on data from several large Finnish databases to conduct a nested case-control study of 30,785 women aged at least16 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1972 and 2014.

Of these patients, 1,069 received an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (after being diagnosed with schizophrenia) between 2000 and 2017. These case patients were compared to 5,339 matched control patients. The mean age of the case patients and the control patients was 62 years. The mean time since initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was 24 years.

Antipsychotic use was divided into three periods: less than 1 year, 1-4 years, and ≥5 years. Antipsychotics were further divided into prolactin-increasing or prolactin-sparing drugs (for example, clozapine, quetiapine, or aripiprazole). Breast cancer was divided into either lobular or ductal adenocarcinoma.

In their statistical analyses, the researchers adjusted for an array of covariates, including previous diagnoses of other medical conditions, drugs that may modify the risk for breast cancer (for example, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, spironolactone, loop diuretics, and statins), substance misuse, suicide attempt, parity, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
 

‘Clinically meaningful’ risk

Ductal adenocarcinoma was more common than lobular adenocarcinoma (73% vs. 20% among case patients). A higher proportion of case patients used cardiovascular medications and HRT, compared with control patients.

A higher proportion of case patients had used prolactin-increasing antipsychotics for at least 5 years, compared with control patients (71.4% vs. 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92; P < .0001) in comparison with minimal exposure (<1 year) to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics.

On the other hand, a similar proportion of case patients and control patients used prolactin-sparing antipsychotics for at least 5 years (8.3 vs. 8.2%; aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90-1.58); the OR of 1.19 was not deemed significant.

Although exposure of ≥5 years to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with an increased risk for both types of adenocarcinoma, the risk was higher for lobular than for ductal disease (aOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.46-3.82 vs. aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80).

“Conservatively, if we subtract the 19% nonsignificantly increased odds with prolactin-sparing antipsychotics from the 56% significantly increased odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics, we obtain a 37% relative increase in odds,” the authors noted.

“Using a lifetime incidence of breast cancer in women in the general population of about 12%, with a somewhat higher lifetime incidence in patients with schizophrenia than the general population, this difference between prolactin-increasing versus prolactin-sparing antipsychotics in breast cancer risk upon exposure of 5 or more years would correspond to about a 4% (37% x 12%) increase in absolute breast cancer odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotic treatment” – a difference the authors call “clinically meaningful.”

Correll noted that although the study was conducted in a Finnish population, the findings are generalizable to other populations.
 

Clinical implications premature?

Commenting on the study, Anton Pottegård, MScPharm, PhD, DMSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, department of public health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, expressed concern that “this new study is fairly aggressive in its recommendation [that] we need to pay attention to hyperprolactinemia, as this seems to cause breast cancer.”

Dr. Pottegård, who is also the head of research, Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital, who was not involved with the study, said he does not “think that the full body of the literature supports such a direct conclusion and/or direct inference to clinical practice.”

Although “this is an important study to further this work, I do not think we are at a place (yet) where it should lead to different action from clinicians,” Dr. Pottegård cautioned.

Also commenting on the study, Mary Seeman, MDCM, DSc, professor emeritus of neurosciences and clinical translation, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, called the question of whether prolactin-increasing antipsychotics increase breast cancer risk “very complicated because the incidence of breast cancer ... is higher in women with schizophrenia than in other women.”

Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the study, pointed to other reasons for the increased risk, including higher rates of obesity, substance abuse, cigarette smoking, stress, and sedentary behavior, all of which raise prolactin levels. Additionally, “protective factors such as pregnancies and breastfeeding are less frequent in women with schizophrenia than in their peers.” Women with schizophrenia also “tend not to do breast screening, see their doctors less often, follow doctors’ orders less rigorously, and obtain treatment less often.”

The take-home message “is to prescribe prolactin-sparing medication to women if at all possible – but until we know more, that is good advice, although not always possible because the illness for which the antipsychotics are prescribed may not respond to those particular medications,” Dr. Seeman said.

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Funding was also provided to individual researchers by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Emil Aaltonen foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from numerous companies. He has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma; served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; and received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Pottegård and Dr. Seeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of antipsychotics that increase prolactin levels is significantly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says that, at this point, clinical implications are premature.

Investigators compared data from Finnish nationwide registers on more than 30,000 women diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of those patients, 1,069 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Results showed that long-term exposure to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with a 56% increased risk of developing breast cancer in comparison with exposure of short duration. No significant association was found with cumulative exposure to prolactin-sparing antipsychotics.

“In case of planning for long-term antipsychotic [therapy], prefer non–prolactin-raising antipsychotics in females and inform patients about a potential risk to allow for informed shared decision-making,” study coauthor Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.

“Monitoring prolactinemia and addressing hyperprolactinemia are important in women with schizophrenia who are treated with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics,” he said.

The study was published online Aug. 30, 2021, in The Lancet.
 

A ‘relevant contribution’

Breast cancer is 25% more prevalent among women with schizophrenia than among women in the general population. Antipsychotics have long been suspected as a potential culprit, but research results have been inconsistent, said Dr. Correll.

In addition, high concentrations of prolactin are associated with a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but most previous research did not distinguish between antipsychotics that increased prolactin levels those that did not.

Dr. Correll and colleagues “wanted to add to this literature by utilizing a generalizable nationwide sample with a sufficient large number of patients and sufficiently long follow-up to address the clinically very relevant question whether antipsychotic use could increase the risk of breast cancer.”

They also believed that grouping antipsychotics into prolactin-raising and non–prolactin-raising agents would be “a relevant contribution.”

The researchers drew on data from several large Finnish databases to conduct a nested case-control study of 30,785 women aged at least16 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1972 and 2014.

Of these patients, 1,069 received an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (after being diagnosed with schizophrenia) between 2000 and 2017. These case patients were compared to 5,339 matched control patients. The mean age of the case patients and the control patients was 62 years. The mean time since initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was 24 years.

Antipsychotic use was divided into three periods: less than 1 year, 1-4 years, and ≥5 years. Antipsychotics were further divided into prolactin-increasing or prolactin-sparing drugs (for example, clozapine, quetiapine, or aripiprazole). Breast cancer was divided into either lobular or ductal adenocarcinoma.

In their statistical analyses, the researchers adjusted for an array of covariates, including previous diagnoses of other medical conditions, drugs that may modify the risk for breast cancer (for example, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, spironolactone, loop diuretics, and statins), substance misuse, suicide attempt, parity, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
 

‘Clinically meaningful’ risk

Ductal adenocarcinoma was more common than lobular adenocarcinoma (73% vs. 20% among case patients). A higher proportion of case patients used cardiovascular medications and HRT, compared with control patients.

A higher proportion of case patients had used prolactin-increasing antipsychotics for at least 5 years, compared with control patients (71.4% vs. 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92; P < .0001) in comparison with minimal exposure (<1 year) to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics.

On the other hand, a similar proportion of case patients and control patients used prolactin-sparing antipsychotics for at least 5 years (8.3 vs. 8.2%; aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90-1.58); the OR of 1.19 was not deemed significant.

Although exposure of ≥5 years to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with an increased risk for both types of adenocarcinoma, the risk was higher for lobular than for ductal disease (aOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.46-3.82 vs. aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80).

“Conservatively, if we subtract the 19% nonsignificantly increased odds with prolactin-sparing antipsychotics from the 56% significantly increased odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics, we obtain a 37% relative increase in odds,” the authors noted.

“Using a lifetime incidence of breast cancer in women in the general population of about 12%, with a somewhat higher lifetime incidence in patients with schizophrenia than the general population, this difference between prolactin-increasing versus prolactin-sparing antipsychotics in breast cancer risk upon exposure of 5 or more years would correspond to about a 4% (37% x 12%) increase in absolute breast cancer odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotic treatment” – a difference the authors call “clinically meaningful.”

Correll noted that although the study was conducted in a Finnish population, the findings are generalizable to other populations.
 

Clinical implications premature?

Commenting on the study, Anton Pottegård, MScPharm, PhD, DMSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, department of public health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, expressed concern that “this new study is fairly aggressive in its recommendation [that] we need to pay attention to hyperprolactinemia, as this seems to cause breast cancer.”

Dr. Pottegård, who is also the head of research, Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital, who was not involved with the study, said he does not “think that the full body of the literature supports such a direct conclusion and/or direct inference to clinical practice.”

Although “this is an important study to further this work, I do not think we are at a place (yet) where it should lead to different action from clinicians,” Dr. Pottegård cautioned.

Also commenting on the study, Mary Seeman, MDCM, DSc, professor emeritus of neurosciences and clinical translation, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, called the question of whether prolactin-increasing antipsychotics increase breast cancer risk “very complicated because the incidence of breast cancer ... is higher in women with schizophrenia than in other women.”

Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the study, pointed to other reasons for the increased risk, including higher rates of obesity, substance abuse, cigarette smoking, stress, and sedentary behavior, all of which raise prolactin levels. Additionally, “protective factors such as pregnancies and breastfeeding are less frequent in women with schizophrenia than in their peers.” Women with schizophrenia also “tend not to do breast screening, see their doctors less often, follow doctors’ orders less rigorously, and obtain treatment less often.”

The take-home message “is to prescribe prolactin-sparing medication to women if at all possible – but until we know more, that is good advice, although not always possible because the illness for which the antipsychotics are prescribed may not respond to those particular medications,” Dr. Seeman said.

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Funding was also provided to individual researchers by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Emil Aaltonen foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from numerous companies. He has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma; served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; and received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Pottegård and Dr. Seeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of antipsychotics that increase prolactin levels is significantly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says that, at this point, clinical implications are premature.

Investigators compared data from Finnish nationwide registers on more than 30,000 women diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of those patients, 1,069 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Results showed that long-term exposure to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with a 56% increased risk of developing breast cancer in comparison with exposure of short duration. No significant association was found with cumulative exposure to prolactin-sparing antipsychotics.

“In case of planning for long-term antipsychotic [therapy], prefer non–prolactin-raising antipsychotics in females and inform patients about a potential risk to allow for informed shared decision-making,” study coauthor Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.

“Monitoring prolactinemia and addressing hyperprolactinemia are important in women with schizophrenia who are treated with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics,” he said.

The study was published online Aug. 30, 2021, in The Lancet.
 

A ‘relevant contribution’

Breast cancer is 25% more prevalent among women with schizophrenia than among women in the general population. Antipsychotics have long been suspected as a potential culprit, but research results have been inconsistent, said Dr. Correll.

In addition, high concentrations of prolactin are associated with a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but most previous research did not distinguish between antipsychotics that increased prolactin levels those that did not.

Dr. Correll and colleagues “wanted to add to this literature by utilizing a generalizable nationwide sample with a sufficient large number of patients and sufficiently long follow-up to address the clinically very relevant question whether antipsychotic use could increase the risk of breast cancer.”

They also believed that grouping antipsychotics into prolactin-raising and non–prolactin-raising agents would be “a relevant contribution.”

The researchers drew on data from several large Finnish databases to conduct a nested case-control study of 30,785 women aged at least16 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1972 and 2014.

Of these patients, 1,069 received an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (after being diagnosed with schizophrenia) between 2000 and 2017. These case patients were compared to 5,339 matched control patients. The mean age of the case patients and the control patients was 62 years. The mean time since initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was 24 years.

Antipsychotic use was divided into three periods: less than 1 year, 1-4 years, and ≥5 years. Antipsychotics were further divided into prolactin-increasing or prolactin-sparing drugs (for example, clozapine, quetiapine, or aripiprazole). Breast cancer was divided into either lobular or ductal adenocarcinoma.

In their statistical analyses, the researchers adjusted for an array of covariates, including previous diagnoses of other medical conditions, drugs that may modify the risk for breast cancer (for example, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, spironolactone, loop diuretics, and statins), substance misuse, suicide attempt, parity, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
 

‘Clinically meaningful’ risk

Ductal adenocarcinoma was more common than lobular adenocarcinoma (73% vs. 20% among case patients). A higher proportion of case patients used cardiovascular medications and HRT, compared with control patients.

A higher proportion of case patients had used prolactin-increasing antipsychotics for at least 5 years, compared with control patients (71.4% vs. 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92; P < .0001) in comparison with minimal exposure (<1 year) to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics.

On the other hand, a similar proportion of case patients and control patients used prolactin-sparing antipsychotics for at least 5 years (8.3 vs. 8.2%; aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90-1.58); the OR of 1.19 was not deemed significant.

Although exposure of ≥5 years to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with an increased risk for both types of adenocarcinoma, the risk was higher for lobular than for ductal disease (aOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.46-3.82 vs. aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80).

“Conservatively, if we subtract the 19% nonsignificantly increased odds with prolactin-sparing antipsychotics from the 56% significantly increased odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics, we obtain a 37% relative increase in odds,” the authors noted.

“Using a lifetime incidence of breast cancer in women in the general population of about 12%, with a somewhat higher lifetime incidence in patients with schizophrenia than the general population, this difference between prolactin-increasing versus prolactin-sparing antipsychotics in breast cancer risk upon exposure of 5 or more years would correspond to about a 4% (37% x 12%) increase in absolute breast cancer odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotic treatment” – a difference the authors call “clinically meaningful.”

Correll noted that although the study was conducted in a Finnish population, the findings are generalizable to other populations.
 

Clinical implications premature?

Commenting on the study, Anton Pottegård, MScPharm, PhD, DMSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, department of public health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, expressed concern that “this new study is fairly aggressive in its recommendation [that] we need to pay attention to hyperprolactinemia, as this seems to cause breast cancer.”

Dr. Pottegård, who is also the head of research, Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital, who was not involved with the study, said he does not “think that the full body of the literature supports such a direct conclusion and/or direct inference to clinical practice.”

Although “this is an important study to further this work, I do not think we are at a place (yet) where it should lead to different action from clinicians,” Dr. Pottegård cautioned.

Also commenting on the study, Mary Seeman, MDCM, DSc, professor emeritus of neurosciences and clinical translation, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, called the question of whether prolactin-increasing antipsychotics increase breast cancer risk “very complicated because the incidence of breast cancer ... is higher in women with schizophrenia than in other women.”

Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the study, pointed to other reasons for the increased risk, including higher rates of obesity, substance abuse, cigarette smoking, stress, and sedentary behavior, all of which raise prolactin levels. Additionally, “protective factors such as pregnancies and breastfeeding are less frequent in women with schizophrenia than in their peers.” Women with schizophrenia also “tend not to do breast screening, see their doctors less often, follow doctors’ orders less rigorously, and obtain treatment less often.”

The take-home message “is to prescribe prolactin-sparing medication to women if at all possible – but until we know more, that is good advice, although not always possible because the illness for which the antipsychotics are prescribed may not respond to those particular medications,” Dr. Seeman said.

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Funding was also provided to individual researchers by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Emil Aaltonen foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from numerous companies. He has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma; served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; and received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Pottegård and Dr. Seeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Telehealth can be effective for delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) – and is not inferior to in-person treatment, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 60 adults with insomnia disorder showed no significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up between those assigned to receive in-person CBT-I and those assigned to telehealth CBT-I in regard to change in score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI).

In addition, both groups showed significant change compared with a wait-list group, indicating that telehealth was not inferior to the in-person mode of delivery, the investigators note.

Telehealth ‘explosion’

Although CBT-I is the recommended intervention for insomnia, “widespread implementation of CBT-I is limited by the lack of clinicians who are trained in this treatment,” the investigators note. There is a “need for strategies to increase access, particularly for patients in areas with few health care providers.”

Telehealth is a promising technology for providing treatment, without the necessity of having the patient and the practitioner in the same place. There has been an “explosion” in its use because of restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the “rapid deployment of telehealth interventions did not allow time to assess this approach in a controlled manner,” so it is possible that this type of communication might reduce treatment efficacy, the investigators note.

Previous research suggests that telehealth psychotherapeutic treatments in general are not inferior to in-person treatments. One study showed that CBT-I delivered via telehealth was noninferior to in-person delivery. However, that study did not include a control group.

“I have been doing telehealth clinical work for about 10 years – so way before the pandemic pushed everything virtual,” Dr. Gehrman said. “But when I would talk about my telehealth work to other providers, I would frequently get asked whether the advantages of telehealth (greater access to care, reduced travel costs) came at a price of lower efficacy.”

Dr. Gehrman said he suspected that telehealth treatment was just as effective and wanted to formally test this impression to see whether he was correct.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 adults (mean age, 32.72 years; mean ISI score, 17.0; 65% women) with insomnia disorder to in-person CBT-I (n = 20), telehealth-delivered CBT-I (n = 21), or to a wait-list control group (n = 19). For the study, insomnia disorder was determined on the basis of DSM-5 criteria.

Most participants had completed college or postgraduate school (43% and 37%, respectively) and did not have many comorbidities.

The primary outcome was change on the ISI. Other assessments included measures of depression, anxiety, work and social adjustment, fatigue, and medical outcomes. Participants also completed a home unattended sleep study using a portable monitor to screen participants for obstructive sleep apnea.

Both types of CBT-I were delivered over 6 to 8 weekly sessions, with 2-week and 3-month post-treatment follow-ups.

An a priori margin of -3.0 points was used in the noninferiority analysis, and all analyses were conducted using mixed-effects models, the authors explain.
 

Necessary evil?

In the primary noninferiority analyses, the mean change in ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up was -7.8 points for in-person CBT-I, -7.5 points for telehealth, and -1.6 for wait list.

The difference between the CBT-I groups was not statistically significant (t 28 = -0.98, P = .33).

“The lower confidence limit of this between-group difference in the mean ISI changes was greater than the a priori margin of -3.0 points, indicating that telehealth treatment was not inferior to in-person treatment,” the investigators write.

Although there were significant improvements on most secondary outcome measures related to mood/anxiety and daytime functioning, the investigators found no group differences.

The findings suggest that the benefits of telehealth, including increased access and reduced travel time, “do not come with a cost of reduced efficacy,” the researchers write.

The study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators note. However, the results “underscore that the use of telehealth during the pandemic is not a ‘necessary evil,’ but rather a means of providing high quality care while reducing risks of exposure,” they write.
 

Benefits, fidelity maintained

Commenting on the study, J. Todd Arnedt, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and co-director of the Sleep and Circadian Research Laboratory, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said it is “one of the first studies to clearly demonstrate that the benefits and fidelity of CBT for insomnia, which is most commonly delivered in-person, can be maintained with telehealth delivery.”

Dr. Arnedt is also director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program and was not involved in the study. He said the findings “support the use of this modality by providers to expand access to this highly effective but underutilized insomnia treatment.”

Additionally, telehealth delivery of CBT-I “offers a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for improving insomnia and associated daytime consequences and has the potential to reduce health care disparities by increasing availability to underserved communities,” Dr. Arnedt said.

However, the investigators point out that the utility of this approach for underserved communities needs further investigation. A study limitation was that the participants were “generally healthy and well educated.”

In addition, further research is needed to see whether the findings can be generalized to individuals who have “more complicated health or socioeconomic difficulties,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the American Sleep Medicine Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Scientist Development Award. Dr. Gehrman has received research funding from Merck, is a consultant to WW, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Eight Sleep. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Arnedt reports no relevant financial relationships but notes that he was the principal investigator of a similar study run in parallel to this one that was also funded by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation at the same time.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth can be effective for delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) – and is not inferior to in-person treatment, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 60 adults with insomnia disorder showed no significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up between those assigned to receive in-person CBT-I and those assigned to telehealth CBT-I in regard to change in score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI).

In addition, both groups showed significant change compared with a wait-list group, indicating that telehealth was not inferior to the in-person mode of delivery, the investigators note.

Telehealth ‘explosion’

Although CBT-I is the recommended intervention for insomnia, “widespread implementation of CBT-I is limited by the lack of clinicians who are trained in this treatment,” the investigators note. There is a “need for strategies to increase access, particularly for patients in areas with few health care providers.”

Telehealth is a promising technology for providing treatment, without the necessity of having the patient and the practitioner in the same place. There has been an “explosion” in its use because of restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the “rapid deployment of telehealth interventions did not allow time to assess this approach in a controlled manner,” so it is possible that this type of communication might reduce treatment efficacy, the investigators note.

Previous research suggests that telehealth psychotherapeutic treatments in general are not inferior to in-person treatments. One study showed that CBT-I delivered via telehealth was noninferior to in-person delivery. However, that study did not include a control group.

“I have been doing telehealth clinical work for about 10 years – so way before the pandemic pushed everything virtual,” Dr. Gehrman said. “But when I would talk about my telehealth work to other providers, I would frequently get asked whether the advantages of telehealth (greater access to care, reduced travel costs) came at a price of lower efficacy.”

Dr. Gehrman said he suspected that telehealth treatment was just as effective and wanted to formally test this impression to see whether he was correct.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 adults (mean age, 32.72 years; mean ISI score, 17.0; 65% women) with insomnia disorder to in-person CBT-I (n = 20), telehealth-delivered CBT-I (n = 21), or to a wait-list control group (n = 19). For the study, insomnia disorder was determined on the basis of DSM-5 criteria.

Most participants had completed college or postgraduate school (43% and 37%, respectively) and did not have many comorbidities.

The primary outcome was change on the ISI. Other assessments included measures of depression, anxiety, work and social adjustment, fatigue, and medical outcomes. Participants also completed a home unattended sleep study using a portable monitor to screen participants for obstructive sleep apnea.

Both types of CBT-I were delivered over 6 to 8 weekly sessions, with 2-week and 3-month post-treatment follow-ups.

An a priori margin of -3.0 points was used in the noninferiority analysis, and all analyses were conducted using mixed-effects models, the authors explain.
 

Necessary evil?

In the primary noninferiority analyses, the mean change in ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up was -7.8 points for in-person CBT-I, -7.5 points for telehealth, and -1.6 for wait list.

The difference between the CBT-I groups was not statistically significant (t 28 = -0.98, P = .33).

“The lower confidence limit of this between-group difference in the mean ISI changes was greater than the a priori margin of -3.0 points, indicating that telehealth treatment was not inferior to in-person treatment,” the investigators write.

Although there were significant improvements on most secondary outcome measures related to mood/anxiety and daytime functioning, the investigators found no group differences.

The findings suggest that the benefits of telehealth, including increased access and reduced travel time, “do not come with a cost of reduced efficacy,” the researchers write.

The study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators note. However, the results “underscore that the use of telehealth during the pandemic is not a ‘necessary evil,’ but rather a means of providing high quality care while reducing risks of exposure,” they write.
 

Benefits, fidelity maintained

Commenting on the study, J. Todd Arnedt, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and co-director of the Sleep and Circadian Research Laboratory, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said it is “one of the first studies to clearly demonstrate that the benefits and fidelity of CBT for insomnia, which is most commonly delivered in-person, can be maintained with telehealth delivery.”

Dr. Arnedt is also director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program and was not involved in the study. He said the findings “support the use of this modality by providers to expand access to this highly effective but underutilized insomnia treatment.”

Additionally, telehealth delivery of CBT-I “offers a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for improving insomnia and associated daytime consequences and has the potential to reduce health care disparities by increasing availability to underserved communities,” Dr. Arnedt said.

However, the investigators point out that the utility of this approach for underserved communities needs further investigation. A study limitation was that the participants were “generally healthy and well educated.”

In addition, further research is needed to see whether the findings can be generalized to individuals who have “more complicated health or socioeconomic difficulties,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the American Sleep Medicine Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Scientist Development Award. Dr. Gehrman has received research funding from Merck, is a consultant to WW, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Eight Sleep. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Arnedt reports no relevant financial relationships but notes that he was the principal investigator of a similar study run in parallel to this one that was also funded by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation at the same time.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth can be effective for delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) – and is not inferior to in-person treatment, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 60 adults with insomnia disorder showed no significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up between those assigned to receive in-person CBT-I and those assigned to telehealth CBT-I in regard to change in score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI).

In addition, both groups showed significant change compared with a wait-list group, indicating that telehealth was not inferior to the in-person mode of delivery, the investigators note.

Telehealth ‘explosion’

Although CBT-I is the recommended intervention for insomnia, “widespread implementation of CBT-I is limited by the lack of clinicians who are trained in this treatment,” the investigators note. There is a “need for strategies to increase access, particularly for patients in areas with few health care providers.”

Telehealth is a promising technology for providing treatment, without the necessity of having the patient and the practitioner in the same place. There has been an “explosion” in its use because of restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the “rapid deployment of telehealth interventions did not allow time to assess this approach in a controlled manner,” so it is possible that this type of communication might reduce treatment efficacy, the investigators note.

Previous research suggests that telehealth psychotherapeutic treatments in general are not inferior to in-person treatments. One study showed that CBT-I delivered via telehealth was noninferior to in-person delivery. However, that study did not include a control group.

“I have been doing telehealth clinical work for about 10 years – so way before the pandemic pushed everything virtual,” Dr. Gehrman said. “But when I would talk about my telehealth work to other providers, I would frequently get asked whether the advantages of telehealth (greater access to care, reduced travel costs) came at a price of lower efficacy.”

Dr. Gehrman said he suspected that telehealth treatment was just as effective and wanted to formally test this impression to see whether he was correct.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 adults (mean age, 32.72 years; mean ISI score, 17.0; 65% women) with insomnia disorder to in-person CBT-I (n = 20), telehealth-delivered CBT-I (n = 21), or to a wait-list control group (n = 19). For the study, insomnia disorder was determined on the basis of DSM-5 criteria.

Most participants had completed college or postgraduate school (43% and 37%, respectively) and did not have many comorbidities.

The primary outcome was change on the ISI. Other assessments included measures of depression, anxiety, work and social adjustment, fatigue, and medical outcomes. Participants also completed a home unattended sleep study using a portable monitor to screen participants for obstructive sleep apnea.

Both types of CBT-I were delivered over 6 to 8 weekly sessions, with 2-week and 3-month post-treatment follow-ups.

An a priori margin of -3.0 points was used in the noninferiority analysis, and all analyses were conducted using mixed-effects models, the authors explain.
 

Necessary evil?

In the primary noninferiority analyses, the mean change in ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up was -7.8 points for in-person CBT-I, -7.5 points for telehealth, and -1.6 for wait list.

The difference between the CBT-I groups was not statistically significant (t 28 = -0.98, P = .33).

“The lower confidence limit of this between-group difference in the mean ISI changes was greater than the a priori margin of -3.0 points, indicating that telehealth treatment was not inferior to in-person treatment,” the investigators write.

Although there were significant improvements on most secondary outcome measures related to mood/anxiety and daytime functioning, the investigators found no group differences.

The findings suggest that the benefits of telehealth, including increased access and reduced travel time, “do not come with a cost of reduced efficacy,” the researchers write.

The study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators note. However, the results “underscore that the use of telehealth during the pandemic is not a ‘necessary evil,’ but rather a means of providing high quality care while reducing risks of exposure,” they write.
 

Benefits, fidelity maintained

Commenting on the study, J. Todd Arnedt, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and co-director of the Sleep and Circadian Research Laboratory, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said it is “one of the first studies to clearly demonstrate that the benefits and fidelity of CBT for insomnia, which is most commonly delivered in-person, can be maintained with telehealth delivery.”

Dr. Arnedt is also director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program and was not involved in the study. He said the findings “support the use of this modality by providers to expand access to this highly effective but underutilized insomnia treatment.”

Additionally, telehealth delivery of CBT-I “offers a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for improving insomnia and associated daytime consequences and has the potential to reduce health care disparities by increasing availability to underserved communities,” Dr. Arnedt said.

However, the investigators point out that the utility of this approach for underserved communities needs further investigation. A study limitation was that the participants were “generally healthy and well educated.”

In addition, further research is needed to see whether the findings can be generalized to individuals who have “more complicated health or socioeconomic difficulties,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the American Sleep Medicine Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Scientist Development Award. Dr. Gehrman has received research funding from Merck, is a consultant to WW, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Eight Sleep. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Arnedt reports no relevant financial relationships but notes that he was the principal investigator of a similar study run in parallel to this one that was also funded by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation at the same time.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A middle-of-the-road dose of an antipsychotic appears to be optimal for relapse prevention in stable schizophrenia, new research suggests.

Results of a meta-analysis show a 5-mg/day equivalent risperidone dose worked best. Higher doses were associated with more adverse events without showing substantial gains in relapse prevention, and lower doses were associated with greater relapse risk.

“The safest approach is to just to carry on with 5 mg,” which in many cases represents a full dose, lead author Stefan Leucht, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Technical University of Munich School of Medicine, Germany, told this news organization.

However, he added, patient preferences and other factors should be considered in dosage decision-making.

The findings were published online August 18 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Unique meta-analysis

Antipsychotic drugs are effective for short-term treatment of schizophrenia and prevention of relapse but are associated with movement disorders, weight gain, and other metabolic changes. They are also associated with even more severe adverse events, including tardive dyskinesia and increased cardiovascular risk.

For years, researchers have tried to find the optimal dose of antipsychotic drugs to prevent relapse in patients with stable schizophrenia while mitigating adverse event risk.

For the meta-analysis, researchers searched for fixed-dose, randomized, blinded, or open trials that lasted longer than 3 months and compared two first-generation antipsychotics – haloperidol or fluphenazine – or a second-generation antipsychotic with placebo or a different dose of the same drug.

The analysis included 26 studies with 72 individual dose arms and 4,776 participants with stable schizophrenia.  

Researchers used a dose-response meta-analysis. Unlike a simple meta-analysis that provides an “arbitrary” cut-off of superiority of one drug over placebo or another drug, a dose-response meta-analysis gives a plot or curve “that shows how this evolves with different doses,” Dr. Leucht noted.

The investigators estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic drug compared with placebo separately and as a group.

They did not have enough data for most of the single antipsychotics, so they converted doses to risperidone equivalents for a pooled analysis across drugs. They chose risperidone because its equivalents “are pretty well-defined,” said Dr. Leucht.
 

Go slow to go low

For the primary outcome of relapse, the dose-response curve showed a hyperbolic shape with a clear plateau. Initially, the plot decreased sharply but then flattened at about 5-mg/day risperidone equivalent (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.31; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57).

“We were a little disappointed because we hoped that a dose lower than 5 mg would be most efficacious in terms of relapse rate because this would have reduced the side-effect burden,” Dr. Leucht said.

Nevertheless, he emphasized that doses lower than 5 mg/day risperidone equivalent are not completely ineffective. For example, the 2.5-mg dose reduced risk to relapse in relative terms by about 40% (RR, 0.63).

Dr. Leucht also pointed out there is “huge interindividual variability.” Therefore, 2.5 mg or even 1 mg may be sufficient for some patients. “It just means for the average patient it’s safest, let’s say, to keep her or him on 5 mg,” he said.  

When lowering the dose, Dr. Leucht noted clinicians should “be very careful and to do it very slowly. It should be very small reductions every 3 to 6 months.”

For the secondary endpoint of rehospitalizations, the shape of the curve was similar to the one for relapse but with lower rates.

“If patients need to be rehospitalized, it usually means that the relapse was major and not only a minor increase in symptoms,” said Dr. Leucht.

The curves for all-cause discontinuation and reduction in overall symptoms were also similar to that of relapse.

However, the curve for dropouts because of adverse events showed that higher doses led to more adverse events. For example, with 5-mg/day dose, the OR was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.87-2.25) and the RR was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.87-2.15), but for the 15-mg/day dose, the OR was 2.88 (95% CI, 1.52-5.45) and the RR was 2.68 (95% CI, 1.49-4.62).
 

Patient preference key

The data were insufficient to assess differences between men and women or between older and younger patients, Dr. Leucht noted.

However, post-hoc subgroup analyses turned up some interesting findings, he added. For example, patients who take high-potency first-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol might do well on a lower dose, said Dr. Leucht.

“They may need a dose even lower than 5 mg, perhaps something like 2.5 mg, because these drugs bind so strongly to dopamine receptors,” he said.

He reiterated that patient preferences should always be considered when deciding on antipsychotic dosage.

“Many patients will say they don’t want to relapse anymore, but others will say these drugs have horrible side effects, and they want to go on a lower dose,” said Dr. Leucht.

Clinicians should also factor in patient characteristics, such as comorbidities or substance abuse, as well as severity of past relapses and properties of individual drugs, he added.
 

Reflects real-world experience

Commenting on the findings, Thomas Sedlak, MD, PhD, director, Schizophrenia and Psychosis Consult Clinic and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the research “is a fine addition” to a previous analysis that explored dose-response relationships of antipsychotic drugs in the acute phase.

Crunching all the data from studies that have different types of patients and extracting a single dosage that provides maximum benefit is “a great challenge,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.

The fact that most patients won’t get additional benefit above 5 mg, at which point they start getting more adverse events, and that 2.5 mg is sufficient for certain subgroups “agrees well with the experience of many who use these medications regularly,” Dr. Sedlak said.

However, he cautioned that psychiatrists “don’t always intuitively know which patients fall into which dose category or who might require clozapine.”

“Clinicians need to be mindful that it’s easy to overshoot an optimal dose and elicit side effects,” said Dr. Sedlak.

He also noted that severely ill patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials because they are too impaired to participate, “so they may have a different optimal dosage,” he concluded.

Dr. Leucht has reported receiving personal fees for consulting, advising, and/or speaking outside the submitted work from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Geodon & Richter, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, LTS Lohmann, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, Sanofi Aventis, Sandoz, Sunovion, Teva, Eisai, Rovi, and Amiabel. Dr. Sedlak has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A middle-of-the-road dose of an antipsychotic appears to be optimal for relapse prevention in stable schizophrenia, new research suggests.

Results of a meta-analysis show a 5-mg/day equivalent risperidone dose worked best. Higher doses were associated with more adverse events without showing substantial gains in relapse prevention, and lower doses were associated with greater relapse risk.

“The safest approach is to just to carry on with 5 mg,” which in many cases represents a full dose, lead author Stefan Leucht, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Technical University of Munich School of Medicine, Germany, told this news organization.

However, he added, patient preferences and other factors should be considered in dosage decision-making.

The findings were published online August 18 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Unique meta-analysis

Antipsychotic drugs are effective for short-term treatment of schizophrenia and prevention of relapse but are associated with movement disorders, weight gain, and other metabolic changes. They are also associated with even more severe adverse events, including tardive dyskinesia and increased cardiovascular risk.

For years, researchers have tried to find the optimal dose of antipsychotic drugs to prevent relapse in patients with stable schizophrenia while mitigating adverse event risk.

For the meta-analysis, researchers searched for fixed-dose, randomized, blinded, or open trials that lasted longer than 3 months and compared two first-generation antipsychotics – haloperidol or fluphenazine – or a second-generation antipsychotic with placebo or a different dose of the same drug.

The analysis included 26 studies with 72 individual dose arms and 4,776 participants with stable schizophrenia.  

Researchers used a dose-response meta-analysis. Unlike a simple meta-analysis that provides an “arbitrary” cut-off of superiority of one drug over placebo or another drug, a dose-response meta-analysis gives a plot or curve “that shows how this evolves with different doses,” Dr. Leucht noted.

The investigators estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic drug compared with placebo separately and as a group.

They did not have enough data for most of the single antipsychotics, so they converted doses to risperidone equivalents for a pooled analysis across drugs. They chose risperidone because its equivalents “are pretty well-defined,” said Dr. Leucht.
 

Go slow to go low

For the primary outcome of relapse, the dose-response curve showed a hyperbolic shape with a clear plateau. Initially, the plot decreased sharply but then flattened at about 5-mg/day risperidone equivalent (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.31; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57).

“We were a little disappointed because we hoped that a dose lower than 5 mg would be most efficacious in terms of relapse rate because this would have reduced the side-effect burden,” Dr. Leucht said.

Nevertheless, he emphasized that doses lower than 5 mg/day risperidone equivalent are not completely ineffective. For example, the 2.5-mg dose reduced risk to relapse in relative terms by about 40% (RR, 0.63).

Dr. Leucht also pointed out there is “huge interindividual variability.” Therefore, 2.5 mg or even 1 mg may be sufficient for some patients. “It just means for the average patient it’s safest, let’s say, to keep her or him on 5 mg,” he said.  

When lowering the dose, Dr. Leucht noted clinicians should “be very careful and to do it very slowly. It should be very small reductions every 3 to 6 months.”

For the secondary endpoint of rehospitalizations, the shape of the curve was similar to the one for relapse but with lower rates.

“If patients need to be rehospitalized, it usually means that the relapse was major and not only a minor increase in symptoms,” said Dr. Leucht.

The curves for all-cause discontinuation and reduction in overall symptoms were also similar to that of relapse.

However, the curve for dropouts because of adverse events showed that higher doses led to more adverse events. For example, with 5-mg/day dose, the OR was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.87-2.25) and the RR was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.87-2.15), but for the 15-mg/day dose, the OR was 2.88 (95% CI, 1.52-5.45) and the RR was 2.68 (95% CI, 1.49-4.62).
 

Patient preference key

The data were insufficient to assess differences between men and women or between older and younger patients, Dr. Leucht noted.

However, post-hoc subgroup analyses turned up some interesting findings, he added. For example, patients who take high-potency first-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol might do well on a lower dose, said Dr. Leucht.

“They may need a dose even lower than 5 mg, perhaps something like 2.5 mg, because these drugs bind so strongly to dopamine receptors,” he said.

He reiterated that patient preferences should always be considered when deciding on antipsychotic dosage.

“Many patients will say they don’t want to relapse anymore, but others will say these drugs have horrible side effects, and they want to go on a lower dose,” said Dr. Leucht.

Clinicians should also factor in patient characteristics, such as comorbidities or substance abuse, as well as severity of past relapses and properties of individual drugs, he added.
 

Reflects real-world experience

Commenting on the findings, Thomas Sedlak, MD, PhD, director, Schizophrenia and Psychosis Consult Clinic and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the research “is a fine addition” to a previous analysis that explored dose-response relationships of antipsychotic drugs in the acute phase.

Crunching all the data from studies that have different types of patients and extracting a single dosage that provides maximum benefit is “a great challenge,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.

The fact that most patients won’t get additional benefit above 5 mg, at which point they start getting more adverse events, and that 2.5 mg is sufficient for certain subgroups “agrees well with the experience of many who use these medications regularly,” Dr. Sedlak said.

However, he cautioned that psychiatrists “don’t always intuitively know which patients fall into which dose category or who might require clozapine.”

“Clinicians need to be mindful that it’s easy to overshoot an optimal dose and elicit side effects,” said Dr. Sedlak.

He also noted that severely ill patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials because they are too impaired to participate, “so they may have a different optimal dosage,” he concluded.

Dr. Leucht has reported receiving personal fees for consulting, advising, and/or speaking outside the submitted work from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Geodon & Richter, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, LTS Lohmann, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, Sanofi Aventis, Sandoz, Sunovion, Teva, Eisai, Rovi, and Amiabel. Dr. Sedlak has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A middle-of-the-road dose of an antipsychotic appears to be optimal for relapse prevention in stable schizophrenia, new research suggests.

Results of a meta-analysis show a 5-mg/day equivalent risperidone dose worked best. Higher doses were associated with more adverse events without showing substantial gains in relapse prevention, and lower doses were associated with greater relapse risk.

“The safest approach is to just to carry on with 5 mg,” which in many cases represents a full dose, lead author Stefan Leucht, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Technical University of Munich School of Medicine, Germany, told this news organization.

However, he added, patient preferences and other factors should be considered in dosage decision-making.

The findings were published online August 18 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Unique meta-analysis

Antipsychotic drugs are effective for short-term treatment of schizophrenia and prevention of relapse but are associated with movement disorders, weight gain, and other metabolic changes. They are also associated with even more severe adverse events, including tardive dyskinesia and increased cardiovascular risk.

For years, researchers have tried to find the optimal dose of antipsychotic drugs to prevent relapse in patients with stable schizophrenia while mitigating adverse event risk.

For the meta-analysis, researchers searched for fixed-dose, randomized, blinded, or open trials that lasted longer than 3 months and compared two first-generation antipsychotics – haloperidol or fluphenazine – or a second-generation antipsychotic with placebo or a different dose of the same drug.

The analysis included 26 studies with 72 individual dose arms and 4,776 participants with stable schizophrenia.  

Researchers used a dose-response meta-analysis. Unlike a simple meta-analysis that provides an “arbitrary” cut-off of superiority of one drug over placebo or another drug, a dose-response meta-analysis gives a plot or curve “that shows how this evolves with different doses,” Dr. Leucht noted.

The investigators estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic drug compared with placebo separately and as a group.

They did not have enough data for most of the single antipsychotics, so they converted doses to risperidone equivalents for a pooled analysis across drugs. They chose risperidone because its equivalents “are pretty well-defined,” said Dr. Leucht.
 

Go slow to go low

For the primary outcome of relapse, the dose-response curve showed a hyperbolic shape with a clear plateau. Initially, the plot decreased sharply but then flattened at about 5-mg/day risperidone equivalent (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.31; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57).

“We were a little disappointed because we hoped that a dose lower than 5 mg would be most efficacious in terms of relapse rate because this would have reduced the side-effect burden,” Dr. Leucht said.

Nevertheless, he emphasized that doses lower than 5 mg/day risperidone equivalent are not completely ineffective. For example, the 2.5-mg dose reduced risk to relapse in relative terms by about 40% (RR, 0.63).

Dr. Leucht also pointed out there is “huge interindividual variability.” Therefore, 2.5 mg or even 1 mg may be sufficient for some patients. “It just means for the average patient it’s safest, let’s say, to keep her or him on 5 mg,” he said.  

When lowering the dose, Dr. Leucht noted clinicians should “be very careful and to do it very slowly. It should be very small reductions every 3 to 6 months.”

For the secondary endpoint of rehospitalizations, the shape of the curve was similar to the one for relapse but with lower rates.

“If patients need to be rehospitalized, it usually means that the relapse was major and not only a minor increase in symptoms,” said Dr. Leucht.

The curves for all-cause discontinuation and reduction in overall symptoms were also similar to that of relapse.

However, the curve for dropouts because of adverse events showed that higher doses led to more adverse events. For example, with 5-mg/day dose, the OR was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.87-2.25) and the RR was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.87-2.15), but for the 15-mg/day dose, the OR was 2.88 (95% CI, 1.52-5.45) and the RR was 2.68 (95% CI, 1.49-4.62).
 

Patient preference key

The data were insufficient to assess differences between men and women or between older and younger patients, Dr. Leucht noted.

However, post-hoc subgroup analyses turned up some interesting findings, he added. For example, patients who take high-potency first-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol might do well on a lower dose, said Dr. Leucht.

“They may need a dose even lower than 5 mg, perhaps something like 2.5 mg, because these drugs bind so strongly to dopamine receptors,” he said.

He reiterated that patient preferences should always be considered when deciding on antipsychotic dosage.

“Many patients will say they don’t want to relapse anymore, but others will say these drugs have horrible side effects, and they want to go on a lower dose,” said Dr. Leucht.

Clinicians should also factor in patient characteristics, such as comorbidities or substance abuse, as well as severity of past relapses and properties of individual drugs, he added.
 

Reflects real-world experience

Commenting on the findings, Thomas Sedlak, MD, PhD, director, Schizophrenia and Psychosis Consult Clinic and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the research “is a fine addition” to a previous analysis that explored dose-response relationships of antipsychotic drugs in the acute phase.

Crunching all the data from studies that have different types of patients and extracting a single dosage that provides maximum benefit is “a great challenge,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.

The fact that most patients won’t get additional benefit above 5 mg, at which point they start getting more adverse events, and that 2.5 mg is sufficient for certain subgroups “agrees well with the experience of many who use these medications regularly,” Dr. Sedlak said.

However, he cautioned that psychiatrists “don’t always intuitively know which patients fall into which dose category or who might require clozapine.”

“Clinicians need to be mindful that it’s easy to overshoot an optimal dose and elicit side effects,” said Dr. Sedlak.

He also noted that severely ill patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials because they are too impaired to participate, “so they may have a different optimal dosage,” he concluded.

Dr. Leucht has reported receiving personal fees for consulting, advising, and/or speaking outside the submitted work from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Geodon & Richter, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, LTS Lohmann, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, Sanofi Aventis, Sandoz, Sunovion, Teva, Eisai, Rovi, and Amiabel. Dr. Sedlak has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.