Can you tell which of the following statements are true and which are false?

COVID-19 is not a threat to younger people, and only those who have other medical conditions are dying from it.

The mRNA vaccines developed to prevent the coronavirus alter your genes, can make your body “magnetic,” and are killing more people than the virus itself.

President Joe Biden’s climate change plan calls for a ban on meat consumption to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

If you guessed that all of these claims are false, you’re right – take a bow. Not a single one of these statements has any factual support, according to scientific research, legal rulings, and legitimate government authorities.

And yet public opinion surveys show millions of Americans, and others around the world, believe some of these falsehoods are true and can’t be convinced otherwise.

Social media, politicians and partisan websites, TV programs, and commentators have widely circulated these and other unfounded claims so frequently that many people say they simply can’t tell what’s objectively true and not anymore.

So much so, the authors of a fascinating new research study have concluded we are living in a “post-truth era,” with baseless beliefs and subjective opinions given a higher priority than verifiable facts.

The new study – The Rise and Fall of Rationality in Language, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – found that facts have become less important in public discourse.

As a result, unsupported beliefs have taken precedent over readily identifiable truths in discussions of health, science, and politics. The upshot: “Feelings trump facts” in social media, news reports, books, and other sources of information.

And here’s the kicker: The trend did not begin with the rise of former President Donald Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the advent of social media; in fact, it has been growing for much longer than you might think.

“While the current ‘post-truth era’ has taken many by surprise, the study shows that over the past 40 years, public interest has undergone an accelerating shift from the collective to the individual, and from rationality towards emotion,” concluded the researchers from Indiana University and Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands.

“Our work suggests that the societal balance between emotion and reason has shifted back to what it used to be around 150 years ago,” says lead researcher Marten Scheffer, PhD, a professor in the department of environmental sciences at WUR. “This implies that scientists, experts, and policymakers will have to think about the best way to respond to that social change.”
 

Researchers surprised by findings

The findings are based on a very detailed analysis of language from millions of books, newspaper articles, Google searches, TV reports, social media posts, and other sources dating back to 1850.

The researchers analyzed how often the 5,000 most used words appeared over the past 170 years and found that the use of those having to do with facts and reasoning, such as “determine” and “conclusion,” has fallen dramatically since 1980. Meanwhile, the use of words related to human emotion, such as “feel” and “believe,” have skyrocketed.

Dr. Scheffer notes rapid developments in science and technology from 1850 to 1980 had profound social and economic benefits that helped boost the status of the scientific approach. That shift in public attitudes had ripple effects on culture, society, education, politics, and religion – and “the role of spiritualism dwindled” in the modern world, he says.

But since 1980, that trend has seen a major reversal, with beliefs becoming more important than facts to many people, he says. At the same time, trust in science and scientists has fallen.

Dr. Scheffer says the researchers expected to find some evidence of a swing toward more belief-based sentiments during the Trump era but were surprised to discover how strong it is and that the trend has actually been a long time coming.

“The shift in interest from rational to intuitive/emotional is pretty obvious now in the post-truth political and social media discussion,” he says. “However, our work shows that it already started in the 1980s. For me personally, that went under the radar, except perhaps for the rise of alternative (to religion) forms of spirituality.

“We were especially struck by how strong the patterns are and how universal they appear across languages, nonfiction and fiction, and even in The New York Times.”

In the political world, the implications are significant enough – impacting policies and politicians on both sides of the aisle and across the globe. Just look at the deepening political divisions during the Trump presidency.

But for health and science, the spread of misinformation and falsehoods can be matters of life or death, as we have seen in the politically charged debates over how best to combat COVID-19 and global climate change.

“Our public debate seems increasingly driven by what people want to be true rather than what is actually true. As a scientist, that worries me,” says study co-author Johan Bollen, PhD, a professor of informatics at Indiana University.

“As a society, we are now faced with major collective problems that we need to approach from a pragmatic, rational, and objective perspective to be successful,” he says. “After all, global warming doesn’t care about whether you believe in it or not … but we will all suffer as a society if we fail to take adequate measures.”

For WUR co-researcher Ingrid van de Leemput, the trend isn’t merely academic; she’s seen it play out in her personal life.

“I do speak to people that, for instance, think the vaccines are poison,” she says. “I’m also on Twitter, and there, I’m every day surprised about how easily many people form their opinions, based on feelings, on what others say, or on some unfounded source.”

Public health experts say the embrace of personal beliefs over facts is one reason only 63% of Americans have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The result: millions of preventable infections among those who downplay the risks of the virus and reject the strong scientific evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

“None of this really surprises me,” Johns Hopkins University social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, says of the new study findings. Dr. Limaye coauthored a paper in 2016 in JAMA Pediatrics about how to talk to parents about vaccine hesitancy and the fact that we’re living in what they called “this post-truth era.”

Dr. Limaye says the trend has made it difficult for doctors, scientists, and health authorities to make fact-based arguments for COVID-19 vaccination, mask-wearing, social distancing, and other measures to control the virus.

“It’s been really hard being a scientist to hear people say, ‘Well, that’s not true’ when we say something very basic that I think all of us can agree on – like the grass is green,” she says. “To be honest, I worry that a lot of scientists are going to quit being in science because they’re exhausted.”
 

What’s driving the trend?

So, what’s behind the embrace of “alternative facts,” as former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway put it so brazenly in 2017, in defending the White House’s false claims that Trump’s inauguration crowd was the largest ever?

Dr. Scheffer and colleagues identified a handful of things that have encouraged the embrace of falsehoods over facts in recent years.

• The Internet: Its rise in the late 1980s, and its growing role as a primary source of news and information, has allowed more belief-based misinformation to flourish and spread like wildfire.
• Social media: The new study found the use of sentiment- and intuition-related words accelerated around 2007, along with a global surge in social media that catapulted Facebook, Twitter, and others into the mainstream, replacing more traditional fact-based media (i.e., newspapers and magazines).
• The 2007 financial crisis: The downturn in the global economy meant more people were dealing with job stress, investment losses, and other problems that fed the interest in belief-based, anti-establishment social media posts.
• Conspiracy theories: Falsehoods involving hidden political agendas, shadow “elites,” and wealthy people with dark motives tend to thrive during times of crisis and societal anxiety. “Conspiracy theories originate particularly in times of uncertainty and crisis and generally depict established institutions as hiding the truth and sustaining an unfair situation,” the researchers noted. “As a result, they may find fertile grounds on social media platforms promulgating a sense of unfairness, subsequently feeding anti-system sentiments.”

Dr. Scheffer says that growing political divisions during the Trump era have widened the fact-vs.-fiction divide. The ex-president voiced many anti-science views on global climate change, for instance, and spread so many falsehoods about COVID-19 and the 2020 election that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube suspended his accounts.

Yet Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans, with most saying in a December poll they believe his baseless claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” and “stolen,” despite all credible, easily accessible evidence that it was secure, according to a recent poll by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

More than 60 courts have rejected Trump’s lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and both branches of Congress have certified the election results, giving Biden the White House. Even Trump’s own Justice Department confirmed that the 2020 election was free and fair.

Nevertheless, the University of Massachusetts survey found that most Republicans believe one or more conspiracy theories floated by the former president and those pushing his “big lie” that Democrats rigged the election to elect Biden.

Ed Berliner, an Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist and media consultant, suggests something else is driving the spread of misinformation: the pursuit of ratings by cable TV and media companies to boost ad and subscriber revenues.

As a former executive producer and syndicated cable TV show host, he says he has seen firsthand how facts are often lost in opinion-driven news programs, even on network programs claiming to offer “fair and balanced” journalism.

“Propaganda is the new currency in America, and those who do not fight back against it are doomed to be overrun by the misinformation,” says Mr. Berliner, host of The Man in the Arena and CEO of Entourage Media LLC.

“The broadcast news media has to stop this incessant ‘infotainment’ prattle, stop trying to nuzzle up to a soft side, and bear down on hard facts, exposing the lies and refusing to back down.”
 

Public health implications

Public health and media experts alike say the PNAS study findings are disheartening but underscore the need for doctors and scientists to do a better job of communicating about COVID-19 and other pressing issues.

Dr. Limaye, from Johns Hopkins, is particularly concerned about the rise in conspiracy theories that has led to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

“When we speak to individuals about getting the COVID vaccine…the types of concerns that come up now are very different than they were 8 years ago,” she says. “The comments we used to hear were much more related to vaccine safety. [People] would say, ‘I’m worried about an ingredient in the vaccine’ or ‘I’m worried that my kiddo has to get three different shots within 6 months to have a series dose completed.’”

But now, a lot of comments they receive are about government and pharma conspiracies.

What that means is doctors and scientists must do more than simply say “here are the facts” and “trust me, I’m a doctor or a scientist,” she says. And these approaches don’t only apply to public health.

“It’s funny, because when we talk to climate change scientists, as vaccine [specialists], we’ll say we can’t believe that people think COVID is a hoax,” she says. “And they’re like, ‘Hold my beer, we’ve been dealing with this for 20 years. Hello, it’s just your guys’ turn to deal with this public denial of science.’”

Dr. Limaye is also concerned about the impacts on funding for scientific research.

“There’s always been a really strong bipartisan effort with regards to funding for science, when you look at Congress and when you look at appropriations,” she says. “But what ended up happening, especially with the Trump administration, was that there was a real shift in that. We’ve never really seen that before in past generations.”

So, what’s the big take-home message?

Dr. Limaye believes doctors and public health experts must show more empathy – and not be combative or arrogant – in communicating science in one-on-one conversations. This month, she’s launching a new course for parents, school administrators, and nurses on how to do precisely that.

“It’s really all about how to have hard conversations with people who might be anti-science,” she says. “It’s being empathetic and not being dismissive. But it’s hard work, and I think a lot of people are just not cut out for it and just don’t have the time for it…You can’t just say, ‘Well, this is science, and I’m a doctor’ – that doesn’t work anymore.”

Brendan Nyhan, PhD, a Dartmouth College political scientist, echoes those sentiments in a separate paper recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, he suggests that providing accurate, fact-based information to counter false claims may actually backfire and reinforce some people’s unfounded beliefs.

“One response to the prevalence of mistaken beliefs is to try to set the record straight by providing accurate information – for instance, by providing evidence of the scientific consensus on climate change,” he writes. “The failures of this approach, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘deficit model’ in science communication, are well-known.”

Dr. Nyhan argues two things make some people more prone to believe falsehoods:

What scientists call “ingrouping,” a kind of tribal mentality that makes some people choose social identity or politics over truth-seeking and demonize others who don’t agree with their views

The rise of high-profile political figures, such as Trump, who encourage their followers to indulge in their desire for “identify-affirming misinformation”

Dr. Scheffer says the most important thing for doctors, health experts, and scientists to recognize is that it’s crucial to gain the trust of someone who may believe fictions over facts to make any persuasive argument on COVID-19 or any other issue.

He also has a standard response to those who present falsehoods to him as facts that he suggests anyone can use: “That is interesting. Would you mind helping me understand how you came to that opinion?”

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

Can you tell which of the following statements are true and which are false?

COVID-19 is not a threat to younger people, and only those who have other medical conditions are dying from it.

The mRNA vaccines developed to prevent the coronavirus alter your genes, can make your body “magnetic,” and are killing more people than the virus itself.

President Joe Biden’s climate change plan calls for a ban on meat consumption to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

If you guessed that all of these claims are false, you’re right – take a bow. Not a single one of these statements has any factual support, according to scientific research, legal rulings, and legitimate government authorities.

And yet public opinion surveys show millions of Americans, and others around the world, believe some of these falsehoods are true and can’t be convinced otherwise.

Social media, politicians and partisan websites, TV programs, and commentators have widely circulated these and other unfounded claims so frequently that many people say they simply can’t tell what’s objectively true and not anymore.

So much so, the authors of a fascinating new research study have concluded we are living in a “post-truth era,” with baseless beliefs and subjective opinions given a higher priority than verifiable facts.

The new study – The Rise and Fall of Rationality in Language, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – found that facts have become less important in public discourse.

As a result, unsupported beliefs have taken precedent over readily identifiable truths in discussions of health, science, and politics. The upshot: “Feelings trump facts” in social media, news reports, books, and other sources of information.

And here’s the kicker: The trend did not begin with the rise of former President Donald Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the advent of social media; in fact, it has been growing for much longer than you might think.

“While the current ‘post-truth era’ has taken many by surprise, the study shows that over the past 40 years, public interest has undergone an accelerating shift from the collective to the individual, and from rationality towards emotion,” concluded the researchers from Indiana University and Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands.

“Our work suggests that the societal balance between emotion and reason has shifted back to what it used to be around 150 years ago,” says lead researcher Marten Scheffer, PhD, a professor in the department of environmental sciences at WUR. “This implies that scientists, experts, and policymakers will have to think about the best way to respond to that social change.”
 

Researchers surprised by findings

The findings are based on a very detailed analysis of language from millions of books, newspaper articles, Google searches, TV reports, social media posts, and other sources dating back to 1850.

The researchers analyzed how often the 5,000 most used words appeared over the past 170 years and found that the use of those having to do with facts and reasoning, such as “determine” and “conclusion,” has fallen dramatically since 1980. Meanwhile, the use of words related to human emotion, such as “feel” and “believe,” have skyrocketed.

Dr. Scheffer notes rapid developments in science and technology from 1850 to 1980 had profound social and economic benefits that helped boost the status of the scientific approach. That shift in public attitudes had ripple effects on culture, society, education, politics, and religion – and “the role of spiritualism dwindled” in the modern world, he says.

But since 1980, that trend has seen a major reversal, with beliefs becoming more important than facts to many people, he says. At the same time, trust in science and scientists has fallen.

Dr. Scheffer says the researchers expected to find some evidence of a swing toward more belief-based sentiments during the Trump era but were surprised to discover how strong it is and that the trend has actually been a long time coming.

“The shift in interest from rational to intuitive/emotional is pretty obvious now in the post-truth political and social media discussion,” he says. “However, our work shows that it already started in the 1980s. For me personally, that went under the radar, except perhaps for the rise of alternative (to religion) forms of spirituality.

“We were especially struck by how strong the patterns are and how universal they appear across languages, nonfiction and fiction, and even in The New York Times.”

In the political world, the implications are significant enough – impacting policies and politicians on both sides of the aisle and across the globe. Just look at the deepening political divisions during the Trump presidency.

But for health and science, the spread of misinformation and falsehoods can be matters of life or death, as we have seen in the politically charged debates over how best to combat COVID-19 and global climate change.

“Our public debate seems increasingly driven by what people want to be true rather than what is actually true. As a scientist, that worries me,” says study co-author Johan Bollen, PhD, a professor of informatics at Indiana University.

“As a society, we are now faced with major collective problems that we need to approach from a pragmatic, rational, and objective perspective to be successful,” he says. “After all, global warming doesn’t care about whether you believe in it or not … but we will all suffer as a society if we fail to take adequate measures.”

For WUR co-researcher Ingrid van de Leemput, the trend isn’t merely academic; she’s seen it play out in her personal life.

“I do speak to people that, for instance, think the vaccines are poison,” she says. “I’m also on Twitter, and there, I’m every day surprised about how easily many people form their opinions, based on feelings, on what others say, or on some unfounded source.”

Public health experts say the embrace of personal beliefs over facts is one reason only 63% of Americans have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The result: millions of preventable infections among those who downplay the risks of the virus and reject the strong scientific evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

“None of this really surprises me,” Johns Hopkins University social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, says of the new study findings. Dr. Limaye coauthored a paper in 2016 in JAMA Pediatrics about how to talk to parents about vaccine hesitancy and the fact that we’re living in what they called “this post-truth era.”

Dr. Limaye says the trend has made it difficult for doctors, scientists, and health authorities to make fact-based arguments for COVID-19 vaccination, mask-wearing, social distancing, and other measures to control the virus.

“It’s been really hard being a scientist to hear people say, ‘Well, that’s not true’ when we say something very basic that I think all of us can agree on – like the grass is green,” she says. “To be honest, I worry that a lot of scientists are going to quit being in science because they’re exhausted.”
 

What’s driving the trend?

So, what’s behind the embrace of “alternative facts,” as former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway put it so brazenly in 2017, in defending the White House’s false claims that Trump’s inauguration crowd was the largest ever?

Dr. Scheffer and colleagues identified a handful of things that have encouraged the embrace of falsehoods over facts in recent years.

• The Internet: Its rise in the late 1980s, and its growing role as a primary source of news and information, has allowed more belief-based misinformation to flourish and spread like wildfire.
• Social media: The new study found the use of sentiment- and intuition-related words accelerated around 2007, along with a global surge in social media that catapulted Facebook, Twitter, and others into the mainstream, replacing more traditional fact-based media (i.e., newspapers and magazines).
• The 2007 financial crisis: The downturn in the global economy meant more people were dealing with job stress, investment losses, and other problems that fed the interest in belief-based, anti-establishment social media posts.
• Conspiracy theories: Falsehoods involving hidden political agendas, shadow “elites,” and wealthy people with dark motives tend to thrive during times of crisis and societal anxiety. “Conspiracy theories originate particularly in times of uncertainty and crisis and generally depict established institutions as hiding the truth and sustaining an unfair situation,” the researchers noted. “As a result, they may find fertile grounds on social media platforms promulgating a sense of unfairness, subsequently feeding anti-system sentiments.”

Dr. Scheffer says that growing political divisions during the Trump era have widened the fact-vs.-fiction divide. The ex-president voiced many anti-science views on global climate change, for instance, and spread so many falsehoods about COVID-19 and the 2020 election that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube suspended his accounts.

Yet Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans, with most saying in a December poll they believe his baseless claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” and “stolen,” despite all credible, easily accessible evidence that it was secure, according to a recent poll by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

More than 60 courts have rejected Trump’s lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and both branches of Congress have certified the election results, giving Biden the White House. Even Trump’s own Justice Department confirmed that the 2020 election was free and fair.

Nevertheless, the University of Massachusetts survey found that most Republicans believe one or more conspiracy theories floated by the former president and those pushing his “big lie” that Democrats rigged the election to elect Biden.

Ed Berliner, an Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist and media consultant, suggests something else is driving the spread of misinformation: the pursuit of ratings by cable TV and media companies to boost ad and subscriber revenues.

As a former executive producer and syndicated cable TV show host, he says he has seen firsthand how facts are often lost in opinion-driven news programs, even on network programs claiming to offer “fair and balanced” journalism.

“Propaganda is the new currency in America, and those who do not fight back against it are doomed to be overrun by the misinformation,” says Mr. Berliner, host of The Man in the Arena and CEO of Entourage Media LLC.

“The broadcast news media has to stop this incessant ‘infotainment’ prattle, stop trying to nuzzle up to a soft side, and bear down on hard facts, exposing the lies and refusing to back down.”
 

Public health implications

Public health and media experts alike say the PNAS study findings are disheartening but underscore the need for doctors and scientists to do a better job of communicating about COVID-19 and other pressing issues.

Dr. Limaye, from Johns Hopkins, is particularly concerned about the rise in conspiracy theories that has led to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

“When we speak to individuals about getting the COVID vaccine…the types of concerns that come up now are very different than they were 8 years ago,” she says. “The comments we used to hear were much more related to vaccine safety. [People] would say, ‘I’m worried about an ingredient in the vaccine’ or ‘I’m worried that my kiddo has to get three different shots within 6 months to have a series dose completed.’”

But now, a lot of comments they receive are about government and pharma conspiracies.

What that means is doctors and scientists must do more than simply say “here are the facts” and “trust me, I’m a doctor or a scientist,” she says. And these approaches don’t only apply to public health.

“It’s funny, because when we talk to climate change scientists, as vaccine [specialists], we’ll say we can’t believe that people think COVID is a hoax,” she says. “And they’re like, ‘Hold my beer, we’ve been dealing with this for 20 years. Hello, it’s just your guys’ turn to deal with this public denial of science.’”

Dr. Limaye is also concerned about the impacts on funding for scientific research.

“There’s always been a really strong bipartisan effort with regards to funding for science, when you look at Congress and when you look at appropriations,” she says. “But what ended up happening, especially with the Trump administration, was that there was a real shift in that. We’ve never really seen that before in past generations.”

So, what’s the big take-home message?

Dr. Limaye believes doctors and public health experts must show more empathy – and not be combative or arrogant – in communicating science in one-on-one conversations. This month, she’s launching a new course for parents, school administrators, and nurses on how to do precisely that.

“It’s really all about how to have hard conversations with people who might be anti-science,” she says. “It’s being empathetic and not being dismissive. But it’s hard work, and I think a lot of people are just not cut out for it and just don’t have the time for it…You can’t just say, ‘Well, this is science, and I’m a doctor’ – that doesn’t work anymore.”

Brendan Nyhan, PhD, a Dartmouth College political scientist, echoes those sentiments in a separate paper recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, he suggests that providing accurate, fact-based information to counter false claims may actually backfire and reinforce some people’s unfounded beliefs.

“One response to the prevalence of mistaken beliefs is to try to set the record straight by providing accurate information – for instance, by providing evidence of the scientific consensus on climate change,” he writes. “The failures of this approach, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘deficit model’ in science communication, are well-known.”

Dr. Nyhan argues two things make some people more prone to believe falsehoods:

What scientists call “ingrouping,” a kind of tribal mentality that makes some people choose social identity or politics over truth-seeking and demonize others who don’t agree with their views

The rise of high-profile political figures, such as Trump, who encourage their followers to indulge in their desire for “identify-affirming misinformation”

Dr. Scheffer says the most important thing for doctors, health experts, and scientists to recognize is that it’s crucial to gain the trust of someone who may believe fictions over facts to make any persuasive argument on COVID-19 or any other issue.

He also has a standard response to those who present falsehoods to him as facts that he suggests anyone can use: “That is interesting. Would you mind helping me understand how you came to that opinion?”

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

Can you tell which of the following statements are true and which are false?

COVID-19 is not a threat to younger people, and only those who have other medical conditions are dying from it.

The mRNA vaccines developed to prevent the coronavirus alter your genes, can make your body “magnetic,” and are killing more people than the virus itself.

President Joe Biden’s climate change plan calls for a ban on meat consumption to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

If you guessed that all of these claims are false, you’re right – take a bow. Not a single one of these statements has any factual support, according to scientific research, legal rulings, and legitimate government authorities.

And yet public opinion surveys show millions of Americans, and others around the world, believe some of these falsehoods are true and can’t be convinced otherwise.

Social media, politicians and partisan websites, TV programs, and commentators have widely circulated these and other unfounded claims so frequently that many people say they simply can’t tell what’s objectively true and not anymore.

So much so, the authors of a fascinating new research study have concluded we are living in a “post-truth era,” with baseless beliefs and subjective opinions given a higher priority than verifiable facts.

The new study – The Rise and Fall of Rationality in Language, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – found that facts have become less important in public discourse.

As a result, unsupported beliefs have taken precedent over readily identifiable truths in discussions of health, science, and politics. The upshot: “Feelings trump facts” in social media, news reports, books, and other sources of information.

And here’s the kicker: The trend did not begin with the rise of former President Donald Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the advent of social media; in fact, it has been growing for much longer than you might think.

“While the current ‘post-truth era’ has taken many by surprise, the study shows that over the past 40 years, public interest has undergone an accelerating shift from the collective to the individual, and from rationality towards emotion,” concluded the researchers from Indiana University and Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands.

“Our work suggests that the societal balance between emotion and reason has shifted back to what it used to be around 150 years ago,” says lead researcher Marten Scheffer, PhD, a professor in the department of environmental sciences at WUR. “This implies that scientists, experts, and policymakers will have to think about the best way to respond to that social change.”
 

Researchers surprised by findings

The findings are based on a very detailed analysis of language from millions of books, newspaper articles, Google searches, TV reports, social media posts, and other sources dating back to 1850.

The researchers analyzed how often the 5,000 most used words appeared over the past 170 years and found that the use of those having to do with facts and reasoning, such as “determine” and “conclusion,” has fallen dramatically since 1980. Meanwhile, the use of words related to human emotion, such as “feel” and “believe,” have skyrocketed.

Dr. Scheffer notes rapid developments in science and technology from 1850 to 1980 had profound social and economic benefits that helped boost the status of the scientific approach. That shift in public attitudes had ripple effects on culture, society, education, politics, and religion – and “the role of spiritualism dwindled” in the modern world, he says.

But since 1980, that trend has seen a major reversal, with beliefs becoming more important than facts to many people, he says. At the same time, trust in science and scientists has fallen.

Dr. Scheffer says the researchers expected to find some evidence of a swing toward more belief-based sentiments during the Trump era but were surprised to discover how strong it is and that the trend has actually been a long time coming.

“The shift in interest from rational to intuitive/emotional is pretty obvious now in the post-truth political and social media discussion,” he says. “However, our work shows that it already started in the 1980s. For me personally, that went under the radar, except perhaps for the rise of alternative (to religion) forms of spirituality.

“We were especially struck by how strong the patterns are and how universal they appear across languages, nonfiction and fiction, and even in The New York Times.”

In the political world, the implications are significant enough – impacting policies and politicians on both sides of the aisle and across the globe. Just look at the deepening political divisions during the Trump presidency.

But for health and science, the spread of misinformation and falsehoods can be matters of life or death, as we have seen in the politically charged debates over how best to combat COVID-19 and global climate change.

“Our public debate seems increasingly driven by what people want to be true rather than what is actually true. As a scientist, that worries me,” says study co-author Johan Bollen, PhD, a professor of informatics at Indiana University.

“As a society, we are now faced with major collective problems that we need to approach from a pragmatic, rational, and objective perspective to be successful,” he says. “After all, global warming doesn’t care about whether you believe in it or not … but we will all suffer as a society if we fail to take adequate measures.”

For WUR co-researcher Ingrid van de Leemput, the trend isn’t merely academic; she’s seen it play out in her personal life.

“I do speak to people that, for instance, think the vaccines are poison,” she says. “I’m also on Twitter, and there, I’m every day surprised about how easily many people form their opinions, based on feelings, on what others say, or on some unfounded source.”

Public health experts say the embrace of personal beliefs over facts is one reason only 63% of Americans have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The result: millions of preventable infections among those who downplay the risks of the virus and reject the strong scientific evidence of vaccine safety and effectiveness.

“None of this really surprises me,” Johns Hopkins University social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, says of the new study findings. Dr. Limaye coauthored a paper in 2016 in JAMA Pediatrics about how to talk to parents about vaccine hesitancy and the fact that we’re living in what they called “this post-truth era.”

Dr. Limaye says the trend has made it difficult for doctors, scientists, and health authorities to make fact-based arguments for COVID-19 vaccination, mask-wearing, social distancing, and other measures to control the virus.

“It’s been really hard being a scientist to hear people say, ‘Well, that’s not true’ when we say something very basic that I think all of us can agree on – like the grass is green,” she says. “To be honest, I worry that a lot of scientists are going to quit being in science because they’re exhausted.”
 

What’s driving the trend?

So, what’s behind the embrace of “alternative facts,” as former White House counselor Kellyanne Conway put it so brazenly in 2017, in defending the White House’s false claims that Trump’s inauguration crowd was the largest ever?

Dr. Scheffer and colleagues identified a handful of things that have encouraged the embrace of falsehoods over facts in recent years.

• The Internet: Its rise in the late 1980s, and its growing role as a primary source of news and information, has allowed more belief-based misinformation to flourish and spread like wildfire.
• Social media: The new study found the use of sentiment- and intuition-related words accelerated around 2007, along with a global surge in social media that catapulted Facebook, Twitter, and others into the mainstream, replacing more traditional fact-based media (i.e., newspapers and magazines).
• The 2007 financial crisis: The downturn in the global economy meant more people were dealing with job stress, investment losses, and other problems that fed the interest in belief-based, anti-establishment social media posts.
• Conspiracy theories: Falsehoods involving hidden political agendas, shadow “elites,” and wealthy people with dark motives tend to thrive during times of crisis and societal anxiety. “Conspiracy theories originate particularly in times of uncertainty and crisis and generally depict established institutions as hiding the truth and sustaining an unfair situation,” the researchers noted. “As a result, they may find fertile grounds on social media platforms promulgating a sense of unfairness, subsequently feeding anti-system sentiments.”

Dr. Scheffer says that growing political divisions during the Trump era have widened the fact-vs.-fiction divide. The ex-president voiced many anti-science views on global climate change, for instance, and spread so many falsehoods about COVID-19 and the 2020 election that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube suspended his accounts.

Yet Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans, with most saying in a December poll they believe his baseless claims that the 2020 election was “rigged” and “stolen,” despite all credible, easily accessible evidence that it was secure, according to a recent poll by the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

More than 60 courts have rejected Trump’s lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and both branches of Congress have certified the election results, giving Biden the White House. Even Trump’s own Justice Department confirmed that the 2020 election was free and fair.

Nevertheless, the University of Massachusetts survey found that most Republicans believe one or more conspiracy theories floated by the former president and those pushing his “big lie” that Democrats rigged the election to elect Biden.

Ed Berliner, an Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist and media consultant, suggests something else is driving the spread of misinformation: the pursuit of ratings by cable TV and media companies to boost ad and subscriber revenues.

As a former executive producer and syndicated cable TV show host, he says he has seen firsthand how facts are often lost in opinion-driven news programs, even on network programs claiming to offer “fair and balanced” journalism.

“Propaganda is the new currency in America, and those who do not fight back against it are doomed to be overrun by the misinformation,” says Mr. Berliner, host of The Man in the Arena and CEO of Entourage Media LLC.

“The broadcast news media has to stop this incessant ‘infotainment’ prattle, stop trying to nuzzle up to a soft side, and bear down on hard facts, exposing the lies and refusing to back down.”
 

Public health implications

Public health and media experts alike say the PNAS study findings are disheartening but underscore the need for doctors and scientists to do a better job of communicating about COVID-19 and other pressing issues.

Dr. Limaye, from Johns Hopkins, is particularly concerned about the rise in conspiracy theories that has led to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

“When we speak to individuals about getting the COVID vaccine…the types of concerns that come up now are very different than they were 8 years ago,” she says. “The comments we used to hear were much more related to vaccine safety. [People] would say, ‘I’m worried about an ingredient in the vaccine’ or ‘I’m worried that my kiddo has to get three different shots within 6 months to have a series dose completed.’”

But now, a lot of comments they receive are about government and pharma conspiracies.

What that means is doctors and scientists must do more than simply say “here are the facts” and “trust me, I’m a doctor or a scientist,” she says. And these approaches don’t only apply to public health.

“It’s funny, because when we talk to climate change scientists, as vaccine [specialists], we’ll say we can’t believe that people think COVID is a hoax,” she says. “And they’re like, ‘Hold my beer, we’ve been dealing with this for 20 years. Hello, it’s just your guys’ turn to deal with this public denial of science.’”

Dr. Limaye is also concerned about the impacts on funding for scientific research.

“There’s always been a really strong bipartisan effort with regards to funding for science, when you look at Congress and when you look at appropriations,” she says. “But what ended up happening, especially with the Trump administration, was that there was a real shift in that. We’ve never really seen that before in past generations.”

So, what’s the big take-home message?

Dr. Limaye believes doctors and public health experts must show more empathy – and not be combative or arrogant – in communicating science in one-on-one conversations. This month, she’s launching a new course for parents, school administrators, and nurses on how to do precisely that.

“It’s really all about how to have hard conversations with people who might be anti-science,” she says. “It’s being empathetic and not being dismissive. But it’s hard work, and I think a lot of people are just not cut out for it and just don’t have the time for it…You can’t just say, ‘Well, this is science, and I’m a doctor’ – that doesn’t work anymore.”

Brendan Nyhan, PhD, a Dartmouth College political scientist, echoes those sentiments in a separate paper recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, he suggests that providing accurate, fact-based information to counter false claims may actually backfire and reinforce some people’s unfounded beliefs.

“One response to the prevalence of mistaken beliefs is to try to set the record straight by providing accurate information – for instance, by providing evidence of the scientific consensus on climate change,” he writes. “The failures of this approach, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘deficit model’ in science communication, are well-known.”

Dr. Nyhan argues two things make some people more prone to believe falsehoods:

What scientists call “ingrouping,” a kind of tribal mentality that makes some people choose social identity or politics over truth-seeking and demonize others who don’t agree with their views

The rise of high-profile political figures, such as Trump, who encourage their followers to indulge in their desire for “identify-affirming misinformation”

Dr. Scheffer says the most important thing for doctors, health experts, and scientists to recognize is that it’s crucial to gain the trust of someone who may believe fictions over facts to make any persuasive argument on COVID-19 or any other issue.

He also has a standard response to those who present falsehoods to him as facts that he suggests anyone can use: “That is interesting. Would you mind helping me understand how you came to that opinion?”

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

Medtronic has recalled 95,110 HawkOne Directional Atherectomy Systems because of the risk of the guidewire within the catheter moving downward or prolapsing during use, which may damage the tip of the catheter.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

The HawkOne Directional Atherectomy system is used during procedures intended to remove blockage from peripheral arteries and improve blood flow.

If the guideline moves downward or prolapses during use, the “catheter tip may break off or separate, and this could lead to serious adverse events, including a tear along the inside wall of an artery (arterial dissection), a rupture or breakage of an artery (arterial rupture), decrease in blood flow to a part of the body because of a blocked artery (ischemia), and/or blood vessel complications that could require surgical repair and additional procedures to capture and remove the detached and/or migrated (embolized) tip,” the FDA says in a recall notice posted today on its website.

To date, there have been 55 injuries, no deaths, and 163 complaints reported for this device.

The recalled devices were distributed in the United States between Jan. 22, 2018 and Oct. 4, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers pertaining to the devices are listed on the FDA website.

Medtronic sent an urgent field safety notice to customers Dec. 6, 2021, requesting that they alert parties of the defect, review the instructions for use before using the device, and note the warnings and precautions listed in the letter.

Customers were also asked to complete the enclosed confirmation form and email to rs.cfqfca@medtronic.com.

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Medtronic has recalled 95,110 HawkOne Directional Atherectomy Systems because of the risk of the guidewire within the catheter moving downward or prolapsing during use, which may damage the tip of the catheter.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

The HawkOne Directional Atherectomy system is used during procedures intended to remove blockage from peripheral arteries and improve blood flow.

If the guideline moves downward or prolapses during use, the “catheter tip may break off or separate, and this could lead to serious adverse events, including a tear along the inside wall of an artery (arterial dissection), a rupture or breakage of an artery (arterial rupture), decrease in blood flow to a part of the body because of a blocked artery (ischemia), and/or blood vessel complications that could require surgical repair and additional procedures to capture and remove the detached and/or migrated (embolized) tip,” the FDA says in a recall notice posted today on its website.

To date, there have been 55 injuries, no deaths, and 163 complaints reported for this device.

The recalled devices were distributed in the United States between Jan. 22, 2018 and Oct. 4, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers pertaining to the devices are listed on the FDA website.

Medtronic sent an urgent field safety notice to customers Dec. 6, 2021, requesting that they alert parties of the defect, review the instructions for use before using the device, and note the warnings and precautions listed in the letter.

Customers were also asked to complete the enclosed confirmation form and email to rs.cfqfca@medtronic.com.

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Medtronic has recalled 95,110 HawkOne Directional Atherectomy Systems because of the risk of the guidewire within the catheter moving downward or prolapsing during use, which may damage the tip of the catheter.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

The HawkOne Directional Atherectomy system is used during procedures intended to remove blockage from peripheral arteries and improve blood flow.

If the guideline moves downward or prolapses during use, the “catheter tip may break off or separate, and this could lead to serious adverse events, including a tear along the inside wall of an artery (arterial dissection), a rupture or breakage of an artery (arterial rupture), decrease in blood flow to a part of the body because of a blocked artery (ischemia), and/or blood vessel complications that could require surgical repair and additional procedures to capture and remove the detached and/or migrated (embolized) tip,” the FDA says in a recall notice posted today on its website.

To date, there have been 55 injuries, no deaths, and 163 complaints reported for this device.

The recalled devices were distributed in the United States between Jan. 22, 2018 and Oct. 4, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers pertaining to the devices are listed on the FDA website.

Medtronic sent an urgent field safety notice to customers Dec. 6, 2021, requesting that they alert parties of the defect, review the instructions for use before using the device, and note the warnings and precautions listed in the letter.

Customers were also asked to complete the enclosed confirmation form and email to rs.cfqfca@medtronic.com.

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

In another salvo in the heated debate over treatment for kids who believe they’re transgender, a study published in PLoS One suggests that transgender adults who received hormone therapy as teenagers are mentally healthier in a pair of ways than those who didn’t.

The study, which only looks at transgender adults, doesn’t confirm that hormone therapy in childhood is a beneficial treatment. Still, “we found that for all age groups, access to [adolescent] gender-affirming hormone initiation was associated with lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation and past-month severe psychological distress measured in adulthood,” said lead author Jack Turban, MD, chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, in an interview. “We also found better mental-health outcomes for those who started gender-affirming hormones as adolescents when compared to those who didn’t start them until they were adults.”

The use of hormone treatment and puberty blockers by transgender teens is extremely controversial. Critics say the treatments are harmful and unnecessary, and Republican politicians are trying to ban their use in some states. Last spring, Arkansas became the first state to ban the treatments. The law is on hold amid a legal challenge.

The researchers launched the study to gain more insight into the impact of hormone therapy on children. “There have been several longitudinal studies showing that mental health improves following gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, but there has been less research looking at the relationship between when these medications are started and adult mental health outcomes,” Dr. Turban said. “This is the first study to look at various ages of initiation of gender-affirming hormones and compare outcomes between those who started gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and those who did not start them until adulthood.”

For the new study, the authors analyzed the findings of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey of 27,715 adults and focused on 21,598 who said they’d wanted hormone therapy (40% aged 18-24, 83% White, 35% transgender male, 41% transgender female, with the rest using other terms such as “queer” or “nonbinary” to describe themselves).

Of these subjects, 41.0% never received hormone therapy, 0.6% underwent therapy in early adolescence, 1.7% received it in late adolescence, and 56.8% got it as adults.

The researchers made various adjustments for confounders – age, partnership status, employment status, K-12 harassment, and experience of gender identity conversion efforts. Those who received hormone therapy had lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation vs. those who didn’t: adjusted odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.6; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .0001, for therapy that occurred from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred in adulthood.

However, there was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-year suicidal ideation with a plan or past-year suicide attempt.

The study also found lower rates of past-month severe psychological distress: aOR. 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5-0.6; P < .0001) for therapy in adulthood.

There was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-month binge drinking or lifetime illicit drug use.

“The findings indicate that clinicians caring for adolescents need to be properly trained in gender-affirming medical care, including hormone therapy, in order to help promote good mental health outcomes for transgender people. Comprehensive training in gender-affirming care is currently not part of standard medical education curricula,” said study coauthor Alex Keuroghlian, MD, MPH, director of the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute and associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview.

The study has limitations. The survey population doesn’t include anyone who committed suicide, nor does it include people who had gender dysphoria as children but didn’t go on to identify as transgender as adults. It is also retrospective. “There is a general consensus that, given the data we have so far, it would be unethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial in this space,” said study lead author Dr. Turban.

Several critics of hormone therapy in teens support a psychotherapy-based approach to gender dysphoria that considers whether other factors are at play than transgender orientation. They’ve united to attack research based on the 2015 transgender survey. In a 2021 report in Archives of Sexual Behavior, they called it “a highly skewed sample” and objected to “a conflation of ethical nonaffirmative psychotherapy with conversion therapy.”

In an interview, one of the critics – developmental psychologist and retired University of Sydney professor Dianna Kenny, PhD – said the new study’s “serious problem of recall bias” about hormone therapy in the survey is “insurmountable.” The survey, she said, also fails to explore why participants who wanted hormone therapy didn’t get it.

Dr. Kenny, who believes all hormone therapy in teens with gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials is inappropriate, also pointed out that hormone therapy has many side effects. She added that young people with gender dysphoria often “realize through a process of cognitive and psychosocial maturation that they were not ‘genuinely’ trans but suffering from other conditions that needed treatment – e.g., internalized homophobia, trauma, including sexual abuse, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, etc.”

No specific funding is reported, although two of the authors report receiving various grants, fellowship and research funding. Dr. Turban discloses textbook royalties from Springer Nature and expert witness payments from the ACLU. Dr. Keuroghlian discloses textbook royalties from McGraw Hill. Dr. Kenny reports no disclosures.

In another salvo in the heated debate over treatment for kids who believe they’re transgender, a study published in PLoS One suggests that transgender adults who received hormone therapy as teenagers are mentally healthier in a pair of ways than those who didn’t.

The study, which only looks at transgender adults, doesn’t confirm that hormone therapy in childhood is a beneficial treatment. Still, “we found that for all age groups, access to [adolescent] gender-affirming hormone initiation was associated with lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation and past-month severe psychological distress measured in adulthood,” said lead author Jack Turban, MD, chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, in an interview. “We also found better mental-health outcomes for those who started gender-affirming hormones as adolescents when compared to those who didn’t start them until they were adults.”

The use of hormone treatment and puberty blockers by transgender teens is extremely controversial. Critics say the treatments are harmful and unnecessary, and Republican politicians are trying to ban their use in some states. Last spring, Arkansas became the first state to ban the treatments. The law is on hold amid a legal challenge.

The researchers launched the study to gain more insight into the impact of hormone therapy on children. “There have been several longitudinal studies showing that mental health improves following gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, but there has been less research looking at the relationship between when these medications are started and adult mental health outcomes,” Dr. Turban said. “This is the first study to look at various ages of initiation of gender-affirming hormones and compare outcomes between those who started gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and those who did not start them until adulthood.”

For the new study, the authors analyzed the findings of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey of 27,715 adults and focused on 21,598 who said they’d wanted hormone therapy (40% aged 18-24, 83% White, 35% transgender male, 41% transgender female, with the rest using other terms such as “queer” or “nonbinary” to describe themselves).

Of these subjects, 41.0% never received hormone therapy, 0.6% underwent therapy in early adolescence, 1.7% received it in late adolescence, and 56.8% got it as adults.

The researchers made various adjustments for confounders – age, partnership status, employment status, K-12 harassment, and experience of gender identity conversion efforts. Those who received hormone therapy had lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation vs. those who didn’t: adjusted odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.6; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .0001, for therapy that occurred from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred in adulthood.

However, there was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-year suicidal ideation with a plan or past-year suicide attempt.

The study also found lower rates of past-month severe psychological distress: aOR. 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5-0.6; P < .0001) for therapy in adulthood.

There was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-month binge drinking or lifetime illicit drug use.

“The findings indicate that clinicians caring for adolescents need to be properly trained in gender-affirming medical care, including hormone therapy, in order to help promote good mental health outcomes for transgender people. Comprehensive training in gender-affirming care is currently not part of standard medical education curricula,” said study coauthor Alex Keuroghlian, MD, MPH, director of the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute and associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview.

The study has limitations. The survey population doesn’t include anyone who committed suicide, nor does it include people who had gender dysphoria as children but didn’t go on to identify as transgender as adults. It is also retrospective. “There is a general consensus that, given the data we have so far, it would be unethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial in this space,” said study lead author Dr. Turban.

Several critics of hormone therapy in teens support a psychotherapy-based approach to gender dysphoria that considers whether other factors are at play than transgender orientation. They’ve united to attack research based on the 2015 transgender survey. In a 2021 report in Archives of Sexual Behavior, they called it “a highly skewed sample” and objected to “a conflation of ethical nonaffirmative psychotherapy with conversion therapy.”

In an interview, one of the critics – developmental psychologist and retired University of Sydney professor Dianna Kenny, PhD – said the new study’s “serious problem of recall bias” about hormone therapy in the survey is “insurmountable.” The survey, she said, also fails to explore why participants who wanted hormone therapy didn’t get it.

Dr. Kenny, who believes all hormone therapy in teens with gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials is inappropriate, also pointed out that hormone therapy has many side effects. She added that young people with gender dysphoria often “realize through a process of cognitive and psychosocial maturation that they were not ‘genuinely’ trans but suffering from other conditions that needed treatment – e.g., internalized homophobia, trauma, including sexual abuse, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, etc.”

No specific funding is reported, although two of the authors report receiving various grants, fellowship and research funding. Dr. Turban discloses textbook royalties from Springer Nature and expert witness payments from the ACLU. Dr. Keuroghlian discloses textbook royalties from McGraw Hill. Dr. Kenny reports no disclosures.

In another salvo in the heated debate over treatment for kids who believe they’re transgender, a study published in PLoS One suggests that transgender adults who received hormone therapy as teenagers are mentally healthier in a pair of ways than those who didn’t.

The study, which only looks at transgender adults, doesn’t confirm that hormone therapy in childhood is a beneficial treatment. Still, “we found that for all age groups, access to [adolescent] gender-affirming hormone initiation was associated with lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation and past-month severe psychological distress measured in adulthood,” said lead author Jack Turban, MD, chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University, in an interview. “We also found better mental-health outcomes for those who started gender-affirming hormones as adolescents when compared to those who didn’t start them until they were adults.”

The use of hormone treatment and puberty blockers by transgender teens is extremely controversial. Critics say the treatments are harmful and unnecessary, and Republican politicians are trying to ban their use in some states. Last spring, Arkansas became the first state to ban the treatments. The law is on hold amid a legal challenge.

The researchers launched the study to gain more insight into the impact of hormone therapy on children. “There have been several longitudinal studies showing that mental health improves following gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, but there has been less research looking at the relationship between when these medications are started and adult mental health outcomes,” Dr. Turban said. “This is the first study to look at various ages of initiation of gender-affirming hormones and compare outcomes between those who started gender-affirming hormones during adolescence and those who did not start them until adulthood.”

For the new study, the authors analyzed the findings of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey of 27,715 adults and focused on 21,598 who said they’d wanted hormone therapy (40% aged 18-24, 83% White, 35% transgender male, 41% transgender female, with the rest using other terms such as “queer” or “nonbinary” to describe themselves).

Of these subjects, 41.0% never received hormone therapy, 0.6% underwent therapy in early adolescence, 1.7% received it in late adolescence, and 56.8% got it as adults.

The researchers made various adjustments for confounders – age, partnership status, employment status, K-12 harassment, and experience of gender identity conversion efforts. Those who received hormone therapy had lower odds of past-year suicidal ideation vs. those who didn’t: adjusted odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.6; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .0001, for therapy that occurred from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8; P < .0001 for therapy that occurred in adulthood.

However, there was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-year suicidal ideation with a plan or past-year suicide attempt.

The study also found lower rates of past-month severe psychological distress: aOR. 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 14 to 15, aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.3-0.4; P < .0001 for therapy from age 16 to 17, and aOR, 0.6 (95% CI, 0.5-0.6; P < .0001) for therapy in adulthood.

There was no statistically significant link between hormone therapy and past-month binge drinking or lifetime illicit drug use.

“The findings indicate that clinicians caring for adolescents need to be properly trained in gender-affirming medical care, including hormone therapy, in order to help promote good mental health outcomes for transgender people. Comprehensive training in gender-affirming care is currently not part of standard medical education curricula,” said study coauthor Alex Keuroghlian, MD, MPH, director of the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute and associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview.

The study has limitations. The survey population doesn’t include anyone who committed suicide, nor does it include people who had gender dysphoria as children but didn’t go on to identify as transgender as adults. It is also retrospective. “There is a general consensus that, given the data we have so far, it would be unethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial in this space,” said study lead author Dr. Turban.

Several critics of hormone therapy in teens support a psychotherapy-based approach to gender dysphoria that considers whether other factors are at play than transgender orientation. They’ve united to attack research based on the 2015 transgender survey. In a 2021 report in Archives of Sexual Behavior, they called it “a highly skewed sample” and objected to “a conflation of ethical nonaffirmative psychotherapy with conversion therapy.”

In an interview, one of the critics – developmental psychologist and retired University of Sydney professor Dianna Kenny, PhD – said the new study’s “serious problem of recall bias” about hormone therapy in the survey is “insurmountable.” The survey, she said, also fails to explore why participants who wanted hormone therapy didn’t get it.

Dr. Kenny, who believes all hormone therapy in teens with gender dysphoria outside of clinical trials is inappropriate, also pointed out that hormone therapy has many side effects. She added that young people with gender dysphoria often “realize through a process of cognitive and psychosocial maturation that they were not ‘genuinely’ trans but suffering from other conditions that needed treatment – e.g., internalized homophobia, trauma, including sexual abuse, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, etc.”

No specific funding is reported, although two of the authors report receiving various grants, fellowship and research funding. Dr. Turban discloses textbook royalties from Springer Nature and expert witness payments from the ACLU. Dr. Keuroghlian discloses textbook royalties from McGraw Hill. Dr. Kenny reports no disclosures.

Patients with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy who also took a probiotics supplement had significantly fewer symptoms of chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) often referred to as “chemo brain,” compared with a control group taking placebo capsules, reports the first study of its kind.

“Our finding[s] provide a simple, inexpensive, and effective prevention strategy for chemotherapy-related side effects, including cognitive impairment,” senior author Jianbin Tong, MD, PhD, of the department of anesthesiology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China, said in an interview.

The research “is the first study showing that probiotics supplementation during chemotherapy can prevent chemotherapy-related brain impairment,” he noted.

The double-blind, randomized study was published in the European Journal of Cancer. It involved 159 patients in China with stage I-III breast cancer who required adjuvant chemotherapy between 2018 and 2019. These patients were randomized to receive a regimen of three capsules twice per day containing either probiotics (n = 80) or placebo (n = 79) during their chemotherapy.

The probiotic capsule (Bifico, Sine Pharmaceuticals) contained Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Enterococcus faecalis (210 mg of each).

The reductions in symptoms seen with the supplementation “exceed our expectations,” Dr. Tong said in an interview.

He speculated that this may have longer-term effects, with the prevention of initial cognitive impairment potentially “changing the neurodegenerative trajectory of patients after chemotherapy.”

“Patients don’t need to take probiotics continuously, but it’s better to take probiotics intermittently,” he said.

Approached for comment, Melanie Sekeres, PhD, Canada Research Chair and assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, said the improvements, such as those seen in delayed recall, are especially of interest.

“This is particularly notable because one of the brain regions that is critically involved in long-term memory processing, the hippocampus, is known to be highly sensitive to chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity,” she said in an interview.

“The finding that probiotic treatment given alongside chemotherapy is sufficient to, in part, protect against memory disturbances in these patients suggests that there may be some neuroprotection conferred by the probiotic treatment,” she said.

A key question is whether similar results would be seen with other chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Sekeres added. “To better understand the effectiveness of these probiotics in preventing CRCI, they should be tested using other classes of chemotherapies before any broad conclusions can be made.”
 

Measuring the effect on ‘chemo brain’

“Chemo brain” is commonly reported after chemotherapy, and some 35% of patients report having long-term effects. Key symptoms include deficits in memory, attention, and executive and processing speed skills.

In their study, Dr. Tong and colleagues assessed patients on their cognitive status with a number of validated neuropsychological battery tests 1 day prior to initiating chemotherapy and 21 days after the last cycle of chemotherapy. Tests included the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised for verbal memory, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised for visuospatial memory, and various others.

The team reports that, after adjustment for confounding factors, the total incidence of CRCI was significantly lower in the probiotics group versus the placebo group 21 days post chemotherapy (35% vs. 81%; relative risk, 0.43).

Rates of mild cognitive impairment were also lower in the probiotics group (29% vs 52%; RR, 0.55), as were rates of moderate cognitive impairment (6% vs. 29%; RR, 0.22).

The improvements with probiotics were observed across most other neuropsychological domains, including instantaneous verbal memory and delayed visuospatial memory (for both, P = .003) and visuospatial interference and verbal fluency (for both, P < .001).

The greater improvements in the probiotics group were seen regardless of use of other medications or the type of chemotherapy regimen received, which could have included epirubicin or docetaxel and/or cyclophosphamide.

CRCI was more common in patients who were older and had lower education or a higher body mass index; however, the improvements in the probiotics group were observed regardless of those factors, the authors commented.

In addition to the reduction in cognitive impairment that was seen, the treatment with probiotics was also associated with lower blood glucose (mean, 4.96 vs. 5.30; P = .02) and lower LDL cholesterol (2.61 vs. 2.89; P = .03) versus placebo, while there were no significant differences between the groups prior to chemotherapy.

There were no reports of severe emesis or constipation (grade 3 or higher) in either group; however, the probiotics group did have a significantly lower incidence of both, the authors note.
 

How does it work?

The potential benefits with probiotics are theorized to result from stabilizing the colonic and bacterial disruptions that are caused by chemotherapy, potentially offsetting the neuroinflammation that is linked to the cancer treatment, the authors speculated.

A subanalysis of 78 stool samples from 20 patients in the study showed no differences in alpha diversity or beta diversity before or after chemotherapy; however, there were significant reductions in the abundance of Streptococcus and Tyzzerella (P = .023 and P = .033, respectively) in the probiotics group after chemotherapy.

Further analysis showed that probiotics supplement modulated the levels of nine plasma metabolites in patients with breast cancer, with the results suggesting that metabolites (including p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol) “may be modulators in preventing CRCI by probiotics,” the authors noted.
 

Benefits reported beyond breast cancer

A subsequent trial conducted by Dr. Tong and colleagues following the CRCI study further showed similar protective benefits with probiotics in the prevention of chemotherapy-related hand-foot syndrome and oral mucositis.

And in a recent study, the research team found evidence of probiotic supplements protecting against cognitive impairment in the elderly following surgery.

The study received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Subproject of the National Key Research and Development Program Project of China, science and technology innovation platform and talent plan of Hunan province and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province.

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

Patients with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy who also took a probiotics supplement had significantly fewer symptoms of chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) often referred to as “chemo brain,” compared with a control group taking placebo capsules, reports the first study of its kind.

“Our finding[s] provide a simple, inexpensive, and effective prevention strategy for chemotherapy-related side effects, including cognitive impairment,” senior author Jianbin Tong, MD, PhD, of the department of anesthesiology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China, said in an interview.

The research “is the first study showing that probiotics supplementation during chemotherapy can prevent chemotherapy-related brain impairment,” he noted.

The double-blind, randomized study was published in the European Journal of Cancer. It involved 159 patients in China with stage I-III breast cancer who required adjuvant chemotherapy between 2018 and 2019. These patients were randomized to receive a regimen of three capsules twice per day containing either probiotics (n = 80) or placebo (n = 79) during their chemotherapy.

The probiotic capsule (Bifico, Sine Pharmaceuticals) contained Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Enterococcus faecalis (210 mg of each).

The reductions in symptoms seen with the supplementation “exceed our expectations,” Dr. Tong said in an interview.

He speculated that this may have longer-term effects, with the prevention of initial cognitive impairment potentially “changing the neurodegenerative trajectory of patients after chemotherapy.”

“Patients don’t need to take probiotics continuously, but it’s better to take probiotics intermittently,” he said.

Approached for comment, Melanie Sekeres, PhD, Canada Research Chair and assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, said the improvements, such as those seen in delayed recall, are especially of interest.

“This is particularly notable because one of the brain regions that is critically involved in long-term memory processing, the hippocampus, is known to be highly sensitive to chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity,” she said in an interview.

“The finding that probiotic treatment given alongside chemotherapy is sufficient to, in part, protect against memory disturbances in these patients suggests that there may be some neuroprotection conferred by the probiotic treatment,” she said.

A key question is whether similar results would be seen with other chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Sekeres added. “To better understand the effectiveness of these probiotics in preventing CRCI, they should be tested using other classes of chemotherapies before any broad conclusions can be made.”
 

Measuring the effect on ‘chemo brain’

“Chemo brain” is commonly reported after chemotherapy, and some 35% of patients report having long-term effects. Key symptoms include deficits in memory, attention, and executive and processing speed skills.

In their study, Dr. Tong and colleagues assessed patients on their cognitive status with a number of validated neuropsychological battery tests 1 day prior to initiating chemotherapy and 21 days after the last cycle of chemotherapy. Tests included the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised for verbal memory, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised for visuospatial memory, and various others.

The team reports that, after adjustment for confounding factors, the total incidence of CRCI was significantly lower in the probiotics group versus the placebo group 21 days post chemotherapy (35% vs. 81%; relative risk, 0.43).

Rates of mild cognitive impairment were also lower in the probiotics group (29% vs 52%; RR, 0.55), as were rates of moderate cognitive impairment (6% vs. 29%; RR, 0.22).

The improvements with probiotics were observed across most other neuropsychological domains, including instantaneous verbal memory and delayed visuospatial memory (for both, P = .003) and visuospatial interference and verbal fluency (for both, P < .001).

The greater improvements in the probiotics group were seen regardless of use of other medications or the type of chemotherapy regimen received, which could have included epirubicin or docetaxel and/or cyclophosphamide.

CRCI was more common in patients who were older and had lower education or a higher body mass index; however, the improvements in the probiotics group were observed regardless of those factors, the authors commented.

In addition to the reduction in cognitive impairment that was seen, the treatment with probiotics was also associated with lower blood glucose (mean, 4.96 vs. 5.30; P = .02) and lower LDL cholesterol (2.61 vs. 2.89; P = .03) versus placebo, while there were no significant differences between the groups prior to chemotherapy.

There were no reports of severe emesis or constipation (grade 3 or higher) in either group; however, the probiotics group did have a significantly lower incidence of both, the authors note.
 

How does it work?

The potential benefits with probiotics are theorized to result from stabilizing the colonic and bacterial disruptions that are caused by chemotherapy, potentially offsetting the neuroinflammation that is linked to the cancer treatment, the authors speculated.

A subanalysis of 78 stool samples from 20 patients in the study showed no differences in alpha diversity or beta diversity before or after chemotherapy; however, there were significant reductions in the abundance of Streptococcus and Tyzzerella (P = .023 and P = .033, respectively) in the probiotics group after chemotherapy.

Further analysis showed that probiotics supplement modulated the levels of nine plasma metabolites in patients with breast cancer, with the results suggesting that metabolites (including p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol) “may be modulators in preventing CRCI by probiotics,” the authors noted.
 

Benefits reported beyond breast cancer

A subsequent trial conducted by Dr. Tong and colleagues following the CRCI study further showed similar protective benefits with probiotics in the prevention of chemotherapy-related hand-foot syndrome and oral mucositis.

And in a recent study, the research team found evidence of probiotic supplements protecting against cognitive impairment in the elderly following surgery.

The study received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Subproject of the National Key Research and Development Program Project of China, science and technology innovation platform and talent plan of Hunan province and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province.

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

Patients with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy who also took a probiotics supplement had significantly fewer symptoms of chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) often referred to as “chemo brain,” compared with a control group taking placebo capsules, reports the first study of its kind.

“Our finding[s] provide a simple, inexpensive, and effective prevention strategy for chemotherapy-related side effects, including cognitive impairment,” senior author Jianbin Tong, MD, PhD, of the department of anesthesiology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China, said in an interview.

The research “is the first study showing that probiotics supplementation during chemotherapy can prevent chemotherapy-related brain impairment,” he noted.

The double-blind, randomized study was published in the European Journal of Cancer. It involved 159 patients in China with stage I-III breast cancer who required adjuvant chemotherapy between 2018 and 2019. These patients were randomized to receive a regimen of three capsules twice per day containing either probiotics (n = 80) or placebo (n = 79) during their chemotherapy.

The probiotic capsule (Bifico, Sine Pharmaceuticals) contained Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Enterococcus faecalis (210 mg of each).

The reductions in symptoms seen with the supplementation “exceed our expectations,” Dr. Tong said in an interview.

He speculated that this may have longer-term effects, with the prevention of initial cognitive impairment potentially “changing the neurodegenerative trajectory of patients after chemotherapy.”

“Patients don’t need to take probiotics continuously, but it’s better to take probiotics intermittently,” he said.

Approached for comment, Melanie Sekeres, PhD, Canada Research Chair and assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, said the improvements, such as those seen in delayed recall, are especially of interest.

“This is particularly notable because one of the brain regions that is critically involved in long-term memory processing, the hippocampus, is known to be highly sensitive to chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity,” she said in an interview.

“The finding that probiotic treatment given alongside chemotherapy is sufficient to, in part, protect against memory disturbances in these patients suggests that there may be some neuroprotection conferred by the probiotic treatment,” she said.

A key question is whether similar results would be seen with other chemotherapy regimens, Dr. Sekeres added. “To better understand the effectiveness of these probiotics in preventing CRCI, they should be tested using other classes of chemotherapies before any broad conclusions can be made.”
 

Measuring the effect on ‘chemo brain’

“Chemo brain” is commonly reported after chemotherapy, and some 35% of patients report having long-term effects. Key symptoms include deficits in memory, attention, and executive and processing speed skills.

In their study, Dr. Tong and colleagues assessed patients on their cognitive status with a number of validated neuropsychological battery tests 1 day prior to initiating chemotherapy and 21 days after the last cycle of chemotherapy. Tests included the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised for verbal memory, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised for visuospatial memory, and various others.

The team reports that, after adjustment for confounding factors, the total incidence of CRCI was significantly lower in the probiotics group versus the placebo group 21 days post chemotherapy (35% vs. 81%; relative risk, 0.43).

Rates of mild cognitive impairment were also lower in the probiotics group (29% vs 52%; RR, 0.55), as were rates of moderate cognitive impairment (6% vs. 29%; RR, 0.22).

The improvements with probiotics were observed across most other neuropsychological domains, including instantaneous verbal memory and delayed visuospatial memory (for both, P = .003) and visuospatial interference and verbal fluency (for both, P < .001).

The greater improvements in the probiotics group were seen regardless of use of other medications or the type of chemotherapy regimen received, which could have included epirubicin or docetaxel and/or cyclophosphamide.

CRCI was more common in patients who were older and had lower education or a higher body mass index; however, the improvements in the probiotics group were observed regardless of those factors, the authors commented.

In addition to the reduction in cognitive impairment that was seen, the treatment with probiotics was also associated with lower blood glucose (mean, 4.96 vs. 5.30; P = .02) and lower LDL cholesterol (2.61 vs. 2.89; P = .03) versus placebo, while there were no significant differences between the groups prior to chemotherapy.

There were no reports of severe emesis or constipation (grade 3 or higher) in either group; however, the probiotics group did have a significantly lower incidence of both, the authors note.
 

How does it work?

The potential benefits with probiotics are theorized to result from stabilizing the colonic and bacterial disruptions that are caused by chemotherapy, potentially offsetting the neuroinflammation that is linked to the cancer treatment, the authors speculated.

A subanalysis of 78 stool samples from 20 patients in the study showed no differences in alpha diversity or beta diversity before or after chemotherapy; however, there were significant reductions in the abundance of Streptococcus and Tyzzerella (P = .023 and P = .033, respectively) in the probiotics group after chemotherapy.

Further analysis showed that probiotics supplement modulated the levels of nine plasma metabolites in patients with breast cancer, with the results suggesting that metabolites (including p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol) “may be modulators in preventing CRCI by probiotics,” the authors noted.
 

Benefits reported beyond breast cancer

A subsequent trial conducted by Dr. Tong and colleagues following the CRCI study further showed similar protective benefits with probiotics in the prevention of chemotherapy-related hand-foot syndrome and oral mucositis.

And in a recent study, the research team found evidence of probiotic supplements protecting against cognitive impairment in the elderly following surgery.

The study received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Subproject of the National Key Research and Development Program Project of China, science and technology innovation platform and talent plan of Hunan province and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province.

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

Recalls and false-positives for breast imaging patients were significantly more likely when the results were read by less-experienced radiologists who had worked more hours that day, based on data from more than 97,000 screening mammograms.

Psychology literature has shown the impact of fatigue on performance in a range of settings, and previous studies have shown that radiologists’ performances are more accurate earlier in their shifts compared to later-shift performance, write Michael H. Bernstein, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a study published online Jan. 11 in Radiology.

The effect of time of day on performance may be greater for more detailed imaging modalities that are more “cognitively taxing,” and the effect may be greater in less-experienced radiologists, but the impact of time and experience on overall patient recall and false-positive rates has not been well-studied, the researchers said.

In the retrospective review, the researchers identified 97,671 screening mammograms read by 18 radiologists at one of 12 community sites between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2019. The researchers analyzed the results by type of image, either standard digital mammography (DM) or the more complex digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The researchers separated radiologists into two groups: those with at least 5 post-training years of experience and those with less than 5 post-training years of experience. A total of nine radiologists fell into each category.

Overall, the recall rates were significantly different and higher for DM versus DBT (10.2% vs. 9.0%; P = .006). The false-positive (FP) rate also differed significantly and was higher for DM versus DBT (9.8% vs. 8.6%; P = .004).

The odds of recall increased by 11.5% with each hour of reading time for radiologists with less than 5 post-training years of experience for both DBT (odds ratio, 1.12) and DM (OR, 1.09). For the more experienced radiologists, the odds of recall increased by 1.6% for each hour of reading time for DBT but decreased by 0.1% for DM, with no significant difference.

Similarly, the odds of an FP result increased by 12.1% for DBT and 9% for DM per hour of reading time for radiologists with less experience. For more experienced radiologists, the odds of an FP increased by 1.6% for DBT but decreased by 1.1% for DM per hour of reading time.

Cancer detection (defined as true-positive, or TP) was not higher for DM across time, the researchers note. However, “DBT achieved a higher TP rate than DM regardless of the time of day; this shows that for DBT to maintain a constant and superior TP rate relative to DM, radiologists’ FP rates had to go up as the day went on,” they write. “That is, although DBT achieves a superior TP rate, more junior radiologists appeared to compensate for their fatigue later in the day when using DBT by recalling a broader range of mammograms, more of which were FP findings.”

The researchers caution that their findings were limited by several factors, including the study’s retrospective design and the lack of randomization of the imaging technology, patients, and time of day, which prohibit conclusions regarding causality. Other limitations included the consideration of time of day without the ability to use hours since the start of a clinical shift and the use of a 5-year mark to indicate experience without accounting for work volume.

However, the stronger impact of a time-of-day effect for more junior radiologists agrees with findings from other studies, the researchers add. More empirical research is needed, and the researchers propose a longitudinal study of how time of day affects radiologists as they gain experience, as well as experimental studies to test strategies for mitigating the time-of-day effect observed in the current study.
 

Scheduled breaks may reduce impact of fatigue

“Digital breast tomosynthesis is increasingly used in clinical practice and takes significantly longer to interpret compared with digital mammography,” said corresponding author Ana P. Lourenco, MD, in an interview. “Radiologists interpret hundreds of images for each screening digital breast tomosynthesis exam, compared with four images for each screening digital mammogram exam; this may certainly contribute to radiologist fatigue.”

“I found it interesting that there was a difference based on years of experience of the radiologist, but I was not surprised that recall rate increased later in the day, as some of us had anecdotally noted this in our clinical practice,” Dr. Lourenco said. In fact, the idea to conduct the study was prompted by a conversation with her statistician colleagues “about how I subjectively felt like my own recall rate increased at the end of the day.”

Ways to counteract the impact of fatigue could include intermittent breaks to refocus attention, said Dr. Lourenco. “Potential barriers would include imaging volumes and attending to patients in the breast imaging center,” she said. “If we can show that decreasing fatigue improves mammography performance metrics, then this may encourage practices to support such interventions.”

However, “more research that includes a larger number of radiologists, wider range of imaging interpretation experience, perhaps even experimental studies comparing metrics for radiologists reading with scheduled breaks versus without such breaks would be of interest,” Dr. Lourenco said.
 

Fatigue in health care goes beyond radiology

“Due primarily to staffing shortages and increased volume and complexity of patients, burnout and fatigue of all medical personnel, not just physicians, have become hallmarks of modern health care delivery in the United States, and this has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and other societal factors,” said Jeffrey C. Weinreb, MD, professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an interview.

Previous studies have documented the fact that radiologists are among the specialists most affected by burnout and fatigue, and it has an impact on their performance, Dr. Weinreb said. The current study is important because it tries to pinpoint the key variables that are responsible for fatigue, so resources can be directed to effect change, he said.

Dr. Weinreb said he was not particularly surprised by the study findings. “Diagnostic mammography is a high-volume repetitive enterprise, so it would have been surprising if radiologist experience and time of day had no effect on performance and recall rate,” he said. “As most radiologists will attest based on personal experience, human beings get tired and lose some level of cognition over the course of a long, intense workday,” he added.

“I am a bit surprised that less experienced radiologists were more likely to recommend additional imaging at a higher rate when interpreting DBT but not for DM and only later in the day,” Dr. Weinreb noted. “The authors suggest that this could be due to the increased number of images that are viewed with DBT and the different ways experienced and less experienced radiologists process the information. However, there could be other explanations, such as differences in volumes or differences in ages.”

“Reducing the study volumes per radiologist is one obvious solution to reducing fatigue, but it will not be practical in many practices,” said Dr. Weinreb. “The important work of interpreting diagnostic mammograms needs to continue and grow. Without an increase in radiologist mammographers in the labor pool, this is not going to happen any time soon.”

Instead, “more immediate obvious solutions to radiologist fatigue in clinical practice include more frequent breaks during the workday, which would include walking around and not looking at a computer or cell phone screen, fewer images per study, report templates, streamlined workflow, more variety in daily work, and AI assistance for interpretation and reporting,” said Dr. Weinreb. Using nonradiologists when possible to relieve some of the burden could be considered, “but this is a complex and politically charged issue,” he noted.

Radiology is a well-compensated specialty, but further increasing compensation would help to mitigate burnout, said Dr. Weinreb. However, “perhaps even more important is making certain that the efforts of individual radiologists are appreciated and recognized,” he said.

As for additional research needs, “mammographers are not the only radiologists experiencing fatigue, but the most critical contributing factors for other types of imaging exams and subspecialities may not be identical,” Dr. Weinreb emphasized. “Data for other radiologists, similar to that provided by this study for diagnostic mammography, could be useful.

“An additional area of research could address the issue of individual radiologist circadian rhythms,” said Dr. Weinreb. “Perhaps we could rigorously determine whom amongst us is a ‘morning person’ versus one who performs equally well or better later in the day and use this information for radiologist scheduling,” he said. “Finally, once we know the key factors affecting performance for each type of exam and subspecialty, studies of possible incremental and combined benefits of various interventions would be needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Weinreb have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recalls and false-positives for breast imaging patients were significantly more likely when the results were read by less-experienced radiologists who had worked more hours that day, based on data from more than 97,000 screening mammograms.

Psychology literature has shown the impact of fatigue on performance in a range of settings, and previous studies have shown that radiologists’ performances are more accurate earlier in their shifts compared to later-shift performance, write Michael H. Bernstein, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a study published online Jan. 11 in Radiology.

The effect of time of day on performance may be greater for more detailed imaging modalities that are more “cognitively taxing,” and the effect may be greater in less-experienced radiologists, but the impact of time and experience on overall patient recall and false-positive rates has not been well-studied, the researchers said.

In the retrospective review, the researchers identified 97,671 screening mammograms read by 18 radiologists at one of 12 community sites between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2019. The researchers analyzed the results by type of image, either standard digital mammography (DM) or the more complex digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The researchers separated radiologists into two groups: those with at least 5 post-training years of experience and those with less than 5 post-training years of experience. A total of nine radiologists fell into each category.

Overall, the recall rates were significantly different and higher for DM versus DBT (10.2% vs. 9.0%; P = .006). The false-positive (FP) rate also differed significantly and was higher for DM versus DBT (9.8% vs. 8.6%; P = .004).

The odds of recall increased by 11.5% with each hour of reading time for radiologists with less than 5 post-training years of experience for both DBT (odds ratio, 1.12) and DM (OR, 1.09). For the more experienced radiologists, the odds of recall increased by 1.6% for each hour of reading time for DBT but decreased by 0.1% for DM, with no significant difference.

Similarly, the odds of an FP result increased by 12.1% for DBT and 9% for DM per hour of reading time for radiologists with less experience. For more experienced radiologists, the odds of an FP increased by 1.6% for DBT but decreased by 1.1% for DM per hour of reading time.

Cancer detection (defined as true-positive, or TP) was not higher for DM across time, the researchers note. However, “DBT achieved a higher TP rate than DM regardless of the time of day; this shows that for DBT to maintain a constant and superior TP rate relative to DM, radiologists’ FP rates had to go up as the day went on,” they write. “That is, although DBT achieves a superior TP rate, more junior radiologists appeared to compensate for their fatigue later in the day when using DBT by recalling a broader range of mammograms, more of which were FP findings.”

The researchers caution that their findings were limited by several factors, including the study’s retrospective design and the lack of randomization of the imaging technology, patients, and time of day, which prohibit conclusions regarding causality. Other limitations included the consideration of time of day without the ability to use hours since the start of a clinical shift and the use of a 5-year mark to indicate experience without accounting for work volume.

However, the stronger impact of a time-of-day effect for more junior radiologists agrees with findings from other studies, the researchers add. More empirical research is needed, and the researchers propose a longitudinal study of how time of day affects radiologists as they gain experience, as well as experimental studies to test strategies for mitigating the time-of-day effect observed in the current study.
 

Scheduled breaks may reduce impact of fatigue

“Digital breast tomosynthesis is increasingly used in clinical practice and takes significantly longer to interpret compared with digital mammography,” said corresponding author Ana P. Lourenco, MD, in an interview. “Radiologists interpret hundreds of images for each screening digital breast tomosynthesis exam, compared with four images for each screening digital mammogram exam; this may certainly contribute to radiologist fatigue.”

“I found it interesting that there was a difference based on years of experience of the radiologist, but I was not surprised that recall rate increased later in the day, as some of us had anecdotally noted this in our clinical practice,” Dr. Lourenco said. In fact, the idea to conduct the study was prompted by a conversation with her statistician colleagues “about how I subjectively felt like my own recall rate increased at the end of the day.”

Ways to counteract the impact of fatigue could include intermittent breaks to refocus attention, said Dr. Lourenco. “Potential barriers would include imaging volumes and attending to patients in the breast imaging center,” she said. “If we can show that decreasing fatigue improves mammography performance metrics, then this may encourage practices to support such interventions.”

However, “more research that includes a larger number of radiologists, wider range of imaging interpretation experience, perhaps even experimental studies comparing metrics for radiologists reading with scheduled breaks versus without such breaks would be of interest,” Dr. Lourenco said.
 

Fatigue in health care goes beyond radiology

“Due primarily to staffing shortages and increased volume and complexity of patients, burnout and fatigue of all medical personnel, not just physicians, have become hallmarks of modern health care delivery in the United States, and this has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and other societal factors,” said Jeffrey C. Weinreb, MD, professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an interview.

Previous studies have documented the fact that radiologists are among the specialists most affected by burnout and fatigue, and it has an impact on their performance, Dr. Weinreb said. The current study is important because it tries to pinpoint the key variables that are responsible for fatigue, so resources can be directed to effect change, he said.

Dr. Weinreb said he was not particularly surprised by the study findings. “Diagnostic mammography is a high-volume repetitive enterprise, so it would have been surprising if radiologist experience and time of day had no effect on performance and recall rate,” he said. “As most radiologists will attest based on personal experience, human beings get tired and lose some level of cognition over the course of a long, intense workday,” he added.

“I am a bit surprised that less experienced radiologists were more likely to recommend additional imaging at a higher rate when interpreting DBT but not for DM and only later in the day,” Dr. Weinreb noted. “The authors suggest that this could be due to the increased number of images that are viewed with DBT and the different ways experienced and less experienced radiologists process the information. However, there could be other explanations, such as differences in volumes or differences in ages.”

“Reducing the study volumes per radiologist is one obvious solution to reducing fatigue, but it will not be practical in many practices,” said Dr. Weinreb. “The important work of interpreting diagnostic mammograms needs to continue and grow. Without an increase in radiologist mammographers in the labor pool, this is not going to happen any time soon.”

Instead, “more immediate obvious solutions to radiologist fatigue in clinical practice include more frequent breaks during the workday, which would include walking around and not looking at a computer or cell phone screen, fewer images per study, report templates, streamlined workflow, more variety in daily work, and AI assistance for interpretation and reporting,” said Dr. Weinreb. Using nonradiologists when possible to relieve some of the burden could be considered, “but this is a complex and politically charged issue,” he noted.

Radiology is a well-compensated specialty, but further increasing compensation would help to mitigate burnout, said Dr. Weinreb. However, “perhaps even more important is making certain that the efforts of individual radiologists are appreciated and recognized,” he said.

As for additional research needs, “mammographers are not the only radiologists experiencing fatigue, but the most critical contributing factors for other types of imaging exams and subspecialities may not be identical,” Dr. Weinreb emphasized. “Data for other radiologists, similar to that provided by this study for diagnostic mammography, could be useful.

“An additional area of research could address the issue of individual radiologist circadian rhythms,” said Dr. Weinreb. “Perhaps we could rigorously determine whom amongst us is a ‘morning person’ versus one who performs equally well or better later in the day and use this information for radiologist scheduling,” he said. “Finally, once we know the key factors affecting performance for each type of exam and subspecialty, studies of possible incremental and combined benefits of various interventions would be needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Weinreb have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recalls and false-positives for breast imaging patients were significantly more likely when the results were read by less-experienced radiologists who had worked more hours that day, based on data from more than 97,000 screening mammograms.

Psychology literature has shown the impact of fatigue on performance in a range of settings, and previous studies have shown that radiologists’ performances are more accurate earlier in their shifts compared to later-shift performance, write Michael H. Bernstein, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a study published online Jan. 11 in Radiology.

The effect of time of day on performance may be greater for more detailed imaging modalities that are more “cognitively taxing,” and the effect may be greater in less-experienced radiologists, but the impact of time and experience on overall patient recall and false-positive rates has not been well-studied, the researchers said.

In the retrospective review, the researchers identified 97,671 screening mammograms read by 18 radiologists at one of 12 community sites between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2019. The researchers analyzed the results by type of image, either standard digital mammography (DM) or the more complex digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The researchers separated radiologists into two groups: those with at least 5 post-training years of experience and those with less than 5 post-training years of experience. A total of nine radiologists fell into each category.

Overall, the recall rates were significantly different and higher for DM versus DBT (10.2% vs. 9.0%; P = .006). The false-positive (FP) rate also differed significantly and was higher for DM versus DBT (9.8% vs. 8.6%; P = .004).

The odds of recall increased by 11.5% with each hour of reading time for radiologists with less than 5 post-training years of experience for both DBT (odds ratio, 1.12) and DM (OR, 1.09). For the more experienced radiologists, the odds of recall increased by 1.6% for each hour of reading time for DBT but decreased by 0.1% for DM, with no significant difference.

Similarly, the odds of an FP result increased by 12.1% for DBT and 9% for DM per hour of reading time for radiologists with less experience. For more experienced radiologists, the odds of an FP increased by 1.6% for DBT but decreased by 1.1% for DM per hour of reading time.

Cancer detection (defined as true-positive, or TP) was not higher for DM across time, the researchers note. However, “DBT achieved a higher TP rate than DM regardless of the time of day; this shows that for DBT to maintain a constant and superior TP rate relative to DM, radiologists’ FP rates had to go up as the day went on,” they write. “That is, although DBT achieves a superior TP rate, more junior radiologists appeared to compensate for their fatigue later in the day when using DBT by recalling a broader range of mammograms, more of which were FP findings.”

The researchers caution that their findings were limited by several factors, including the study’s retrospective design and the lack of randomization of the imaging technology, patients, and time of day, which prohibit conclusions regarding causality. Other limitations included the consideration of time of day without the ability to use hours since the start of a clinical shift and the use of a 5-year mark to indicate experience without accounting for work volume.

However, the stronger impact of a time-of-day effect for more junior radiologists agrees with findings from other studies, the researchers add. More empirical research is needed, and the researchers propose a longitudinal study of how time of day affects radiologists as they gain experience, as well as experimental studies to test strategies for mitigating the time-of-day effect observed in the current study.
 

Scheduled breaks may reduce impact of fatigue

“Digital breast tomosynthesis is increasingly used in clinical practice and takes significantly longer to interpret compared with digital mammography,” said corresponding author Ana P. Lourenco, MD, in an interview. “Radiologists interpret hundreds of images for each screening digital breast tomosynthesis exam, compared with four images for each screening digital mammogram exam; this may certainly contribute to radiologist fatigue.”

“I found it interesting that there was a difference based on years of experience of the radiologist, but I was not surprised that recall rate increased later in the day, as some of us had anecdotally noted this in our clinical practice,” Dr. Lourenco said. In fact, the idea to conduct the study was prompted by a conversation with her statistician colleagues “about how I subjectively felt like my own recall rate increased at the end of the day.”

Ways to counteract the impact of fatigue could include intermittent breaks to refocus attention, said Dr. Lourenco. “Potential barriers would include imaging volumes and attending to patients in the breast imaging center,” she said. “If we can show that decreasing fatigue improves mammography performance metrics, then this may encourage practices to support such interventions.”

However, “more research that includes a larger number of radiologists, wider range of imaging interpretation experience, perhaps even experimental studies comparing metrics for radiologists reading with scheduled breaks versus without such breaks would be of interest,” Dr. Lourenco said.
 

Fatigue in health care goes beyond radiology

“Due primarily to staffing shortages and increased volume and complexity of patients, burnout and fatigue of all medical personnel, not just physicians, have become hallmarks of modern health care delivery in the United States, and this has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and other societal factors,” said Jeffrey C. Weinreb, MD, professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an interview.

Previous studies have documented the fact that radiologists are among the specialists most affected by burnout and fatigue, and it has an impact on their performance, Dr. Weinreb said. The current study is important because it tries to pinpoint the key variables that are responsible for fatigue, so resources can be directed to effect change, he said.

Dr. Weinreb said he was not particularly surprised by the study findings. “Diagnostic mammography is a high-volume repetitive enterprise, so it would have been surprising if radiologist experience and time of day had no effect on performance and recall rate,” he said. “As most radiologists will attest based on personal experience, human beings get tired and lose some level of cognition over the course of a long, intense workday,” he added.

“I am a bit surprised that less experienced radiologists were more likely to recommend additional imaging at a higher rate when interpreting DBT but not for DM and only later in the day,” Dr. Weinreb noted. “The authors suggest that this could be due to the increased number of images that are viewed with DBT and the different ways experienced and less experienced radiologists process the information. However, there could be other explanations, such as differences in volumes or differences in ages.”

“Reducing the study volumes per radiologist is one obvious solution to reducing fatigue, but it will not be practical in many practices,” said Dr. Weinreb. “The important work of interpreting diagnostic mammograms needs to continue and grow. Without an increase in radiologist mammographers in the labor pool, this is not going to happen any time soon.”

Instead, “more immediate obvious solutions to radiologist fatigue in clinical practice include more frequent breaks during the workday, which would include walking around and not looking at a computer or cell phone screen, fewer images per study, report templates, streamlined workflow, more variety in daily work, and AI assistance for interpretation and reporting,” said Dr. Weinreb. Using nonradiologists when possible to relieve some of the burden could be considered, “but this is a complex and politically charged issue,” he noted.

Radiology is a well-compensated specialty, but further increasing compensation would help to mitigate burnout, said Dr. Weinreb. However, “perhaps even more important is making certain that the efforts of individual radiologists are appreciated and recognized,” he said.

As for additional research needs, “mammographers are not the only radiologists experiencing fatigue, but the most critical contributing factors for other types of imaging exams and subspecialities may not be identical,” Dr. Weinreb emphasized. “Data for other radiologists, similar to that provided by this study for diagnostic mammography, could be useful.

“An additional area of research could address the issue of individual radiologist circadian rhythms,” said Dr. Weinreb. “Perhaps we could rigorously determine whom amongst us is a ‘morning person’ versus one who performs equally well or better later in the day and use this information for radiologist scheduling,” he said. “Finally, once we know the key factors affecting performance for each type of exam and subspecialty, studies of possible incremental and combined benefits of various interventions would be needed.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Weinreb have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Increasingly popular alternative peripartum practices such as water immersion and nonseverance of the umbilical cord may increase the risk of infections in newborns, a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics found.

Another perinatal measure potentially raising infection risk was placentophagy, according to a review led by Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Awareness of emerging alternative peripartum and neonatal practices helps pediatricians provide counseling to families before birth and to appropriately evaluate and treat neonates who have been exposed to these practices,” Dr. Nolt and colleagues wrote online in Pediatrics.

Amid growing inquiries made from women seeking a positive and meaningful birth experience through alternative approaches as well as reports of possibly related illness in newborns, Dr. Nolt’s group reviewed observational studies, case series, and medical society guidance on the risks associated with seven alternative birthing practices.

Based on their summation, it was not possible to quantify the actual risk associated with any one practice. “But of the seven we reviewed, as an infectious disease pediatrician I would say the most discernible immediate risk is likely attached to nonseverance of the cord,” Dr. Nolt said in an interview. “Left attached, the tissue can potentially necrote and transfer bacteria directly to the child.”

The authors made the following recommendations:

• Water immersion for labor and delivery. While this can increase the comfort of the mother in the first stages of labor, the water can become contaminated and increase the infant’s exposure to water-borne pathogens such as Legionella and Pseudomonas. It is not recommended after the second stage of labor and if offered, requires rigorous prophylactic and infection-control measures. This practice has also been linked to aspiration, drowning, hyponatremia, cord rupture, and death.
• Vaginal seeding. The skin, noses, and mouths of infants born by cesarean section are inoculated with swabs of vaginal fluid in order to expose them to vaginal bacteria that positively influence the infant’s microbiome. Of no known benefit, this measure can expose newborns to microbes such as group B Streptococcus and herpes simplex virus. Infants born by C-section receiving vaginal seeding should be evaluated the same way as those delivered vaginally.
• Umbilical cord nonseverance. Colloquially known as lotus birth, this is another practice with no evidence of advantage but with the potential to raise the risk of neonatal sepsis owing to the presence of necrotic umbilical or placental tissue. Some parents may view the placenta as a spiritual entity and fail to recognize it may be contaminated with harmful pathogens. Any placenta and umbilical cord attached to a febrile or ill-seeming neonate should be immediately removed.
• Placentophagy. Proponents believe placental consumption has antidepressive, analgesic, galactogogic, and nutritional properties. But eating raw, cooked, or dehydrated afterbirth tissue – viewed by some as a spiritual event – can expose a neonate to flora from the mother’s genitourinary tract and other sources encountered during preparation. Placentophagy has been associated with a case of recurrent late-onset group B streptococcal sepsis in a newborn. Strict food-handling practices at the level for raw meat should be maintained.
• HBV vaccine deferral. Viewed as “a critical safety net in preventing HBV infection,” the birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should not be postponed except for medical reasons. An estimated 1,000 new perinatally acquired HBV cases occurred annually in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
• Deferral of ocular prophylaxis. While ocular prophylaxis with topical erythromycin protects against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum, particularly in infants of high-risk mothers, it is not effective against other common pathogens. Parents and health care providers have recently questioned the need for its routine application, with concerns including its limited range of effectiveness as well as antibiotic resistance and shortages. With adequate prenatal testing, the risk of this neonatal conjunctivitis is significantly reduced, and deferral of prophylaxis may be considered in low-risk situations although it may be mandated by state legislation.
• Delayed bathing. The practice of delaying the infant’s first bath until several hours after birth may have several benefits. These include the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding, decreased mother/child separation time and risk of hypothermia, and protection of the neonatal skin microbiome. It should be discouraged, however, in neonates exposed to active herpes simplex virus lesions or whose mothers have a known history of HIV infection.

When women inquire about alternative practices, physicians need to strike a diplomatic balance between respecting women’s wishes and the benefits they hope to gain and at the same time informing them of potential risks, Dr. Nolt said. “The conversation we want to have with them should show compassion and sympathy but also tell them what the medical literature shows.” Patient and doctor should engage in shared decision-making about the safety of various alternative approaches.

“Over the last decade information on a variety of birth practices have become more widely available through social media and other Internet forums, which certainly has increased the variety of questions to health professionals, Amy C. Hermesch, MD, PhD, director of obstetric services at OHSC, said in an interview.

“We counsel about rare but serious risk, as noted in Dr. Nolt’s article,” said Dr. Hermesch, who was not involved in the AAP report. Most important is a discussion about appropriate pregnancy risk stratification. “For example, persons considering water immersion birth, probably the most common one I get inquiries about, should have an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy with good mobility to get in and out of tub in the event of an emergency.”

While adverse events can happen during any birth, she sees these more often in mothers who underestimate the risk level of their situation or pregnancy when declining provider-recommended interventions. “I encourage pregnant persons to find a health care professional they trust who is knowledgeable about the benefits and the risk of all birth environments and interventions.”

Dr. Hermesch added that most alternative practices have little data to guide decisions, so she offers professional society recommendations, evidence review, and her own professional experiences. “The patient must weight the risk and benefits in the context of their value system and sometimes this means not following my advice or recommendations. My medical recommendation with the best of intentions does not remove patient autonomy.”

This report had no external funding. The authors had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Hermesch had no competing interests to declare.

Increasingly popular alternative peripartum practices such as water immersion and nonseverance of the umbilical cord may increase the risk of infections in newborns, a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics found.

Another perinatal measure potentially raising infection risk was placentophagy, according to a review led by Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Awareness of emerging alternative peripartum and neonatal practices helps pediatricians provide counseling to families before birth and to appropriately evaluate and treat neonates who have been exposed to these practices,” Dr. Nolt and colleagues wrote online in Pediatrics.

Amid growing inquiries made from women seeking a positive and meaningful birth experience through alternative approaches as well as reports of possibly related illness in newborns, Dr. Nolt’s group reviewed observational studies, case series, and medical society guidance on the risks associated with seven alternative birthing practices.

Based on their summation, it was not possible to quantify the actual risk associated with any one practice. “But of the seven we reviewed, as an infectious disease pediatrician I would say the most discernible immediate risk is likely attached to nonseverance of the cord,” Dr. Nolt said in an interview. “Left attached, the tissue can potentially necrote and transfer bacteria directly to the child.”

The authors made the following recommendations:

• Water immersion for labor and delivery. While this can increase the comfort of the mother in the first stages of labor, the water can become contaminated and increase the infant’s exposure to water-borne pathogens such as Legionella and Pseudomonas. It is not recommended after the second stage of labor and if offered, requires rigorous prophylactic and infection-control measures. This practice has also been linked to aspiration, drowning, hyponatremia, cord rupture, and death.
• Vaginal seeding. The skin, noses, and mouths of infants born by cesarean section are inoculated with swabs of vaginal fluid in order to expose them to vaginal bacteria that positively influence the infant’s microbiome. Of no known benefit, this measure can expose newborns to microbes such as group B Streptococcus and herpes simplex virus. Infants born by C-section receiving vaginal seeding should be evaluated the same way as those delivered vaginally.
• Umbilical cord nonseverance. Colloquially known as lotus birth, this is another practice with no evidence of advantage but with the potential to raise the risk of neonatal sepsis owing to the presence of necrotic umbilical or placental tissue. Some parents may view the placenta as a spiritual entity and fail to recognize it may be contaminated with harmful pathogens. Any placenta and umbilical cord attached to a febrile or ill-seeming neonate should be immediately removed.
• Placentophagy. Proponents believe placental consumption has antidepressive, analgesic, galactogogic, and nutritional properties. But eating raw, cooked, or dehydrated afterbirth tissue – viewed by some as a spiritual event – can expose a neonate to flora from the mother’s genitourinary tract and other sources encountered during preparation. Placentophagy has been associated with a case of recurrent late-onset group B streptococcal sepsis in a newborn. Strict food-handling practices at the level for raw meat should be maintained.
• HBV vaccine deferral. Viewed as “a critical safety net in preventing HBV infection,” the birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should not be postponed except for medical reasons. An estimated 1,000 new perinatally acquired HBV cases occurred annually in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
• Deferral of ocular prophylaxis. While ocular prophylaxis with topical erythromycin protects against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum, particularly in infants of high-risk mothers, it is not effective against other common pathogens. Parents and health care providers have recently questioned the need for its routine application, with concerns including its limited range of effectiveness as well as antibiotic resistance and shortages. With adequate prenatal testing, the risk of this neonatal conjunctivitis is significantly reduced, and deferral of prophylaxis may be considered in low-risk situations although it may be mandated by state legislation.
• Delayed bathing. The practice of delaying the infant’s first bath until several hours after birth may have several benefits. These include the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding, decreased mother/child separation time and risk of hypothermia, and protection of the neonatal skin microbiome. It should be discouraged, however, in neonates exposed to active herpes simplex virus lesions or whose mothers have a known history of HIV infection.

When women inquire about alternative practices, physicians need to strike a diplomatic balance between respecting women’s wishes and the benefits they hope to gain and at the same time informing them of potential risks, Dr. Nolt said. “The conversation we want to have with them should show compassion and sympathy but also tell them what the medical literature shows.” Patient and doctor should engage in shared decision-making about the safety of various alternative approaches.

“Over the last decade information on a variety of birth practices have become more widely available through social media and other Internet forums, which certainly has increased the variety of questions to health professionals, Amy C. Hermesch, MD, PhD, director of obstetric services at OHSC, said in an interview.

“We counsel about rare but serious risk, as noted in Dr. Nolt’s article,” said Dr. Hermesch, who was not involved in the AAP report. Most important is a discussion about appropriate pregnancy risk stratification. “For example, persons considering water immersion birth, probably the most common one I get inquiries about, should have an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy with good mobility to get in and out of tub in the event of an emergency.”

While adverse events can happen during any birth, she sees these more often in mothers who underestimate the risk level of their situation or pregnancy when declining provider-recommended interventions. “I encourage pregnant persons to find a health care professional they trust who is knowledgeable about the benefits and the risk of all birth environments and interventions.”

Dr. Hermesch added that most alternative practices have little data to guide decisions, so she offers professional society recommendations, evidence review, and her own professional experiences. “The patient must weight the risk and benefits in the context of their value system and sometimes this means not following my advice or recommendations. My medical recommendation with the best of intentions does not remove patient autonomy.”

This report had no external funding. The authors had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Hermesch had no competing interests to declare.

Increasingly popular alternative peripartum practices such as water immersion and nonseverance of the umbilical cord may increase the risk of infections in newborns, a new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics found.

Another perinatal measure potentially raising infection risk was placentophagy, according to a review led by Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“Awareness of emerging alternative peripartum and neonatal practices helps pediatricians provide counseling to families before birth and to appropriately evaluate and treat neonates who have been exposed to these practices,” Dr. Nolt and colleagues wrote online in Pediatrics.

Amid growing inquiries made from women seeking a positive and meaningful birth experience through alternative approaches as well as reports of possibly related illness in newborns, Dr. Nolt’s group reviewed observational studies, case series, and medical society guidance on the risks associated with seven alternative birthing practices.

Based on their summation, it was not possible to quantify the actual risk associated with any one practice. “But of the seven we reviewed, as an infectious disease pediatrician I would say the most discernible immediate risk is likely attached to nonseverance of the cord,” Dr. Nolt said in an interview. “Left attached, the tissue can potentially necrote and transfer bacteria directly to the child.”

The authors made the following recommendations:

• Water immersion for labor and delivery. While this can increase the comfort of the mother in the first stages of labor, the water can become contaminated and increase the infant’s exposure to water-borne pathogens such as Legionella and Pseudomonas. It is not recommended after the second stage of labor and if offered, requires rigorous prophylactic and infection-control measures. This practice has also been linked to aspiration, drowning, hyponatremia, cord rupture, and death.
• Vaginal seeding. The skin, noses, and mouths of infants born by cesarean section are inoculated with swabs of vaginal fluid in order to expose them to vaginal bacteria that positively influence the infant’s microbiome. Of no known benefit, this measure can expose newborns to microbes such as group B Streptococcus and herpes simplex virus. Infants born by C-section receiving vaginal seeding should be evaluated the same way as those delivered vaginally.
• Umbilical cord nonseverance. Colloquially known as lotus birth, this is another practice with no evidence of advantage but with the potential to raise the risk of neonatal sepsis owing to the presence of necrotic umbilical or placental tissue. Some parents may view the placenta as a spiritual entity and fail to recognize it may be contaminated with harmful pathogens. Any placenta and umbilical cord attached to a febrile or ill-seeming neonate should be immediately removed.
• Placentophagy. Proponents believe placental consumption has antidepressive, analgesic, galactogogic, and nutritional properties. But eating raw, cooked, or dehydrated afterbirth tissue – viewed by some as a spiritual event – can expose a neonate to flora from the mother’s genitourinary tract and other sources encountered during preparation. Placentophagy has been associated with a case of recurrent late-onset group B streptococcal sepsis in a newborn. Strict food-handling practices at the level for raw meat should be maintained.
• HBV vaccine deferral. Viewed as “a critical safety net in preventing HBV infection,” the birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should not be postponed except for medical reasons. An estimated 1,000 new perinatally acquired HBV cases occurred annually in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
• Deferral of ocular prophylaxis. While ocular prophylaxis with topical erythromycin protects against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum, particularly in infants of high-risk mothers, it is not effective against other common pathogens. Parents and health care providers have recently questioned the need for its routine application, with concerns including its limited range of effectiveness as well as antibiotic resistance and shortages. With adequate prenatal testing, the risk of this neonatal conjunctivitis is significantly reduced, and deferral of prophylaxis may be considered in low-risk situations although it may be mandated by state legislation.
• Delayed bathing. The practice of delaying the infant’s first bath until several hours after birth may have several benefits. These include the initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding, decreased mother/child separation time and risk of hypothermia, and protection of the neonatal skin microbiome. It should be discouraged, however, in neonates exposed to active herpes simplex virus lesions or whose mothers have a known history of HIV infection.

When women inquire about alternative practices, physicians need to strike a diplomatic balance between respecting women’s wishes and the benefits they hope to gain and at the same time informing them of potential risks, Dr. Nolt said. “The conversation we want to have with them should show compassion and sympathy but also tell them what the medical literature shows.” Patient and doctor should engage in shared decision-making about the safety of various alternative approaches.

“Over the last decade information on a variety of birth practices have become more widely available through social media and other Internet forums, which certainly has increased the variety of questions to health professionals, Amy C. Hermesch, MD, PhD, director of obstetric services at OHSC, said in an interview.

“We counsel about rare but serious risk, as noted in Dr. Nolt’s article,” said Dr. Hermesch, who was not involved in the AAP report. Most important is a discussion about appropriate pregnancy risk stratification. “For example, persons considering water immersion birth, probably the most common one I get inquiries about, should have an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy with good mobility to get in and out of tub in the event of an emergency.”

While adverse events can happen during any birth, she sees these more often in mothers who underestimate the risk level of their situation or pregnancy when declining provider-recommended interventions. “I encourage pregnant persons to find a health care professional they trust who is knowledgeable about the benefits and the risk of all birth environments and interventions.”

Dr. Hermesch added that most alternative practices have little data to guide decisions, so she offers professional society recommendations, evidence review, and her own professional experiences. “The patient must weight the risk and benefits in the context of their value system and sometimes this means not following my advice or recommendations. My medical recommendation with the best of intentions does not remove patient autonomy.”

This report had no external funding. The authors had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Hermesch had no competing interests to declare.

Over-the-counter cannabidiol (CBD) products appear to improve pain, sleep, and anxiety disorders, preliminary research suggests.

Interim findings from Advancing CBD Education and Science, a 100% virtual, open label, randomized, controlled trial, show study participants experienced various degrees of “clinically meaningful” improvements in sleep quality, anxiety, and pain.

“ACES is the largest clinical trial ever conducted on commercially available CBD products and provides first-of-its-kind real world evidence into what conditions users may experience benefit from CBD usage, whether these benefits are clinically meaningful, what attributes of CBD products may impact health outcomes, and what side effects may occur,” study coinvestigator Jessica Saleska, PhD, MPH, director of research at Radicle Science, the company that conducted the study, told this news organization.
 

Scant evidence

Despite the growing market size of commercially available CBD products “there is still scant data on the effectiveness of over-the-counter cannabinoid products due to the cost, speed, and scale limitations of the current approach to scientific research,” Jeff Chen, MD, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science, told this news organization.

One of the study’s goals, said Ethan Russo, MD, a neurologist, founder/CEO of CReDO Science, and scientific adviser for Radicle, is to help consumers make informed decisions before purchasing and using commercially available oral CBD products. 

Designed to eliminate all physical infrastructure, which minimizes costs and facilitates faster execution, ACES was conducted much like a phase 4 clinical trial, collating real-world data gathered over 4 weeks.

“The process that Radicle scientists [have] advanced is sort of a crowdsourcing approach to doing clinical science,” Dr. Russo said. “Hopefully, there is going to be a considerable amount of data generated that [will] affect people’s buying options.”

The study also aimed to evaluate product attributes, including composition, mode of use, dosage, dosage timing and frequency, and their correlation to degrees of outcomes.

Dr. Russo explained why product composition is an important factor, especially when dealing with CBD. “What happens with any given [CBD] preparation is going to be totally a function of other components, if any. 

“For example, there’s this mistaken notion that cannabidiol is sedating; it is not. Pure cannabidiol is stimulating in low and moderate amounts. Where the confusion has arisen is that the early chemovars containing cannabidiol were also predominant in myrcene, the sedating terpene, [thereby] creating this misimpression that it is good for sleep,” he added.

However, CBD might also affect sleep by reducing anxiety that interferes with it. “What’s clear is that cannabidiol is an antianxiety agent, if you have a sufficient dose,” Dr. Russo said.

The 4-week study included 2,704 participants aged 21 years and older, self-reporting anxiety, chronic pain, or sleep disturbances as a primary reason for taking CBD. Study participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 13 commercially available oral CBD extracts.

Participants were allocated to 1 of 14 cohorts, comprising 13 treatment groups with 208 participants each who received a single CBD product, or a wait-list control group of 296 participants who received product at the study’s end.

The primary outcome focused on “clinically meaningful” changes, which were defined as “distinct and palpable improvements in quality of life through improvements in respective health outcomes.”

Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep, anxiety, and pain based on several validated indices, including the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) Sleep Short Form; the PROMIS Anxiety Scale; the Patient Global Impression of Change; the Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scale; and the General Anxiety Disorder–7 scale.

The interim study results are promising, with participants reporting, on average, a 71% improvement in well-being. Additionally, 63% reported clinically meaningful improvements in anxiety, and 61% in sleep quality. The CBD products provided smaller benefits in pain management, with less than half (47%) experiencing meaningful improvements.

In addition to improvement in sleep, pain, and anxiety, these data highlight how rapidly benefits occurred; most were realized during the first week of the study, with up to 61% of treatment group participants reporting a therapeutic effect within 1-4 hours of taking their assigned product.
 

Overcoming the placebo effect

Commenting on the research, Justin Strickland, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the research, said without knowing a lot about the pharmacology of the products being tested, early dramatic improvements in these measures, such as sleep impairment, are common.

“There are some data to suggest that there is an expectancy effect when we talk about the therapeutic benefit of cannabinoid products, (i.e., when someone has the expectation that they are going to experience a stronger effect) but this is true of any drug in an open label trial,” Dr. Strickland added.

Dr. Russo took the point a step further. “It’s getting near impossible to look at cannabinoid compounds, even with randomized, controlled trials because of the burgeoning placebo responses. When you couple it with the fact that consumers have the mistaken notion that cannabis-based drugs are miraculous, the expectations are so high that everyone thinks that they’re on the real stuff, even if it’s a placebo group.”

Still, both Dr. Strickland and Dr. Russo highlighted the fact that ACES mirrors real-world experience, which will they hope will inform the use of CBD and CBD-based preparations moving forward. By removing certain barriers like institutional bureaucracy or federal funding restrictions inherent to more traditional randomized controlled trial design, ACES might provide data that bridge the gap between efficacy and effectiveness.

ACES was funded by Radicle Science. Dr. Chen is cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science. Dr. Russo and Dr. Strickland disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over-the-counter cannabidiol (CBD) products appear to improve pain, sleep, and anxiety disorders, preliminary research suggests.

Interim findings from Advancing CBD Education and Science, a 100% virtual, open label, randomized, controlled trial, show study participants experienced various degrees of “clinically meaningful” improvements in sleep quality, anxiety, and pain.

“ACES is the largest clinical trial ever conducted on commercially available CBD products and provides first-of-its-kind real world evidence into what conditions users may experience benefit from CBD usage, whether these benefits are clinically meaningful, what attributes of CBD products may impact health outcomes, and what side effects may occur,” study coinvestigator Jessica Saleska, PhD, MPH, director of research at Radicle Science, the company that conducted the study, told this news organization.
 

Scant evidence

Despite the growing market size of commercially available CBD products “there is still scant data on the effectiveness of over-the-counter cannabinoid products due to the cost, speed, and scale limitations of the current approach to scientific research,” Jeff Chen, MD, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science, told this news organization.

One of the study’s goals, said Ethan Russo, MD, a neurologist, founder/CEO of CReDO Science, and scientific adviser for Radicle, is to help consumers make informed decisions before purchasing and using commercially available oral CBD products. 

Designed to eliminate all physical infrastructure, which minimizes costs and facilitates faster execution, ACES was conducted much like a phase 4 clinical trial, collating real-world data gathered over 4 weeks.

“The process that Radicle scientists [have] advanced is sort of a crowdsourcing approach to doing clinical science,” Dr. Russo said. “Hopefully, there is going to be a considerable amount of data generated that [will] affect people’s buying options.”

The study also aimed to evaluate product attributes, including composition, mode of use, dosage, dosage timing and frequency, and their correlation to degrees of outcomes.

Dr. Russo explained why product composition is an important factor, especially when dealing with CBD. “What happens with any given [CBD] preparation is going to be totally a function of other components, if any. 

“For example, there’s this mistaken notion that cannabidiol is sedating; it is not. Pure cannabidiol is stimulating in low and moderate amounts. Where the confusion has arisen is that the early chemovars containing cannabidiol were also predominant in myrcene, the sedating terpene, [thereby] creating this misimpression that it is good for sleep,” he added.

However, CBD might also affect sleep by reducing anxiety that interferes with it. “What’s clear is that cannabidiol is an antianxiety agent, if you have a sufficient dose,” Dr. Russo said.

The 4-week study included 2,704 participants aged 21 years and older, self-reporting anxiety, chronic pain, or sleep disturbances as a primary reason for taking CBD. Study participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 13 commercially available oral CBD extracts.

Participants were allocated to 1 of 14 cohorts, comprising 13 treatment groups with 208 participants each who received a single CBD product, or a wait-list control group of 296 participants who received product at the study’s end.

The primary outcome focused on “clinically meaningful” changes, which were defined as “distinct and palpable improvements in quality of life through improvements in respective health outcomes.”

Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep, anxiety, and pain based on several validated indices, including the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) Sleep Short Form; the PROMIS Anxiety Scale; the Patient Global Impression of Change; the Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scale; and the General Anxiety Disorder–7 scale.

The interim study results are promising, with participants reporting, on average, a 71% improvement in well-being. Additionally, 63% reported clinically meaningful improvements in anxiety, and 61% in sleep quality. The CBD products provided smaller benefits in pain management, with less than half (47%) experiencing meaningful improvements.

In addition to improvement in sleep, pain, and anxiety, these data highlight how rapidly benefits occurred; most were realized during the first week of the study, with up to 61% of treatment group participants reporting a therapeutic effect within 1-4 hours of taking their assigned product.
 

Overcoming the placebo effect

Commenting on the research, Justin Strickland, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the research, said without knowing a lot about the pharmacology of the products being tested, early dramatic improvements in these measures, such as sleep impairment, are common.

“There are some data to suggest that there is an expectancy effect when we talk about the therapeutic benefit of cannabinoid products, (i.e., when someone has the expectation that they are going to experience a stronger effect) but this is true of any drug in an open label trial,” Dr. Strickland added.

Dr. Russo took the point a step further. “It’s getting near impossible to look at cannabinoid compounds, even with randomized, controlled trials because of the burgeoning placebo responses. When you couple it with the fact that consumers have the mistaken notion that cannabis-based drugs are miraculous, the expectations are so high that everyone thinks that they’re on the real stuff, even if it’s a placebo group.”

Still, both Dr. Strickland and Dr. Russo highlighted the fact that ACES mirrors real-world experience, which will they hope will inform the use of CBD and CBD-based preparations moving forward. By removing certain barriers like institutional bureaucracy or federal funding restrictions inherent to more traditional randomized controlled trial design, ACES might provide data that bridge the gap between efficacy and effectiveness.

ACES was funded by Radicle Science. Dr. Chen is cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science. Dr. Russo and Dr. Strickland disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over-the-counter cannabidiol (CBD) products appear to improve pain, sleep, and anxiety disorders, preliminary research suggests.

Interim findings from Advancing CBD Education and Science, a 100% virtual, open label, randomized, controlled trial, show study participants experienced various degrees of “clinically meaningful” improvements in sleep quality, anxiety, and pain.

“ACES is the largest clinical trial ever conducted on commercially available CBD products and provides first-of-its-kind real world evidence into what conditions users may experience benefit from CBD usage, whether these benefits are clinically meaningful, what attributes of CBD products may impact health outcomes, and what side effects may occur,” study coinvestigator Jessica Saleska, PhD, MPH, director of research at Radicle Science, the company that conducted the study, told this news organization.
 

Scant evidence

Despite the growing market size of commercially available CBD products “there is still scant data on the effectiveness of over-the-counter cannabinoid products due to the cost, speed, and scale limitations of the current approach to scientific research,” Jeff Chen, MD, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science, told this news organization.

One of the study’s goals, said Ethan Russo, MD, a neurologist, founder/CEO of CReDO Science, and scientific adviser for Radicle, is to help consumers make informed decisions before purchasing and using commercially available oral CBD products. 

Designed to eliminate all physical infrastructure, which minimizes costs and facilitates faster execution, ACES was conducted much like a phase 4 clinical trial, collating real-world data gathered over 4 weeks.

“The process that Radicle scientists [have] advanced is sort of a crowdsourcing approach to doing clinical science,” Dr. Russo said. “Hopefully, there is going to be a considerable amount of data generated that [will] affect people’s buying options.”

The study also aimed to evaluate product attributes, including composition, mode of use, dosage, dosage timing and frequency, and their correlation to degrees of outcomes.

Dr. Russo explained why product composition is an important factor, especially when dealing with CBD. “What happens with any given [CBD] preparation is going to be totally a function of other components, if any. 

“For example, there’s this mistaken notion that cannabidiol is sedating; it is not. Pure cannabidiol is stimulating in low and moderate amounts. Where the confusion has arisen is that the early chemovars containing cannabidiol were also predominant in myrcene, the sedating terpene, [thereby] creating this misimpression that it is good for sleep,” he added.

However, CBD might also affect sleep by reducing anxiety that interferes with it. “What’s clear is that cannabidiol is an antianxiety agent, if you have a sufficient dose,” Dr. Russo said.

The 4-week study included 2,704 participants aged 21 years and older, self-reporting anxiety, chronic pain, or sleep disturbances as a primary reason for taking CBD. Study participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 13 commercially available oral CBD extracts.

Participants were allocated to 1 of 14 cohorts, comprising 13 treatment groups with 208 participants each who received a single CBD product, or a wait-list control group of 296 participants who received product at the study’s end.

The primary outcome focused on “clinically meaningful” changes, which were defined as “distinct and palpable improvements in quality of life through improvements in respective health outcomes.”

Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep, anxiety, and pain based on several validated indices, including the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) Sleep Short Form; the PROMIS Anxiety Scale; the Patient Global Impression of Change; the Pain, Enjoyment, General Activity scale; and the General Anxiety Disorder–7 scale.

The interim study results are promising, with participants reporting, on average, a 71% improvement in well-being. Additionally, 63% reported clinically meaningful improvements in anxiety, and 61% in sleep quality. The CBD products provided smaller benefits in pain management, with less than half (47%) experiencing meaningful improvements.

In addition to improvement in sleep, pain, and anxiety, these data highlight how rapidly benefits occurred; most were realized during the first week of the study, with up to 61% of treatment group participants reporting a therapeutic effect within 1-4 hours of taking their assigned product.
 

Overcoming the placebo effect

Commenting on the research, Justin Strickland, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the research, said without knowing a lot about the pharmacology of the products being tested, early dramatic improvements in these measures, such as sleep impairment, are common.

“There are some data to suggest that there is an expectancy effect when we talk about the therapeutic benefit of cannabinoid products, (i.e., when someone has the expectation that they are going to experience a stronger effect) but this is true of any drug in an open label trial,” Dr. Strickland added.

Dr. Russo took the point a step further. “It’s getting near impossible to look at cannabinoid compounds, even with randomized, controlled trials because of the burgeoning placebo responses. When you couple it with the fact that consumers have the mistaken notion that cannabis-based drugs are miraculous, the expectations are so high that everyone thinks that they’re on the real stuff, even if it’s a placebo group.”

Still, both Dr. Strickland and Dr. Russo highlighted the fact that ACES mirrors real-world experience, which will they hope will inform the use of CBD and CBD-based preparations moving forward. By removing certain barriers like institutional bureaucracy or federal funding restrictions inherent to more traditional randomized controlled trial design, ACES might provide data that bridge the gap between efficacy and effectiveness.

ACES was funded by Radicle Science. Dr. Chen is cofounder and CEO of Radicle Science. Dr. Russo and Dr. Strickland disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Some patients with rheumatic heart disease who are thought to have an allergic response to injectable penicillin may actually be experiencing a cardiac reaction to the injection, new information suggests.

This has resulted in new advice from the American Heart Association suggesting that oral penicillin may be a safer option for people with rheumatic heart disease who are at high risk of a cardiac reaction.

Those at high risk of a cardiac reaction include those with rheumatic heart disease and severe valvular heart disease with or without reduced ventricular function, those with aortic insufficiency or decreased left ventricular systolic function, and those who have active symptoms of rheumatic heart disease.

This new guidance is the subject of an AHA “presidential advisory” published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association on Jan. 20, 2022.

The advisory notes that more than 39 million people worldwide have rheumatic heart disease, a condition in which the heart’s valves are permanently damaged by rheumatic fever, which can occur if a strep throat infection or scarlet fever is untreated or inadequately treated.

Most cases of rheumatic heart disease occur in people living in low- and middle-income countries, where the condition is often diagnosed after severe valvular heart disease or other cardiovascular complications have already developed, leading to higher rates of death and lower life expectancy.

The recommended treatment for rheumatic heart disease is an intramuscular injection of benzathine penicillin G (BPG) given every 3-4 weeks for many years or even lifelong. Treatment with BPG for rheumatic heart disease has been limited in part because of patients’ and clinicians’ fears of anaphylaxis.

However, a growing number of reports of BPG-related deaths have not shown the features of classic anaphylaxis and instead point to a cardiovascular reaction, specifically, a vasovagal episode, the advisory states.

Signs of a vasovagal episode often occur immediately after administration of BPG, sometimes even during injection, and include low blood pressure, which can improve if patients are put into a supine position, slow heart rate, and fainting, all of which may lead to low blood flow to the heart, irregular heart rhythm, and sudden cardiac death.

On the other hand, signs of anaphylaxis after BPG injection are usually slightly delayed after the injection, even up to an hour later, and include coughing, respiratory distress, rapid heart rate, low blood pressure that doesn’t respond to position change, fainting, itching and redness at the injection site, the document notes.

The risks of a cardiovascular reaction to BPG are highest among individuals with severe mitral stenosis, aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency or decreased left ventricular systolic function (ejection fraction <50%), and those who have active symptoms of rheumatic heart disease. For these patients, treatment with oral penicillin should be strongly considered.

People with rheumatic heart disease who are at low risk of this cardiovascular reaction and who do not have a history of being allergic to penicillin or anaphylaxis can still be prescribed BPG for treatment and prevention of rheumatic heart disease, which has been proven to be the best treatment for prevention of recurrent rheumatic fever.

The advisory recommended the following standard practices for all patients receiving BPG for rheumatic heart disease:

• Reducing injection pain and patient anxiety, both of which are known risk factors for injection-related fainting. Methods for pain reduction include applying firm pressure to the site for 10 seconds or application of an ice pack or the use of analgesics (such as acetaminophen, ibuprofen, or other NSAIDs).
• Patients should be well hydrated prior to injection and should drink at least 500 mL of water before injection to prevent reflexive fainting.
• Eating a small amount of solid food within the hour before injection.
• Receiving the injection while lying down, which may reduce the risk of blood pooling in the extremities.
• Providers who administer BPG should be taught how to recognize and quickly treat symptoms such as low blood pressure, low heart rate, or fainting.

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

Some patients with rheumatic heart disease who are thought to have an allergic response to injectable penicillin may actually be experiencing a cardiac reaction to the injection, new information suggests.

This has resulted in new advice from the American Heart Association suggesting that oral penicillin may be a safer option for people with rheumatic heart disease who are at high risk of a cardiac reaction.

Those at high risk of a cardiac reaction include those with rheumatic heart disease and severe valvular heart disease with or without reduced ventricular function, those with aortic insufficiency or decreased left ventricular systolic function, and those who have active symptoms of rheumatic heart disease.

This new guidance is the subject of an AHA “presidential advisory” published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association on Jan. 20, 2022.

The advisory notes that more than 39 million people worldwide have rheumatic heart disease, a condition in which the heart’s valves are permanently damaged by rheumatic fever, which can occur if a strep throat infection or scarlet fever is untreated or inadequately treated.

Most cases of rheumatic heart disease occur in people living in low- and middle-income countries, where the condition is often diagnosed after severe valvular heart disease or other cardiovascular complications have already developed, leading to higher rates of death and lower life expectancy.

The recommended treatment for rheumatic heart disease is an intramuscular injection of benzathine penicillin G (BPG) given every 3-4 weeks for many years or even lifelong. Treatment with BPG for rheumatic heart disease has been limited in part because of patients’ and clinicians’ fears of anaphylaxis.

However, a growing number of reports of BPG-related deaths have not shown the features of classic anaphylaxis and instead point to a cardiovascular reaction, specifically, a vasovagal episode, the advisory states.

Signs of a vasovagal episode often occur immediately after administration of BPG, sometimes even during injection, and include low blood pressure, which can improve if patients are put into a supine position, slow heart rate, and fainting, all of which may lead to low blood flow to the heart, irregular heart rhythm, and sudden cardiac death.

On the other hand, signs of anaphylaxis after BPG injection are usually slightly delayed after the injection, even up to an hour later, and include coughing, respiratory distress, rapid heart rate, low blood pressure that doesn’t respond to position change, fainting, itching and redness at the injection site, the document notes.

The risks of a cardiovascular reaction to BPG are highest among individuals with severe mitral stenosis, aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency or decreased left ventricular systolic function (ejection fraction <50%), and those who have active symptoms of rheumatic heart disease. For these patients, treatment with oral penicillin should be strongly considered.

People with rheumatic heart disease who are at low risk of this cardiovascular reaction and who do not have a history of being allergic to penicillin or anaphylaxis can still be prescribed BPG for treatment and prevention of rheumatic heart disease, which has been proven to be the best treatment for prevention of recurrent rheumatic fever.

The advisory recommended the following standard practices for all patients receiving BPG for rheumatic heart disease:

• Reducing injection pain and patient anxiety, both of which are known risk factors for injection-related fainting. Methods for pain reduction include applying firm pressure to the site for 10 seconds or application of an ice pack or the use of analgesics (such as acetaminophen, ibuprofen, or other NSAIDs).
• Patients should be well hydrated prior to injection and should drink at least 500 mL of water before injection to prevent reflexive fainting.
• Eating a small amount of solid food within the hour before injection.
• Receiving the injection while lying down, which may reduce the risk of blood pooling in the extremities.
• Providers who administer BPG should be taught how to recognize and quickly treat symptoms such as low blood pressure, low heart rate, or fainting.

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

Some patients with rheumatic heart disease who are thought to have an allergic response to injectable penicillin may actually be experiencing a cardiac reaction to the injection, new information suggests.

This has resulted in new advice from the American Heart Association suggesting that oral penicillin may be a safer option for people with rheumatic heart disease who are at high risk of a cardiac reaction.

Those at high risk of a cardiac reaction include those with rheumatic heart disease and severe valvular heart disease with or without reduced ventricular function, those with aortic insufficiency or decreased left ventricular systolic function, and those who have active symptoms of rheumatic heart disease.

This new guidance is the subject of an AHA “presidential advisory” published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association on Jan. 20, 2022.

The advisory notes that more than 39 million people worldwide have rheumatic heart disease, a condition in which the heart’s valves are permanently damaged by rheumatic fever, which can occur if a strep throat infection or scarlet fever is untreated or inadequately treated.

Most cases of rheumatic heart disease occur in people living in low- and middle-income countries, where the condition is often diagnosed after severe valvular heart disease or other cardiovascular complications have already developed, leading to higher rates of death and lower life expectancy.

The recommended treatment for rheumatic heart disease is an intramuscular injection of benzathine penicillin G (BPG) given every 3-4 weeks for many years or even lifelong. Treatment with BPG for rheumatic heart disease has been limited in part because of patients’ and clinicians’ fears of anaphylaxis.

However, a growing number of reports of BPG-related deaths have not shown the features of classic anaphylaxis and instead point to a cardiovascular reaction, specifically, a vasovagal episode, the advisory states.

Signs of a vasovagal episode often occur immediately after administration of BPG, sometimes even during injection, and include low blood pressure, which can improve if patients are put into a supine position, slow heart rate, and fainting, all of which may lead to low blood flow to the heart, irregular heart rhythm, and sudden cardiac death.

On the other hand, signs of anaphylaxis after BPG injection are usually slightly delayed after the injection, even up to an hour later, and include coughing, respiratory distress, rapid heart rate, low blood pressure that doesn’t respond to position change, fainting, itching and redness at the injection site, the document notes.

The risks of a cardiovascular reaction to BPG are highest among individuals with severe mitral stenosis, aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency or decreased left ventricular systolic function (ejection fraction <50%), and those who have active symptoms of rheumatic heart disease. For these patients, treatment with oral penicillin should be strongly considered.

People with rheumatic heart disease who are at low risk of this cardiovascular reaction and who do not have a history of being allergic to penicillin or anaphylaxis can still be prescribed BPG for treatment and prevention of rheumatic heart disease, which has been proven to be the best treatment for prevention of recurrent rheumatic fever.

The advisory recommended the following standard practices for all patients receiving BPG for rheumatic heart disease:

• Reducing injection pain and patient anxiety, both of which are known risk factors for injection-related fainting. Methods for pain reduction include applying firm pressure to the site for 10 seconds or application of an ice pack or the use of analgesics (such as acetaminophen, ibuprofen, or other NSAIDs).
• Patients should be well hydrated prior to injection and should drink at least 500 mL of water before injection to prevent reflexive fainting.
• Eating a small amount of solid food within the hour before injection.
• Receiving the injection while lying down, which may reduce the risk of blood pooling in the extremities.
• Providers who administer BPG should be taught how to recognize and quickly treat symptoms such as low blood pressure, low heart rate, or fainting.

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

Patients who do not receive care for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 24 hours have a substantially increased risk of mortality 3 years later when compared with those receiving earlier intervention, according to a population-based study evaluating more than 6,000 patients.

The characteristics of patients receiving NSTEMI care more than 24 hours after symptom onset were different from those treated earlier, but understanding these differences might provide clues for improved pathways to care, according to the investigators of this study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In a study of 6,544 NSTEMI patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 1,827 (27%) were evaluated and treated 24 hours or more after symptom onset. When compared with the group with a shorter symptom-to-door time, outcomes at a median follow-up of 1,098 days were substantially worse.

Most importantly, this included a more than 50% absolute unadjusted increase in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 10.5%). On a 3-year adjusted multivariate hazard ratio, the increase was 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.56; P < .001)

The absolute relative increase in cardiac death was similar in the delayed treatment group (10.8% vs. 6.4%) with a 37% increase in the 3-year multivariate adjustment (HR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.65; P < .001).
 

Delay raises composite adverse outcome >50%

On a composite of events that included mortality, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for heart failure, the rates climbed from 15.7% in the group treated within 24 hours to 23.3% (P < .001) when treatment was delayed. Heart failure, which was not significantly increased when evaluated separately, was not a major contributor to adverse outcomes, but those with delayed treatment did have more recurrent MIs (5.3% vs. 3.7%; P = .02).

Among a long list of differences between groups, those with delayed care had higher rates of atypical chest pain (25.1% vs. 14.8%; P < .001) and dyspnea (32.6% vs. 23.4%; P < .001). Expressed in odds ratios, they were also significantly more likely to be female (OR, 1.23), be aged 75 years or older (OR, 1.44), have diabetes (OR, 1.31), and to arrive at the hospital without aid from emergency medical services (OR, 3.44).

NSTEMI patients with delayed symptom-to-door time were also less likely to have hypertension (54.8% vs. 59.1%; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (20.8% vs. 25.5%), or a family history of cardiovascular disease (4.7% vs. 7.4%; P < .001). They were more likely to have left main and multivessel disease (57.1% vs. 50.5%; P < .001).

The value of early treatment has already been demonstrated for STEMI, which is reflected in guidelines, most of which now emphasize minimizing the door-to-balloon angioplasty time in order to more rapidly restore perfusion, thereby preserving more functional cardiac tissue. This study suggests that benefit from early intervention is also true of NSTEMI.

Reducing prehospital delay in care “should be emphasized as a crucial factor that increases the risk of all-cause mortality in NSTEMI patients,” reported the authors, led by Jung-Joon Cha, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.
 

Public health campaigns needed

When asked about the take-home message, Dr. Cha, along with the senior author, Tae Hoon Ahn, MD, PhD, contend that delays can be addressed by educating both the public and clinicians.

“We would like to emphasize the need for public health campaigns to make patients more aware of atypical symptoms,” Dr. Cha said in an interview.

Dr. Ahn also believes that there is not enough current emphasis within medical systems to recognize and urgently treat NSTEMI patients with a nontraditional profile.

“Atypical symptoms in NSTEMI patients may lead physicians to underestimate the disease severity,” according to Dr. Ahn, who participated in an interview on the significance of these results. He said that atypical symptoms should induce clinicians to exercise “more caution rather than to neglect them.”

For understanding the value of prompt care in NSTEMI patients, this is important information. However, the importance of the 24-hour threshold as a discriminator of long-term risk was questioned by José A. Barrabés, MD, PhD, head of the acute cardiac care unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona.

The cutoff in this study was 24 hours, but Dr. Barrabés in an accompanying editorial pointed out that the median delay in those with a symptom-to-door time of at least 24 hours was in fact 72.0 hours.
 

Intermediate delay effect unknown

“This time lag is unusual and reduces the generalizability of the results,” according to Dr. Barrabés. He suggested that the exceptional delay increases the likelihood that the characteristics of the patients, such as more comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status, might have played a role in the differences in outcomes.

Asked to elaborate, Dr. Barrabés explained that delays in treatment, such as antithrombotic therapy, are plausible explanations for the worse outcomes at 3 years, but it is unclear from this data whether the risk starts at a delay of 24 hours.

“It is certainly plausible that intermediate delays are also associated with a worse prognosis,” Dr. Barrabés said in an interview, but “the risk associated with an intermediate delay in symptom-to-door time cannot be quantified with the data collected in this study.”

Dr. Cha and coinvestigators reported no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Barrabés has financial relationship with AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Rovi.

Patients who do not receive care for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 24 hours have a substantially increased risk of mortality 3 years later when compared with those receiving earlier intervention, according to a population-based study evaluating more than 6,000 patients.

The characteristics of patients receiving NSTEMI care more than 24 hours after symptom onset were different from those treated earlier, but understanding these differences might provide clues for improved pathways to care, according to the investigators of this study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In a study of 6,544 NSTEMI patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 1,827 (27%) were evaluated and treated 24 hours or more after symptom onset. When compared with the group with a shorter symptom-to-door time, outcomes at a median follow-up of 1,098 days were substantially worse.

Most importantly, this included a more than 50% absolute unadjusted increase in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 10.5%). On a 3-year adjusted multivariate hazard ratio, the increase was 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.56; P < .001)

The absolute relative increase in cardiac death was similar in the delayed treatment group (10.8% vs. 6.4%) with a 37% increase in the 3-year multivariate adjustment (HR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.65; P < .001).
 

Delay raises composite adverse outcome >50%

On a composite of events that included mortality, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for heart failure, the rates climbed from 15.7% in the group treated within 24 hours to 23.3% (P < .001) when treatment was delayed. Heart failure, which was not significantly increased when evaluated separately, was not a major contributor to adverse outcomes, but those with delayed treatment did have more recurrent MIs (5.3% vs. 3.7%; P = .02).

Among a long list of differences between groups, those with delayed care had higher rates of atypical chest pain (25.1% vs. 14.8%; P < .001) and dyspnea (32.6% vs. 23.4%; P < .001). Expressed in odds ratios, they were also significantly more likely to be female (OR, 1.23), be aged 75 years or older (OR, 1.44), have diabetes (OR, 1.31), and to arrive at the hospital without aid from emergency medical services (OR, 3.44).

NSTEMI patients with delayed symptom-to-door time were also less likely to have hypertension (54.8% vs. 59.1%; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (20.8% vs. 25.5%), or a family history of cardiovascular disease (4.7% vs. 7.4%; P < .001). They were more likely to have left main and multivessel disease (57.1% vs. 50.5%; P < .001).

The value of early treatment has already been demonstrated for STEMI, which is reflected in guidelines, most of which now emphasize minimizing the door-to-balloon angioplasty time in order to more rapidly restore perfusion, thereby preserving more functional cardiac tissue. This study suggests that benefit from early intervention is also true of NSTEMI.

Reducing prehospital delay in care “should be emphasized as a crucial factor that increases the risk of all-cause mortality in NSTEMI patients,” reported the authors, led by Jung-Joon Cha, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.
 

Public health campaigns needed

When asked about the take-home message, Dr. Cha, along with the senior author, Tae Hoon Ahn, MD, PhD, contend that delays can be addressed by educating both the public and clinicians.

“We would like to emphasize the need for public health campaigns to make patients more aware of atypical symptoms,” Dr. Cha said in an interview.

Dr. Ahn also believes that there is not enough current emphasis within medical systems to recognize and urgently treat NSTEMI patients with a nontraditional profile.

“Atypical symptoms in NSTEMI patients may lead physicians to underestimate the disease severity,” according to Dr. Ahn, who participated in an interview on the significance of these results. He said that atypical symptoms should induce clinicians to exercise “more caution rather than to neglect them.”

For understanding the value of prompt care in NSTEMI patients, this is important information. However, the importance of the 24-hour threshold as a discriminator of long-term risk was questioned by José A. Barrabés, MD, PhD, head of the acute cardiac care unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona.

The cutoff in this study was 24 hours, but Dr. Barrabés in an accompanying editorial pointed out that the median delay in those with a symptom-to-door time of at least 24 hours was in fact 72.0 hours.
 

Intermediate delay effect unknown

“This time lag is unusual and reduces the generalizability of the results,” according to Dr. Barrabés. He suggested that the exceptional delay increases the likelihood that the characteristics of the patients, such as more comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status, might have played a role in the differences in outcomes.

Asked to elaborate, Dr. Barrabés explained that delays in treatment, such as antithrombotic therapy, are plausible explanations for the worse outcomes at 3 years, but it is unclear from this data whether the risk starts at a delay of 24 hours.

“It is certainly plausible that intermediate delays are also associated with a worse prognosis,” Dr. Barrabés said in an interview, but “the risk associated with an intermediate delay in symptom-to-door time cannot be quantified with the data collected in this study.”

Dr. Cha and coinvestigators reported no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Barrabés has financial relationship with AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Rovi.

Patients who do not receive care for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 24 hours have a substantially increased risk of mortality 3 years later when compared with those receiving earlier intervention, according to a population-based study evaluating more than 6,000 patients.

The characteristics of patients receiving NSTEMI care more than 24 hours after symptom onset were different from those treated earlier, but understanding these differences might provide clues for improved pathways to care, according to the investigators of this study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In a study of 6,544 NSTEMI patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 1,827 (27%) were evaluated and treated 24 hours or more after symptom onset. When compared with the group with a shorter symptom-to-door time, outcomes at a median follow-up of 1,098 days were substantially worse.

Most importantly, this included a more than 50% absolute unadjusted increase in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 10.5%). On a 3-year adjusted multivariate hazard ratio, the increase was 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.56; P < .001)

The absolute relative increase in cardiac death was similar in the delayed treatment group (10.8% vs. 6.4%) with a 37% increase in the 3-year multivariate adjustment (HR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.65; P < .001).
 

Delay raises composite adverse outcome >50%

On a composite of events that included mortality, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for heart failure, the rates climbed from 15.7% in the group treated within 24 hours to 23.3% (P < .001) when treatment was delayed. Heart failure, which was not significantly increased when evaluated separately, was not a major contributor to adverse outcomes, but those with delayed treatment did have more recurrent MIs (5.3% vs. 3.7%; P = .02).

Among a long list of differences between groups, those with delayed care had higher rates of atypical chest pain (25.1% vs. 14.8%; P < .001) and dyspnea (32.6% vs. 23.4%; P < .001). Expressed in odds ratios, they were also significantly more likely to be female (OR, 1.23), be aged 75 years or older (OR, 1.44), have diabetes (OR, 1.31), and to arrive at the hospital without aid from emergency medical services (OR, 3.44).

NSTEMI patients with delayed symptom-to-door time were also less likely to have hypertension (54.8% vs. 59.1%; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (20.8% vs. 25.5%), or a family history of cardiovascular disease (4.7% vs. 7.4%; P < .001). They were more likely to have left main and multivessel disease (57.1% vs. 50.5%; P < .001).

The value of early treatment has already been demonstrated for STEMI, which is reflected in guidelines, most of which now emphasize minimizing the door-to-balloon angioplasty time in order to more rapidly restore perfusion, thereby preserving more functional cardiac tissue. This study suggests that benefit from early intervention is also true of NSTEMI.

Reducing prehospital delay in care “should be emphasized as a crucial factor that increases the risk of all-cause mortality in NSTEMI patients,” reported the authors, led by Jung-Joon Cha, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.
 

Public health campaigns needed

When asked about the take-home message, Dr. Cha, along with the senior author, Tae Hoon Ahn, MD, PhD, contend that delays can be addressed by educating both the public and clinicians.

“We would like to emphasize the need for public health campaigns to make patients more aware of atypical symptoms,” Dr. Cha said in an interview.

Dr. Ahn also believes that there is not enough current emphasis within medical systems to recognize and urgently treat NSTEMI patients with a nontraditional profile.

“Atypical symptoms in NSTEMI patients may lead physicians to underestimate the disease severity,” according to Dr. Ahn, who participated in an interview on the significance of these results. He said that atypical symptoms should induce clinicians to exercise “more caution rather than to neglect them.”

For understanding the value of prompt care in NSTEMI patients, this is important information. However, the importance of the 24-hour threshold as a discriminator of long-term risk was questioned by José A. Barrabés, MD, PhD, head of the acute cardiac care unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona.

The cutoff in this study was 24 hours, but Dr. Barrabés in an accompanying editorial pointed out that the median delay in those with a symptom-to-door time of at least 24 hours was in fact 72.0 hours.
 

Intermediate delay effect unknown

“This time lag is unusual and reduces the generalizability of the results,” according to Dr. Barrabés. He suggested that the exceptional delay increases the likelihood that the characteristics of the patients, such as more comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status, might have played a role in the differences in outcomes.

Asked to elaborate, Dr. Barrabés explained that delays in treatment, such as antithrombotic therapy, are plausible explanations for the worse outcomes at 3 years, but it is unclear from this data whether the risk starts at a delay of 24 hours.

“It is certainly plausible that intermediate delays are also associated with a worse prognosis,” Dr. Barrabés said in an interview, but “the risk associated with an intermediate delay in symptom-to-door time cannot be quantified with the data collected in this study.”

Dr. Cha and coinvestigators reported no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Barrabés has financial relationship with AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Rovi.

Prenatal ultrasound detects structural fetal abnormalities in about 3% of pregnancies. When structural fetal abnormalities are found on prenatal ultrasound, diagnostic genetic testing with either CVS or amniocentesis are recommended. Classically, this has meant fetal karyotype and chromosomal microarray testing (CMA). Recently, a new type of genetic testing has become available on fetal samples, whole-exome sequencing (WES). Smogavec et al. assesses this new technology and its ability to detect fetal genetic abnormalities. They retrospectively studied 90 fetuses with abnormalities detected on prenatal ultrasound that had normal CMA results and negative fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis testing for aneuploidy. They found WES testing added a 34.4% increased rate of detection of fetal genetic abnormalities. WES is a powerful tool for genetic diagnosis in fetuses with structural anomalies and should be considered anytime a karyotype or CMA is normal in a fetus with structural anomalies.

Lastly, prenatal genetic diagnosis at an early gestational age is critical for medical management of fetuses with anomalies. In a cohort study, Chen et al. assess the simultaneous combined use of CNV-seq and WES on testing turnaround time. They found by running the testing simultaneously, rather than sequentially, this would decrease testing time from over a month to less than 2 weeks. This strategy of testing could potentially decrease the time from detection of a fetal anomaly on ultrasound to a genetic diagnosis allowing for earlier counseling and medical guidance.

Prenatal ultrasound detects structural fetal abnormalities in about 3% of pregnancies. When structural fetal abnormalities are found on prenatal ultrasound, diagnostic genetic testing with either CVS or amniocentesis are recommended. Classically, this has meant fetal karyotype and chromosomal microarray testing (CMA). Recently, a new type of genetic testing has become available on fetal samples, whole-exome sequencing (WES). Smogavec et al. assesses this new technology and its ability to detect fetal genetic abnormalities. They retrospectively studied 90 fetuses with abnormalities detected on prenatal ultrasound that had normal CMA results and negative fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis testing for aneuploidy. They found WES testing added a 34.4% increased rate of detection of fetal genetic abnormalities. WES is a powerful tool for genetic diagnosis in fetuses with structural anomalies and should be considered anytime a karyotype or CMA is normal in a fetus with structural anomalies.

Lastly, prenatal genetic diagnosis at an early gestational age is critical for medical management of fetuses with anomalies. In a cohort study, Chen et al. assess the simultaneous combined use of CNV-seq and WES on testing turnaround time. They found by running the testing simultaneously, rather than sequentially, this would decrease testing time from over a month to less than 2 weeks. This strategy of testing could potentially decrease the time from detection of a fetal anomaly on ultrasound to a genetic diagnosis allowing for earlier counseling and medical guidance.

Prenatal ultrasound detects structural fetal abnormalities in about 3% of pregnancies. When structural fetal abnormalities are found on prenatal ultrasound, diagnostic genetic testing with either CVS or amniocentesis are recommended. Classically, this has meant fetal karyotype and chromosomal microarray testing (CMA). Recently, a new type of genetic testing has become available on fetal samples, whole-exome sequencing (WES). Smogavec et al. assesses this new technology and its ability to detect fetal genetic abnormalities. They retrospectively studied 90 fetuses with abnormalities detected on prenatal ultrasound that had normal CMA results and negative fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis testing for aneuploidy. They found WES testing added a 34.4% increased rate of detection of fetal genetic abnormalities. WES is a powerful tool for genetic diagnosis in fetuses with structural anomalies and should be considered anytime a karyotype or CMA is normal in a fetus with structural anomalies.

Lastly, prenatal genetic diagnosis at an early gestational age is critical for medical management of fetuses with anomalies. In a cohort study, Chen et al. assess the simultaneous combined use of CNV-seq and WES on testing turnaround time. They found by running the testing simultaneously, rather than sequentially, this would decrease testing time from over a month to less than 2 weeks. This strategy of testing could potentially decrease the time from detection of a fetal anomaly on ultrasound to a genetic diagnosis allowing for earlier counseling and medical guidance.