Ob.Gyn. News

A woman’s quest to become pregnant resulted in lead poisoning from an Ayurvedic treatment. The case triggered the seizure of pills from an Ontario natural-products clinic and the issuance of government warnings about the risks of products from this business, according to a new report.

The case highlights the need for collaboration between clinicians and public health authorities to address the potential health risks of supplements, including the presence of lead and other metals in Ayurvedic products, according to the report.

“When consumer products may be contaminated with lead, or when lead exposure is linked to sources in the community, involving public health can facilitate broader actions to reduce and prevent exposures to other people at risk,” wrote report author Julian Gitelman, MD, MPH, a resident physician at the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, and colleagues.

Their case study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The researchers detailed what happened after a 39-year-old woman sought medical care for abdominal pain, constipation, nausea, and vomiting. The woman underwent a series of tests, including colonoscopy, laparoscopy, and biopsies of bone marrow and ovarian cysts.

Only later did clinicians home in on the cause of her ailments: the Ayurvedic medications that the patient had been taking daily for more than a year for infertility. Her daily regimen had varied, ranging from a few pills to a dozen pills.

Heavy metals are sometimes intentionally added to Ayurvedic supplements for perceived healing properties, wrote the authors. They cited a previous study of a sample of Ayurvedic pills bought on the Internet from manufacturers based in the United States and India that showed that 21% contained lead, mercury, or arsenic.

A case report published last year in German Medical Weekly raised the same issue.
 

Melatonin gummies

Regulators in many countries struggle to help consumers understand the risks of natural health supplements, and the challenge extends well beyond Ayurvedic products.

There has been a “huge and very troubling increase” in U.S. poison control calls associated with gummy-bear products containing melatonin, said Canadian Senator Stan Kutcher, MD, at a May 11 meeting of Canada’s Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology.

In April, JAMA published a U.S. analysis of melatonin gummy products, Dr. Kutcher noted. In this research letter, investigators reported that one product did not contain detectable levels of melatonin but did contain 31.3 mg of cannabidiol.

In other products, the quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity. A previous Canadian study of 16 melatonin brands found that the actual dose of melatonin ranged from 17% to 478% of the declared quantity, the letter noted.

The May 11 Senate meeting provided a forum for many of the recurring debates about supplements, which also are known as natural health products.

Barry Power, PharmD, editor in chief for the Canadian Pharmacists Association, said that his group was disappointed when Canada excluded natural health products from Vanessa’s Law, which was passed in 2014. This law sought to improve the reporting of adverse reactions to drugs.

“We’re glad this is being revisited now,” Dr. Power told the Senate committee. “Although natural health products are often seen as low risk, we need to keep in mind that ‘low risk’ does not mean ‘no risk,’ and ‘natural’ does not mean ‘safe.’ ”

In contrast, Aaron Skelton, chief executive of the Canadian Health Food Association, spoke against this bid to expand the reach of Vanessa’s Law into natural health products. Canadian lawmakers attached provisions regarding increased oversight of natural health products to a budget package instead of considering them as part of a stand-alone bill.

“Our concern is that the powers that are being discussed have not been reviewed and debated,” Mr. Skelton told Dr. Kutcher. “The potential for overreach and unnecessary regulation is significant, and that deserves debate.”

“Profits should not trump Canadians’ health,” answered Dr. Kutcher, who earlier served as head of the psychiatry department at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S.

By June, Vanessa’s Law had been expanded with provisions that address natural health products, including the reporting of products that present a serious risk to consumers.
 

Educating consumers

Many consumers overestimate the level of government regulation of supplements, said Pieter A. Cohen, MD, leader of the Supplement Research Program at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts. Dr. Cohen was the lead author of the JAMA research letter about melatonin products.

Supplements often share shelves in pharmacies with medicines that are subject to more strict regulation, which causes confusion.

“It’s really hard to wrap your brain around [the fact] that a health product is being sold in pharmacies in the United States and it’s not being vetted by the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]”, Dr. Cohen said in an interview

The confusion extends across borders. Many consumers in other countries will assume that the FDA performed premarket screening of U.S.-made supplements, but that is not the case, he said.

People who want to take supplements should look for reputable sources of information about them, such as the website of the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements, Dr. Cohen said. But patients often forget or fail to do this, which can create medical puzzles, such as the case of the woman in the Ontario case study, said Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has pressed for increased regulation of supplements.

Clinicians need to keep in mind that patients may need prodding to reveal what supplements they are taking, he said.

“They just think of them as different, somehow not the province of the doctor,” Dr. Lurie said. “For others, they are concerned that the doctors will disapprove. So, they hide it.”

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

A woman’s quest to become pregnant resulted in lead poisoning from an Ayurvedic treatment. The case triggered the seizure of pills from an Ontario natural-products clinic and the issuance of government warnings about the risks of products from this business, according to a new report.

The case highlights the need for collaboration between clinicians and public health authorities to address the potential health risks of supplements, including the presence of lead and other metals in Ayurvedic products, according to the report.

“When consumer products may be contaminated with lead, or when lead exposure is linked to sources in the community, involving public health can facilitate broader actions to reduce and prevent exposures to other people at risk,” wrote report author Julian Gitelman, MD, MPH, a resident physician at the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, and colleagues.

Their case study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The researchers detailed what happened after a 39-year-old woman sought medical care for abdominal pain, constipation, nausea, and vomiting. The woman underwent a series of tests, including colonoscopy, laparoscopy, and biopsies of bone marrow and ovarian cysts.

Only later did clinicians home in on the cause of her ailments: the Ayurvedic medications that the patient had been taking daily for more than a year for infertility. Her daily regimen had varied, ranging from a few pills to a dozen pills.

Heavy metals are sometimes intentionally added to Ayurvedic supplements for perceived healing properties, wrote the authors. They cited a previous study of a sample of Ayurvedic pills bought on the Internet from manufacturers based in the United States and India that showed that 21% contained lead, mercury, or arsenic.

A case report published last year in German Medical Weekly raised the same issue.
 

Melatonin gummies

Regulators in many countries struggle to help consumers understand the risks of natural health supplements, and the challenge extends well beyond Ayurvedic products.

There has been a “huge and very troubling increase” in U.S. poison control calls associated with gummy-bear products containing melatonin, said Canadian Senator Stan Kutcher, MD, at a May 11 meeting of Canada’s Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology.

In April, JAMA published a U.S. analysis of melatonin gummy products, Dr. Kutcher noted. In this research letter, investigators reported that one product did not contain detectable levels of melatonin but did contain 31.3 mg of cannabidiol.

In other products, the quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity. A previous Canadian study of 16 melatonin brands found that the actual dose of melatonin ranged from 17% to 478% of the declared quantity, the letter noted.

The May 11 Senate meeting provided a forum for many of the recurring debates about supplements, which also are known as natural health products.

Barry Power, PharmD, editor in chief for the Canadian Pharmacists Association, said that his group was disappointed when Canada excluded natural health products from Vanessa’s Law, which was passed in 2014. This law sought to improve the reporting of adverse reactions to drugs.

“We’re glad this is being revisited now,” Dr. Power told the Senate committee. “Although natural health products are often seen as low risk, we need to keep in mind that ‘low risk’ does not mean ‘no risk,’ and ‘natural’ does not mean ‘safe.’ ”

In contrast, Aaron Skelton, chief executive of the Canadian Health Food Association, spoke against this bid to expand the reach of Vanessa’s Law into natural health products. Canadian lawmakers attached provisions regarding increased oversight of natural health products to a budget package instead of considering them as part of a stand-alone bill.

“Our concern is that the powers that are being discussed have not been reviewed and debated,” Mr. Skelton told Dr. Kutcher. “The potential for overreach and unnecessary regulation is significant, and that deserves debate.”

“Profits should not trump Canadians’ health,” answered Dr. Kutcher, who earlier served as head of the psychiatry department at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S.

By June, Vanessa’s Law had been expanded with provisions that address natural health products, including the reporting of products that present a serious risk to consumers.
 

Educating consumers

Many consumers overestimate the level of government regulation of supplements, said Pieter A. Cohen, MD, leader of the Supplement Research Program at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts. Dr. Cohen was the lead author of the JAMA research letter about melatonin products.

Supplements often share shelves in pharmacies with medicines that are subject to more strict regulation, which causes confusion.

“It’s really hard to wrap your brain around [the fact] that a health product is being sold in pharmacies in the United States and it’s not being vetted by the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]”, Dr. Cohen said in an interview

The confusion extends across borders. Many consumers in other countries will assume that the FDA performed premarket screening of U.S.-made supplements, but that is not the case, he said.

People who want to take supplements should look for reputable sources of information about them, such as the website of the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements, Dr. Cohen said. But patients often forget or fail to do this, which can create medical puzzles, such as the case of the woman in the Ontario case study, said Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has pressed for increased regulation of supplements.

Clinicians need to keep in mind that patients may need prodding to reveal what supplements they are taking, he said.

“They just think of them as different, somehow not the province of the doctor,” Dr. Lurie said. “For others, they are concerned that the doctors will disapprove. So, they hide it.”

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

A woman’s quest to become pregnant resulted in lead poisoning from an Ayurvedic treatment. The case triggered the seizure of pills from an Ontario natural-products clinic and the issuance of government warnings about the risks of products from this business, according to a new report.

The case highlights the need for collaboration between clinicians and public health authorities to address the potential health risks of supplements, including the presence of lead and other metals in Ayurvedic products, according to the report.

“When consumer products may be contaminated with lead, or when lead exposure is linked to sources in the community, involving public health can facilitate broader actions to reduce and prevent exposures to other people at risk,” wrote report author Julian Gitelman, MD, MPH, a resident physician at the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, and colleagues.

Their case study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The researchers detailed what happened after a 39-year-old woman sought medical care for abdominal pain, constipation, nausea, and vomiting. The woman underwent a series of tests, including colonoscopy, laparoscopy, and biopsies of bone marrow and ovarian cysts.

Only later did clinicians home in on the cause of her ailments: the Ayurvedic medications that the patient had been taking daily for more than a year for infertility. Her daily regimen had varied, ranging from a few pills to a dozen pills.

Heavy metals are sometimes intentionally added to Ayurvedic supplements for perceived healing properties, wrote the authors. They cited a previous study of a sample of Ayurvedic pills bought on the Internet from manufacturers based in the United States and India that showed that 21% contained lead, mercury, or arsenic.

A case report published last year in German Medical Weekly raised the same issue.
 

Melatonin gummies

Regulators in many countries struggle to help consumers understand the risks of natural health supplements, and the challenge extends well beyond Ayurvedic products.

There has been a “huge and very troubling increase” in U.S. poison control calls associated with gummy-bear products containing melatonin, said Canadian Senator Stan Kutcher, MD, at a May 11 meeting of Canada’s Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology.

In April, JAMA published a U.S. analysis of melatonin gummy products, Dr. Kutcher noted. In this research letter, investigators reported that one product did not contain detectable levels of melatonin but did contain 31.3 mg of cannabidiol.

In other products, the quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity. A previous Canadian study of 16 melatonin brands found that the actual dose of melatonin ranged from 17% to 478% of the declared quantity, the letter noted.

The May 11 Senate meeting provided a forum for many of the recurring debates about supplements, which also are known as natural health products.

Barry Power, PharmD, editor in chief for the Canadian Pharmacists Association, said that his group was disappointed when Canada excluded natural health products from Vanessa’s Law, which was passed in 2014. This law sought to improve the reporting of adverse reactions to drugs.

“We’re glad this is being revisited now,” Dr. Power told the Senate committee. “Although natural health products are often seen as low risk, we need to keep in mind that ‘low risk’ does not mean ‘no risk,’ and ‘natural’ does not mean ‘safe.’ ”

In contrast, Aaron Skelton, chief executive of the Canadian Health Food Association, spoke against this bid to expand the reach of Vanessa’s Law into natural health products. Canadian lawmakers attached provisions regarding increased oversight of natural health products to a budget package instead of considering them as part of a stand-alone bill.

“Our concern is that the powers that are being discussed have not been reviewed and debated,” Mr. Skelton told Dr. Kutcher. “The potential for overreach and unnecessary regulation is significant, and that deserves debate.”

“Profits should not trump Canadians’ health,” answered Dr. Kutcher, who earlier served as head of the psychiatry department at Dalhousie University in Halifax, N.S.

By June, Vanessa’s Law had been expanded with provisions that address natural health products, including the reporting of products that present a serious risk to consumers.
 

Educating consumers

Many consumers overestimate the level of government regulation of supplements, said Pieter A. Cohen, MD, leader of the Supplement Research Program at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts. Dr. Cohen was the lead author of the JAMA research letter about melatonin products.

Supplements often share shelves in pharmacies with medicines that are subject to more strict regulation, which causes confusion.

“It’s really hard to wrap your brain around [the fact] that a health product is being sold in pharmacies in the United States and it’s not being vetted by the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]”, Dr. Cohen said in an interview

The confusion extends across borders. Many consumers in other countries will assume that the FDA performed premarket screening of U.S.-made supplements, but that is not the case, he said.

People who want to take supplements should look for reputable sources of information about them, such as the website of the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements, Dr. Cohen said. But patients often forget or fail to do this, which can create medical puzzles, such as the case of the woman in the Ontario case study, said Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has pressed for increased regulation of supplements.

Clinicians need to keep in mind that patients may need prodding to reveal what supplements they are taking, he said.

“They just think of them as different, somehow not the province of the doctor,” Dr. Lurie said. “For others, they are concerned that the doctors will disapprove. So, they hide it.”

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

Women who continued breast cancer screenings when they reached age 70 had no lower chance of dying from the disease, and just getting a mammogram could instead set them on a path toward unnecessary risks, according to a new study from Yale University.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest that between 31% and 54% of all breast cancer diagnoses in women aged 70 years and older could be considered overdiagnoses, meaning that the cancer found during the screening would not have caused symptoms in a person’s lifetime. (For context, the average life expectancy of a woman in the U.S. is 79 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) 

Overdiagnosis can be harmful because it carries the risks of complications from overtreatment, plus financial and emotional hardships and unnecessary use of limited resources.

For the study, researchers analyzed data for 54,635 women aged 70 and older and compared the rate of breast cancer diagnosis and death among women who did and did not have mammograms during a 15-year follow-up period. 

The rate of breast cancer in the study among women aged 70-74 was 6% for women who were screened and 4% for women who were not screened. The researchers estimated that 31% of the cases were potentially overdiagnosed. Among women aged 75-84, breast cancer was found in 5% of women who were screened, compared to less than 3% of unscreened women. Their estimated overdiagnosis rate was 47%. Finally, 3% of women aged 85 and older who were screened had breast cancer detected, compared with 1% of women in the unscreened group. For the older group, the overdiagnosis rate was 54%.

Yale University

“While our study focused on overdiagnosis, it is important to acknowledge that overdiagnosis is just one of many considerations when deciding whether to continue screening,” researcher and Yale assistant professor of medicine Ilana Richman, MD, said in a statement. “A patient’s preferences and values, personal risk factors, and the overall balance of risks and benefits from screening are also important to take into account when making screening decisions.”

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

Women who continued breast cancer screenings when they reached age 70 had no lower chance of dying from the disease, and just getting a mammogram could instead set them on a path toward unnecessary risks, according to a new study from Yale University.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest that between 31% and 54% of all breast cancer diagnoses in women aged 70 years and older could be considered overdiagnoses, meaning that the cancer found during the screening would not have caused symptoms in a person’s lifetime. (For context, the average life expectancy of a woman in the U.S. is 79 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) 

Overdiagnosis can be harmful because it carries the risks of complications from overtreatment, plus financial and emotional hardships and unnecessary use of limited resources.

For the study, researchers analyzed data for 54,635 women aged 70 and older and compared the rate of breast cancer diagnosis and death among women who did and did not have mammograms during a 15-year follow-up period. 

The rate of breast cancer in the study among women aged 70-74 was 6% for women who were screened and 4% for women who were not screened. The researchers estimated that 31% of the cases were potentially overdiagnosed. Among women aged 75-84, breast cancer was found in 5% of women who were screened, compared to less than 3% of unscreened women. Their estimated overdiagnosis rate was 47%. Finally, 3% of women aged 85 and older who were screened had breast cancer detected, compared with 1% of women in the unscreened group. For the older group, the overdiagnosis rate was 54%.

Yale University

“While our study focused on overdiagnosis, it is important to acknowledge that overdiagnosis is just one of many considerations when deciding whether to continue screening,” researcher and Yale assistant professor of medicine Ilana Richman, MD, said in a statement. “A patient’s preferences and values, personal risk factors, and the overall balance of risks and benefits from screening are also important to take into account when making screening decisions.”

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

Women who continued breast cancer screenings when they reached age 70 had no lower chance of dying from the disease, and just getting a mammogram could instead set them on a path toward unnecessary risks, according to a new study from Yale University.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest that between 31% and 54% of all breast cancer diagnoses in women aged 70 years and older could be considered overdiagnoses, meaning that the cancer found during the screening would not have caused symptoms in a person’s lifetime. (For context, the average life expectancy of a woman in the U.S. is 79 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) 

Overdiagnosis can be harmful because it carries the risks of complications from overtreatment, plus financial and emotional hardships and unnecessary use of limited resources.

For the study, researchers analyzed data for 54,635 women aged 70 and older and compared the rate of breast cancer diagnosis and death among women who did and did not have mammograms during a 15-year follow-up period. 

The rate of breast cancer in the study among women aged 70-74 was 6% for women who were screened and 4% for women who were not screened. The researchers estimated that 31% of the cases were potentially overdiagnosed. Among women aged 75-84, breast cancer was found in 5% of women who were screened, compared to less than 3% of unscreened women. Their estimated overdiagnosis rate was 47%. Finally, 3% of women aged 85 and older who were screened had breast cancer detected, compared with 1% of women in the unscreened group. For the older group, the overdiagnosis rate was 54%.

Yale University

“While our study focused on overdiagnosis, it is important to acknowledge that overdiagnosis is just one of many considerations when deciding whether to continue screening,” researcher and Yale assistant professor of medicine Ilana Richman, MD, said in a statement. “A patient’s preferences and values, personal risk factors, and the overall balance of risks and benefits from screening are also important to take into account when making screening decisions.”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to talk about something important to a lot of us, based on a new study that has just come out that promises to tell us the right way to exercise. This is a major issue as we think about the best ways to stay healthy.

There are basically two main types of exercise that exercise physiologists think about. There are aerobic exercises: the cardiovascular things like running on a treadmill or outside. Then there are muscle-strengthening exercises: lifting weights, calisthenics, and so on. And of course, plenty of exercises do both at the same time.

It seems that the era of aerobic exercise as the main way to improve health was the 1980s and early 1990s. Then we started to increasingly recognize that muscle-strengthening exercise was really important too. We’ve got a ton of data on the benefits of cardiovascular and aerobic exercise (a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all-cause mortality, and even improved cognitive function) across a variety of study designs, including cohort studies, but also some randomized controlled trials where people were randomized to aerobic activity.

We’re starting to get more data on the benefits of muscle-strengthening exercises, although it hasn’t been in the zeitgeist as much. Obviously, this increases strength and may reduce visceral fat, increase anaerobic capacity and muscle mass, and therefore [increase the] basal metabolic rate. What is really interesting about muscle strengthening is that muscle just takes up more energy at rest, so building bigger muscles increases your basal energy expenditure and increases insulin sensitivity because muscle is a good insulin sensitizer.

So, do you do both? Do you do one? Do you do the other? What’s the right answer here?

it depends on who you ask. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation, which changes from time to time, is that you should do at least 150 minutes a week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity. Anything that gets your heart beating faster counts here. So that’s 30 minutes, 5 days a week. They also say you can do 75 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity – something that really gets your heart rate up and you are breaking a sweat. Now they also recommend at least 2 days a week of a muscle-strengthening activity that makes your muscles work harder than usual, whether that’s push-ups or lifting weights or something like that.

The World Health Organization is similar. They don’t target 150 minutes a week. They actually say at least 150 and up to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity. They are setting the floor, whereas the CDC sets its target and then they go a bit higher. They also recommend 2 days of muscle strengthening per week for optimal health.

But what do the data show? Why am I talking about this? It’s because of this new study in JAMA Internal Medicine by Ruben Lopez Bueno and colleagues. I’m going to focus on all-cause mortality for brevity, but the results are broadly similar.

The data source is the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. A total of 500,705 people took part in the survey and answered a slew of questions (including self-reports on their exercise amounts), with a median follow-up of about 10 years looking for things like cardiovascular deaths, cancer deaths, and so on.

The survey classified people into different exercise categories – how much time they spent doing moderate physical activity (MPA), vigorous physical activity (VPA), or muscle-strengthening activity (MSA).

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and interim director, program of applied translational research, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to talk about something important to a lot of us, based on a new study that has just come out that promises to tell us the right way to exercise. This is a major issue as we think about the best ways to stay healthy.

There are basically two main types of exercise that exercise physiologists think about. There are aerobic exercises: the cardiovascular things like running on a treadmill or outside. Then there are muscle-strengthening exercises: lifting weights, calisthenics, and so on. And of course, plenty of exercises do both at the same time.

It seems that the era of aerobic exercise as the main way to improve health was the 1980s and early 1990s. Then we started to increasingly recognize that muscle-strengthening exercise was really important too. We’ve got a ton of data on the benefits of cardiovascular and aerobic exercise (a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all-cause mortality, and even improved cognitive function) across a variety of study designs, including cohort studies, but also some randomized controlled trials where people were randomized to aerobic activity.

We’re starting to get more data on the benefits of muscle-strengthening exercises, although it hasn’t been in the zeitgeist as much. Obviously, this increases strength and may reduce visceral fat, increase anaerobic capacity and muscle mass, and therefore [increase the] basal metabolic rate. What is really interesting about muscle strengthening is that muscle just takes up more energy at rest, so building bigger muscles increases your basal energy expenditure and increases insulin sensitivity because muscle is a good insulin sensitizer.

So, do you do both? Do you do one? Do you do the other? What’s the right answer here?

it depends on who you ask. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation, which changes from time to time, is that you should do at least 150 minutes a week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity. Anything that gets your heart beating faster counts here. So that’s 30 minutes, 5 days a week. They also say you can do 75 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity – something that really gets your heart rate up and you are breaking a sweat. Now they also recommend at least 2 days a week of a muscle-strengthening activity that makes your muscles work harder than usual, whether that’s push-ups or lifting weights or something like that.

The World Health Organization is similar. They don’t target 150 minutes a week. They actually say at least 150 and up to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity. They are setting the floor, whereas the CDC sets its target and then they go a bit higher. They also recommend 2 days of muscle strengthening per week for optimal health.

But what do the data show? Why am I talking about this? It’s because of this new study in JAMA Internal Medicine by Ruben Lopez Bueno and colleagues. I’m going to focus on all-cause mortality for brevity, but the results are broadly similar.

The data source is the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. A total of 500,705 people took part in the survey and answered a slew of questions (including self-reports on their exercise amounts), with a median follow-up of about 10 years looking for things like cardiovascular deaths, cancer deaths, and so on.

The survey classified people into different exercise categories – how much time they spent doing moderate physical activity (MPA), vigorous physical activity (VPA), or muscle-strengthening activity (MSA).

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and interim director, program of applied translational research, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to talk about something important to a lot of us, based on a new study that has just come out that promises to tell us the right way to exercise. This is a major issue as we think about the best ways to stay healthy.

There are basically two main types of exercise that exercise physiologists think about. There are aerobic exercises: the cardiovascular things like running on a treadmill or outside. Then there are muscle-strengthening exercises: lifting weights, calisthenics, and so on. And of course, plenty of exercises do both at the same time.

It seems that the era of aerobic exercise as the main way to improve health was the 1980s and early 1990s. Then we started to increasingly recognize that muscle-strengthening exercise was really important too. We’ve got a ton of data on the benefits of cardiovascular and aerobic exercise (a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all-cause mortality, and even improved cognitive function) across a variety of study designs, including cohort studies, but also some randomized controlled trials where people were randomized to aerobic activity.

We’re starting to get more data on the benefits of muscle-strengthening exercises, although it hasn’t been in the zeitgeist as much. Obviously, this increases strength and may reduce visceral fat, increase anaerobic capacity and muscle mass, and therefore [increase the] basal metabolic rate. What is really interesting about muscle strengthening is that muscle just takes up more energy at rest, so building bigger muscles increases your basal energy expenditure and increases insulin sensitivity because muscle is a good insulin sensitizer.

So, do you do both? Do you do one? Do you do the other? What’s the right answer here?

it depends on who you ask. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation, which changes from time to time, is that you should do at least 150 minutes a week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity. Anything that gets your heart beating faster counts here. So that’s 30 minutes, 5 days a week. They also say you can do 75 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity – something that really gets your heart rate up and you are breaking a sweat. Now they also recommend at least 2 days a week of a muscle-strengthening activity that makes your muscles work harder than usual, whether that’s push-ups or lifting weights or something like that.

The World Health Organization is similar. They don’t target 150 minutes a week. They actually say at least 150 and up to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity. They are setting the floor, whereas the CDC sets its target and then they go a bit higher. They also recommend 2 days of muscle strengthening per week for optimal health.

But what do the data show? Why am I talking about this? It’s because of this new study in JAMA Internal Medicine by Ruben Lopez Bueno and colleagues. I’m going to focus on all-cause mortality for brevity, but the results are broadly similar.

The data source is the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. A total of 500,705 people took part in the survey and answered a slew of questions (including self-reports on their exercise amounts), with a median follow-up of about 10 years looking for things like cardiovascular deaths, cancer deaths, and so on.

The survey classified people into different exercise categories – how much time they spent doing moderate physical activity (MPA), vigorous physical activity (VPA), or muscle-strengthening activity (MSA).

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and interim director, program of applied translational research, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Andrea Partida, DO, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Enid, Okla., loves her new assistant.

The 15 or 20 minutes she used to spend on documentation for each patient visit is now 3. The 2-3 hours she’d spend charting outside clinic hours is maybe 1.

All that time saved allows her to see two to five more patients a day, provide better care to each patient, and get more involved in hospital leadership at Integris Health, where she works.

“I have a better work-life balance with my family,” Dr. Partida said. “I leave work at work and get home earlier.”

You’ve probably figured out the plot twist: Dr. Partida’s assistant is not a person – it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Partida uses IRIS, a tool from OnPoint Healthcare Partners, part of a fast-growing niche of AI medical scribes designed to automate onerous data entry. The evolution of generative AI – specifically, large language models, such as ChatGPT – has led to a rapid explosion of these tools. Other companies in the space include Abridge, Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, DeepScribe, Nuance (part of Microsoft), and Suki. The newest kid on the block, Amazon Web Services, announced the launch of HealthScribe in July.

These tools – some of which are already on the market, with more on the way – record patient visits and generate notes for treatment and billing. Earlier iterations combine AI with offsite human scribes who provide quality control. But more and more are fully automated, no human required. Some also offer video recording and foreign language translation.

The promise is alluring: Ease your workload and reclaim hours in your day so you can spend more time with patients or try that “work-life balance” thing you’ve heard so much about.

But do these tools fulfill that promise?

According to Dr. Partida and other doctors who spoke with this news organization, the answer is a resounding yes.
 

A tech solution for a tech problem

“I believe a lot of doctors see patients for free. They get paid to do paperwork,” said Anthony J. Mazzarelli, MD, JD, MBE, co-president and CEO of Cooper University Health Care, in Camden, N.J.

Indeed, for every hour U.S. clinicians spend with their patients, they may spend 2 more hours documenting in electronic health records (EHRs), estimates show. About half of doctors, especially those in primary care, report feeling burned out, and some 42% say they want to quit clinical practice.

Enter AI scribes.

“The holy grail in medicine right now is improving burnout while also maintaining or improving productivity and quality,” said Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “These ambient digital scribes have the potential to do just that.”

While anyone can buy these products, their use has been mostly limited to pilot programs and early adopters so far, said Dr. Garcia, who has been helping to pilot Nuance’s digital scribe, DAX, at Stanford.

But that’s expected to change quickly. “I don’t think the time horizon is a decade,” Dr. Garcia said. “I think within a matter of 2 or 3 years, these tools will be pervasive throughout health care.”

Since introducing these tools at Cooper, “our doctors’ paperwork burden is significantly lighter,” said Dr. Mazzarelli, who decides which technologies Cooper should invest in and who monitors their results. In Cooper studies, physicians who used DAX more than half the time spent 43% less time working on notes.

“They spend more time connecting with their patients, talking with them, and looking them in the eye,” Dr. Mazzarelli said. That, in turn, seems to improve patient outcomes, reduce doctor burnout and turnover, and lower costs.

The AI scribes, by virtue of eliminating the distraction of note taking, also allow doctors to give their full attention to the patient. “The patient relationship is the most important aspect of medicine,” said Raul Ayala, MD, MHCM, a family medicine physician at Adventist Health, in Hanford, Calif., who uses Augmedix. The digital scribe “helps us strengthen that relationship.”
 

What’s it like to use an AI medical scribe?

The scribes feature hardware (typically a smartphone or tablet) and software built on automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and machine learning. Download an app to your device, and you’re ready to go. Use it to record in-person or telehealth visits.

In the first week, a company may help train you to use the hardware and software. You’ll likely start by using it for a few patient visits per day, ramping up gradually. Dr. Partida said she was comfortable using the system for all her patients in 6 weeks.

Each day, Dr. Partida logs in to a dedicated smartphone or tablet, opens the app, and reviews her schedule, including details she needs to prepare for each patient.

At the start of each patient visit, Dr. Partida taps the app icon to begin recording and lays the device nearby. She can pause as needed. At the end of the visit, she taps the icon again to stop recording.

The AI listens, creates the note, and updates relevant data in the EHR. The note includes patient problems, assessment, treatment plan, patient history, orders, and tasks for staff, along with medications, referrals, and preauthorizations. A human scribe, who is also a physician, reviews the information for accuracy and edits it as needed. By the next morning, the data are ready for Dr. Partida to review.

Fully automated versions can generate notes much faster. Jack Shilling, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon at Cooper University Health Care, in Voorhees, N.J., uses DAX. A new feature called DAX Express – which uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 but no humans – provides him with a draft of his clinical notes in just seconds.
 

How accurate are AI notes?

The accuracy of those notes remains an open question, Dr. Garcia said – mostly because accuracy can be hard to define.

“If you asked five docs to write a note based on the same patient encounter, you’d get five different notes,” Dr. Garcia said. “That makes it hard to assess these technologies in a scientifically rigorous way.”

Still, the onus is on the physician to review the notes and edit them as needed, Dr. Garcia said. How light or heavy those edits are can depend on your unique preferences.

Dr. Shilling said he may need to lightly edit transcripts of his conversations with patients. “When someone tells me how long their knee hurts, slight variability in their transcribed words is tolerable,” he said. But for some things – such as physical exam notes and x-ray readings – he dictates directly into the device, speaking at a closer range and being less conversational, more exact in his speech.
 

Should you let patients know they’re being recorded?

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not require providers to inform patients that their face-to-face conversations are being recorded, said Daniel Lebovic, JD, corporate legal counsel at Compliancy Group, in Greenlawn, N.Y., a company that helps providers adhere to HIPAA rules.

But make sure you know the laws in your state and the policies at your health care practice. State laws may require providers to inform patients and to get patients’ consent in advance of being recorded.

All the doctors who spoke to this news organization said their patients are informed that they’ll be recorded and that they can opt out if they wish.
 

How much do AI scribes cost?

As the marketplace for these tools expands, companies are offering more products and services at different price points that target a range of organizations, from large health care systems to small private practices.

Price models vary, said Dr. Garcia. Some are based on the number of users, others on the number of notes, and still others on minutes.

Amazon’s HealthScribe is priced at 10 cents per minute. For 1,000 consultation transcripts per month, with each call averaging 15 minutes, it would take 15,000 minutes at a total cost of $1,500 for the month.

In general, the rapidly growing competition in this space could mean prices become more affordable, Dr. Garcia said. “It’s good that so many are getting into this game, because that means the price will come down and it will be a lot more accessible to everybody.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Andrea Partida, DO, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Enid, Okla., loves her new assistant.

The 15 or 20 minutes she used to spend on documentation for each patient visit is now 3. The 2-3 hours she’d spend charting outside clinic hours is maybe 1.

All that time saved allows her to see two to five more patients a day, provide better care to each patient, and get more involved in hospital leadership at Integris Health, where she works.

“I have a better work-life balance with my family,” Dr. Partida said. “I leave work at work and get home earlier.”

You’ve probably figured out the plot twist: Dr. Partida’s assistant is not a person – it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Partida uses IRIS, a tool from OnPoint Healthcare Partners, part of a fast-growing niche of AI medical scribes designed to automate onerous data entry. The evolution of generative AI – specifically, large language models, such as ChatGPT – has led to a rapid explosion of these tools. Other companies in the space include Abridge, Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, DeepScribe, Nuance (part of Microsoft), and Suki. The newest kid on the block, Amazon Web Services, announced the launch of HealthScribe in July.

These tools – some of which are already on the market, with more on the way – record patient visits and generate notes for treatment and billing. Earlier iterations combine AI with offsite human scribes who provide quality control. But more and more are fully automated, no human required. Some also offer video recording and foreign language translation.

The promise is alluring: Ease your workload and reclaim hours in your day so you can spend more time with patients or try that “work-life balance” thing you’ve heard so much about.

But do these tools fulfill that promise?

According to Dr. Partida and other doctors who spoke with this news organization, the answer is a resounding yes.
 

A tech solution for a tech problem

“I believe a lot of doctors see patients for free. They get paid to do paperwork,” said Anthony J. Mazzarelli, MD, JD, MBE, co-president and CEO of Cooper University Health Care, in Camden, N.J.

Indeed, for every hour U.S. clinicians spend with their patients, they may spend 2 more hours documenting in electronic health records (EHRs), estimates show. About half of doctors, especially those in primary care, report feeling burned out, and some 42% say they want to quit clinical practice.

Enter AI scribes.

“The holy grail in medicine right now is improving burnout while also maintaining or improving productivity and quality,” said Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “These ambient digital scribes have the potential to do just that.”

While anyone can buy these products, their use has been mostly limited to pilot programs and early adopters so far, said Dr. Garcia, who has been helping to pilot Nuance’s digital scribe, DAX, at Stanford.

But that’s expected to change quickly. “I don’t think the time horizon is a decade,” Dr. Garcia said. “I think within a matter of 2 or 3 years, these tools will be pervasive throughout health care.”

Since introducing these tools at Cooper, “our doctors’ paperwork burden is significantly lighter,” said Dr. Mazzarelli, who decides which technologies Cooper should invest in and who monitors their results. In Cooper studies, physicians who used DAX more than half the time spent 43% less time working on notes.

“They spend more time connecting with their patients, talking with them, and looking them in the eye,” Dr. Mazzarelli said. That, in turn, seems to improve patient outcomes, reduce doctor burnout and turnover, and lower costs.

The AI scribes, by virtue of eliminating the distraction of note taking, also allow doctors to give their full attention to the patient. “The patient relationship is the most important aspect of medicine,” said Raul Ayala, MD, MHCM, a family medicine physician at Adventist Health, in Hanford, Calif., who uses Augmedix. The digital scribe “helps us strengthen that relationship.”
 

What’s it like to use an AI medical scribe?

The scribes feature hardware (typically a smartphone or tablet) and software built on automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and machine learning. Download an app to your device, and you’re ready to go. Use it to record in-person or telehealth visits.

In the first week, a company may help train you to use the hardware and software. You’ll likely start by using it for a few patient visits per day, ramping up gradually. Dr. Partida said she was comfortable using the system for all her patients in 6 weeks.

Each day, Dr. Partida logs in to a dedicated smartphone or tablet, opens the app, and reviews her schedule, including details she needs to prepare for each patient.

At the start of each patient visit, Dr. Partida taps the app icon to begin recording and lays the device nearby. She can pause as needed. At the end of the visit, she taps the icon again to stop recording.

The AI listens, creates the note, and updates relevant data in the EHR. The note includes patient problems, assessment, treatment plan, patient history, orders, and tasks for staff, along with medications, referrals, and preauthorizations. A human scribe, who is also a physician, reviews the information for accuracy and edits it as needed. By the next morning, the data are ready for Dr. Partida to review.

Fully automated versions can generate notes much faster. Jack Shilling, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon at Cooper University Health Care, in Voorhees, N.J., uses DAX. A new feature called DAX Express – which uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 but no humans – provides him with a draft of his clinical notes in just seconds.
 

How accurate are AI notes?

The accuracy of those notes remains an open question, Dr. Garcia said – mostly because accuracy can be hard to define.

“If you asked five docs to write a note based on the same patient encounter, you’d get five different notes,” Dr. Garcia said. “That makes it hard to assess these technologies in a scientifically rigorous way.”

Still, the onus is on the physician to review the notes and edit them as needed, Dr. Garcia said. How light or heavy those edits are can depend on your unique preferences.

Dr. Shilling said he may need to lightly edit transcripts of his conversations with patients. “When someone tells me how long their knee hurts, slight variability in their transcribed words is tolerable,” he said. But for some things – such as physical exam notes and x-ray readings – he dictates directly into the device, speaking at a closer range and being less conversational, more exact in his speech.
 

Should you let patients know they’re being recorded?

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not require providers to inform patients that their face-to-face conversations are being recorded, said Daniel Lebovic, JD, corporate legal counsel at Compliancy Group, in Greenlawn, N.Y., a company that helps providers adhere to HIPAA rules.

But make sure you know the laws in your state and the policies at your health care practice. State laws may require providers to inform patients and to get patients’ consent in advance of being recorded.

All the doctors who spoke to this news organization said their patients are informed that they’ll be recorded and that they can opt out if they wish.
 

How much do AI scribes cost?

As the marketplace for these tools expands, companies are offering more products and services at different price points that target a range of organizations, from large health care systems to small private practices.

Price models vary, said Dr. Garcia. Some are based on the number of users, others on the number of notes, and still others on minutes.

Amazon’s HealthScribe is priced at 10 cents per minute. For 1,000 consultation transcripts per month, with each call averaging 15 minutes, it would take 15,000 minutes at a total cost of $1,500 for the month.

In general, the rapidly growing competition in this space could mean prices become more affordable, Dr. Garcia said. “It’s good that so many are getting into this game, because that means the price will come down and it will be a lot more accessible to everybody.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Andrea Partida, DO, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Enid, Okla., loves her new assistant.

The 15 or 20 minutes she used to spend on documentation for each patient visit is now 3. The 2-3 hours she’d spend charting outside clinic hours is maybe 1.

All that time saved allows her to see two to five more patients a day, provide better care to each patient, and get more involved in hospital leadership at Integris Health, where she works.

“I have a better work-life balance with my family,” Dr. Partida said. “I leave work at work and get home earlier.”

You’ve probably figured out the plot twist: Dr. Partida’s assistant is not a person – it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Partida uses IRIS, a tool from OnPoint Healthcare Partners, part of a fast-growing niche of AI medical scribes designed to automate onerous data entry. The evolution of generative AI – specifically, large language models, such as ChatGPT – has led to a rapid explosion of these tools. Other companies in the space include Abridge, Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, DeepScribe, Nuance (part of Microsoft), and Suki. The newest kid on the block, Amazon Web Services, announced the launch of HealthScribe in July.

These tools – some of which are already on the market, with more on the way – record patient visits and generate notes for treatment and billing. Earlier iterations combine AI with offsite human scribes who provide quality control. But more and more are fully automated, no human required. Some also offer video recording and foreign language translation.

The promise is alluring: Ease your workload and reclaim hours in your day so you can spend more time with patients or try that “work-life balance” thing you’ve heard so much about.

But do these tools fulfill that promise?

According to Dr. Partida and other doctors who spoke with this news organization, the answer is a resounding yes.
 

A tech solution for a tech problem

“I believe a lot of doctors see patients for free. They get paid to do paperwork,” said Anthony J. Mazzarelli, MD, JD, MBE, co-president and CEO of Cooper University Health Care, in Camden, N.J.

Indeed, for every hour U.S. clinicians spend with their patients, they may spend 2 more hours documenting in electronic health records (EHRs), estimates show. About half of doctors, especially those in primary care, report feeling burned out, and some 42% say they want to quit clinical practice.

Enter AI scribes.

“The holy grail in medicine right now is improving burnout while also maintaining or improving productivity and quality,” said Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “These ambient digital scribes have the potential to do just that.”

While anyone can buy these products, their use has been mostly limited to pilot programs and early adopters so far, said Dr. Garcia, who has been helping to pilot Nuance’s digital scribe, DAX, at Stanford.

But that’s expected to change quickly. “I don’t think the time horizon is a decade,” Dr. Garcia said. “I think within a matter of 2 or 3 years, these tools will be pervasive throughout health care.”

Since introducing these tools at Cooper, “our doctors’ paperwork burden is significantly lighter,” said Dr. Mazzarelli, who decides which technologies Cooper should invest in and who monitors their results. In Cooper studies, physicians who used DAX more than half the time spent 43% less time working on notes.

“They spend more time connecting with their patients, talking with them, and looking them in the eye,” Dr. Mazzarelli said. That, in turn, seems to improve patient outcomes, reduce doctor burnout and turnover, and lower costs.

The AI scribes, by virtue of eliminating the distraction of note taking, also allow doctors to give their full attention to the patient. “The patient relationship is the most important aspect of medicine,” said Raul Ayala, MD, MHCM, a family medicine physician at Adventist Health, in Hanford, Calif., who uses Augmedix. The digital scribe “helps us strengthen that relationship.”
 

What’s it like to use an AI medical scribe?

The scribes feature hardware (typically a smartphone or tablet) and software built on automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and machine learning. Download an app to your device, and you’re ready to go. Use it to record in-person or telehealth visits.

In the first week, a company may help train you to use the hardware and software. You’ll likely start by using it for a few patient visits per day, ramping up gradually. Dr. Partida said she was comfortable using the system for all her patients in 6 weeks.

Each day, Dr. Partida logs in to a dedicated smartphone or tablet, opens the app, and reviews her schedule, including details she needs to prepare for each patient.

At the start of each patient visit, Dr. Partida taps the app icon to begin recording and lays the device nearby. She can pause as needed. At the end of the visit, she taps the icon again to stop recording.

The AI listens, creates the note, and updates relevant data in the EHR. The note includes patient problems, assessment, treatment plan, patient history, orders, and tasks for staff, along with medications, referrals, and preauthorizations. A human scribe, who is also a physician, reviews the information for accuracy and edits it as needed. By the next morning, the data are ready for Dr. Partida to review.

Fully automated versions can generate notes much faster. Jack Shilling, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon at Cooper University Health Care, in Voorhees, N.J., uses DAX. A new feature called DAX Express – which uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 but no humans – provides him with a draft of his clinical notes in just seconds.
 

How accurate are AI notes?

The accuracy of those notes remains an open question, Dr. Garcia said – mostly because accuracy can be hard to define.

“If you asked five docs to write a note based on the same patient encounter, you’d get five different notes,” Dr. Garcia said. “That makes it hard to assess these technologies in a scientifically rigorous way.”

Still, the onus is on the physician to review the notes and edit them as needed, Dr. Garcia said. How light or heavy those edits are can depend on your unique preferences.

Dr. Shilling said he may need to lightly edit transcripts of his conversations with patients. “When someone tells me how long their knee hurts, slight variability in their transcribed words is tolerable,” he said. But for some things – such as physical exam notes and x-ray readings – he dictates directly into the device, speaking at a closer range and being less conversational, more exact in his speech.
 

Should you let patients know they’re being recorded?

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not require providers to inform patients that their face-to-face conversations are being recorded, said Daniel Lebovic, JD, corporate legal counsel at Compliancy Group, in Greenlawn, N.Y., a company that helps providers adhere to HIPAA rules.

But make sure you know the laws in your state and the policies at your health care practice. State laws may require providers to inform patients and to get patients’ consent in advance of being recorded.

All the doctors who spoke to this news organization said their patients are informed that they’ll be recorded and that they can opt out if they wish.
 

How much do AI scribes cost?

As the marketplace for these tools expands, companies are offering more products and services at different price points that target a range of organizations, from large health care systems to small private practices.

Price models vary, said Dr. Garcia. Some are based on the number of users, others on the number of notes, and still others on minutes.

Amazon’s HealthScribe is priced at 10 cents per minute. For 1,000 consultation transcripts per month, with each call averaging 15 minutes, it would take 15,000 minutes at a total cost of $1,500 for the month.

In general, the rapidly growing competition in this space could mean prices become more affordable, Dr. Garcia said. “It’s good that so many are getting into this game, because that means the price will come down and it will be a lot more accessible to everybody.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 hospitalizations continue their steady summer march upward, and now a new variant has perched atop the list of the most prevalent forms of the virus.

Called “Eris” among avid COVID trackers, the strain EG.5 now accounts for 17% of all U.S. COVID infections, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. That’s up from 12% the week prior. 

EG.5 has been rising worldwide, just weeks after the World Health Organization added the strain to its official monitoring list. In the United Kingdom, it now accounts for 1 in 10 COVID cases, The Independent reported.

EG.5 is a descendant of the XBB strains that have dominated tracking lists in recent months. It has the same makeup as XBB.1.9.2 but carries an extra spike mutation, according to a summary published by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. The spike protein is the part of the virus that allows it to enter human cells. But there’s no indication so far that EG.5 is more contagious or severe than other recent variants, according to the CIDRAP summary and a recent podcast from the American Medical Association. The CDC said that current vaccines protect against the variant.

U.S. hospitals saw a 12% increase in COVID admissions during the week ending on July 22, with 8,047 people being admitted because of the virus, up from an all-time low of 6,306 the week of June 24. In 17 states, the past-week increase in hospitalizations was 20% or greater. In Minnesota, the rate jumped by 50%, and in West Virginia, it jumped by 63%. Meanwhile, deaths reached their lowest weekly rate ever for the week of data ending July 29, with just 176 deaths reported by the CDC.

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations continue their steady summer march upward, and now a new variant has perched atop the list of the most prevalent forms of the virus.

Called “Eris” among avid COVID trackers, the strain EG.5 now accounts for 17% of all U.S. COVID infections, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. That’s up from 12% the week prior. 

EG.5 has been rising worldwide, just weeks after the World Health Organization added the strain to its official monitoring list. In the United Kingdom, it now accounts for 1 in 10 COVID cases, The Independent reported.

EG.5 is a descendant of the XBB strains that have dominated tracking lists in recent months. It has the same makeup as XBB.1.9.2 but carries an extra spike mutation, according to a summary published by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. The spike protein is the part of the virus that allows it to enter human cells. But there’s no indication so far that EG.5 is more contagious or severe than other recent variants, according to the CIDRAP summary and a recent podcast from the American Medical Association. The CDC said that current vaccines protect against the variant.

U.S. hospitals saw a 12% increase in COVID admissions during the week ending on July 22, with 8,047 people being admitted because of the virus, up from an all-time low of 6,306 the week of June 24. In 17 states, the past-week increase in hospitalizations was 20% or greater. In Minnesota, the rate jumped by 50%, and in West Virginia, it jumped by 63%. Meanwhile, deaths reached their lowest weekly rate ever for the week of data ending July 29, with just 176 deaths reported by the CDC.

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations continue their steady summer march upward, and now a new variant has perched atop the list of the most prevalent forms of the virus.

Called “Eris” among avid COVID trackers, the strain EG.5 now accounts for 17% of all U.S. COVID infections, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. That’s up from 12% the week prior. 

EG.5 has been rising worldwide, just weeks after the World Health Organization added the strain to its official monitoring list. In the United Kingdom, it now accounts for 1 in 10 COVID cases, The Independent reported.

EG.5 is a descendant of the XBB strains that have dominated tracking lists in recent months. It has the same makeup as XBB.1.9.2 but carries an extra spike mutation, according to a summary published by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. The spike protein is the part of the virus that allows it to enter human cells. But there’s no indication so far that EG.5 is more contagious or severe than other recent variants, according to the CIDRAP summary and a recent podcast from the American Medical Association. The CDC said that current vaccines protect against the variant.

U.S. hospitals saw a 12% increase in COVID admissions during the week ending on July 22, with 8,047 people being admitted because of the virus, up from an all-time low of 6,306 the week of June 24. In 17 states, the past-week increase in hospitalizations was 20% or greater. In Minnesota, the rate jumped by 50%, and in West Virginia, it jumped by 63%. Meanwhile, deaths reached their lowest weekly rate ever for the week of data ending July 29, with just 176 deaths reported by the CDC.

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

In the dawn of artificial intelligence’s potential to inform clinical practice, the importance of understanding the intent and interpretation of prediction tools is vital. In medicine, informed decision-making promotes patient autonomy and can lead to improved patient satisfaction and engagement in their own care.

Prediction models can assist clinicians in providing comprehensive antenatal counseling that promotes discussion of potential risks and outcomes to help patients understand the implications of different management options. This shared understanding enables patients to make informed choices about their care, reducing anxiety and increasing confidence in medical decision-making.

Tufts University

In obstetric clinical practice, prediction tools have been created to assess risk of primary cesarean delivery in gestational diabetes,¹ cesarean delivery in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,² and failed induction of labor in nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervix.³ By assessing a patient’s risk profile, clinicians can identify high-risk individuals who may require closer monitoring, early interventions, or specialized care. This allows for more timely interventions to optimize maternal and fetal health outcomes.

Other prediction tools are created to better elucidate to patients their individual risk of an outcome that may be modifiable, aiding physician counseling on mitigating factors to improve overall results. A relevant example is the American Diabetes Association’s risk of type 2 diabetes calculator used for counseling patients on risk reduction. This model includes both preexisting (ethnicity, family history, age, sex assigned at birth) and modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hypertension, physical activity) to predict risk of type 2 diabetes and is widely used in clinical practice to encourage integration of lifestyle changes to decrease risk.⁴ This model highlights the utility of prediction tools in counseling, providing quantitative data to clinicians to discuss a patient’s individual risk and how to mitigate that risk.

While predictive models clearly have many advantages and potential to improve personalized medicine, concerns have been raised that their interpretation and application can sometimes have unintended consequences as the complexity of these models can lead to variation in understanding among clinicians that impact decision-making. Different clinicians may assign different levels of importance to the predicted risks, resulting in differences in treatment plans and interventions. This variability can lead to disparities in care and outcomes, as patients with similar risk profiles may receive different management approaches based on the interpreting clinician.

Providers may either overly rely on prediction models or completely disregard them, depending on their level of trust or skepticism. Overreliance on prediction models may lead to the neglect of important clinical information or intuition, while disregarding the models may result in missed opportunities for early intervention or appropriate risk stratification. Achieving a balance between clinical judgment and the use of prediction models is crucial for optimal decision-making.

An example of how misinterpretation of the role of prediction tools in patient counseling can have far reaching consequences is the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) calculator where race and ethnicity naturalized racial differences and likely contributed to cesarean overuse in Black pregnant people as non-White race was associated with a decreased chance of successful VBAC. Although the authors of the study that created the VBAC calculator intended it to be used as an adjunct to counseling, institutions and providers used low calculator scores to discourage or prohibit pregnant people from attempting a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This highlighted the importance of contextualizing the intent of prediction models within the broader clinical setting and individual patient circumstances and preferences.

This gap between intent and interpretation and subsequent application is influenced by individual clinician experience, training, personal biases, and subjective judgment. These subjective elements can introduce inconsistencies and variability in the utilization of prediction tools, leading to potential discrepancies in patient care. Inadequate understanding of prediction models and their statistical concepts can contribute to misinterpretation. It is this bias that prevents prediction models from serving their true purpose: to inform clinical decision-making, improve patient outcomes, and optimize resource allocation.

Clinicians may struggle with concepts such as predictive accuracy, overfitting, calibration, and external validation. Educational initiatives and enhanced training in statistical literacy can empower clinicians to better comprehend and apply prediction models in their practice. Researchers should make it clear that models should not be used in isolation, but rather integrated with clinical expertise and patient preferences. Understanding the limitations of prediction models and incorporating additional clinical information is essential.

Prediction models in obstetrics should undergo continuous evaluation and improvement to enhance their reliability and applicability. Regular updates, external validation, and recalibration are necessary to account for evolving clinical practices, changes in patient populations, and emerging evidence. Engaging clinicians in the evaluation process can foster ownership and promote a sense of trust in the models.

As machine learning and artificial intelligence improve the accuracy of prediction models, there is potential to revolutionize obstetric care by enabling more accurate individualized risk assessment and decision-making. Machine learning has the potential to significantly enhance prediction models in obstetrics by leveraging complex algorithms and advanced computational techniques. However, the unpredictable nature of clinician interpretation poses challenges to the effective utilization of these models.

By emphasizing communication, collaboration, education, and continuous evaluation, we can bridge the gap between prediction models and clinician interpretation that optimizes their use. This concerted effort will ultimately lead to improved patient care, enhanced clinical outcomes, and a more harmonious integration of these tools into obstetric practice.

Dr. Ramos is assistant professor of maternal fetal medicine and associate principal investigator at the Mother Infant Research Institute, Tufts University and Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

References

1. Ramos SZ et al. Predicting primary cesarean delivery in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jun 7;S0002-9378(23)00371-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.06.002.

2. Beninati MJ et al. Prediction model for vaginal birth after induction of labor in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;136(2):402-410. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003938.

3. Levine LD et al. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2):254.e1-254.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.603.

4. American Diabetes Association. Our 60-Second Type 2 Diabetes Risk Test.

In the dawn of artificial intelligence’s potential to inform clinical practice, the importance of understanding the intent and interpretation of prediction tools is vital. In medicine, informed decision-making promotes patient autonomy and can lead to improved patient satisfaction and engagement in their own care.

Prediction models can assist clinicians in providing comprehensive antenatal counseling that promotes discussion of potential risks and outcomes to help patients understand the implications of different management options. This shared understanding enables patients to make informed choices about their care, reducing anxiety and increasing confidence in medical decision-making.

Tufts University

In obstetric clinical practice, prediction tools have been created to assess risk of primary cesarean delivery in gestational diabetes,¹ cesarean delivery in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,² and failed induction of labor in nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervix.³ By assessing a patient’s risk profile, clinicians can identify high-risk individuals who may require closer monitoring, early interventions, or specialized care. This allows for more timely interventions to optimize maternal and fetal health outcomes.

Other prediction tools are created to better elucidate to patients their individual risk of an outcome that may be modifiable, aiding physician counseling on mitigating factors to improve overall results. A relevant example is the American Diabetes Association’s risk of type 2 diabetes calculator used for counseling patients on risk reduction. This model includes both preexisting (ethnicity, family history, age, sex assigned at birth) and modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hypertension, physical activity) to predict risk of type 2 diabetes and is widely used in clinical practice to encourage integration of lifestyle changes to decrease risk.⁴ This model highlights the utility of prediction tools in counseling, providing quantitative data to clinicians to discuss a patient’s individual risk and how to mitigate that risk.

While predictive models clearly have many advantages and potential to improve personalized medicine, concerns have been raised that their interpretation and application can sometimes have unintended consequences as the complexity of these models can lead to variation in understanding among clinicians that impact decision-making. Different clinicians may assign different levels of importance to the predicted risks, resulting in differences in treatment plans and interventions. This variability can lead to disparities in care and outcomes, as patients with similar risk profiles may receive different management approaches based on the interpreting clinician.

Providers may either overly rely on prediction models or completely disregard them, depending on their level of trust or skepticism. Overreliance on prediction models may lead to the neglect of important clinical information or intuition, while disregarding the models may result in missed opportunities for early intervention or appropriate risk stratification. Achieving a balance between clinical judgment and the use of prediction models is crucial for optimal decision-making.

An example of how misinterpretation of the role of prediction tools in patient counseling can have far reaching consequences is the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) calculator where race and ethnicity naturalized racial differences and likely contributed to cesarean overuse in Black pregnant people as non-White race was associated with a decreased chance of successful VBAC. Although the authors of the study that created the VBAC calculator intended it to be used as an adjunct to counseling, institutions and providers used low calculator scores to discourage or prohibit pregnant people from attempting a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This highlighted the importance of contextualizing the intent of prediction models within the broader clinical setting and individual patient circumstances and preferences.

This gap between intent and interpretation and subsequent application is influenced by individual clinician experience, training, personal biases, and subjective judgment. These subjective elements can introduce inconsistencies and variability in the utilization of prediction tools, leading to potential discrepancies in patient care. Inadequate understanding of prediction models and their statistical concepts can contribute to misinterpretation. It is this bias that prevents prediction models from serving their true purpose: to inform clinical decision-making, improve patient outcomes, and optimize resource allocation.

Clinicians may struggle with concepts such as predictive accuracy, overfitting, calibration, and external validation. Educational initiatives and enhanced training in statistical literacy can empower clinicians to better comprehend and apply prediction models in their practice. Researchers should make it clear that models should not be used in isolation, but rather integrated with clinical expertise and patient preferences. Understanding the limitations of prediction models and incorporating additional clinical information is essential.

Prediction models in obstetrics should undergo continuous evaluation and improvement to enhance their reliability and applicability. Regular updates, external validation, and recalibration are necessary to account for evolving clinical practices, changes in patient populations, and emerging evidence. Engaging clinicians in the evaluation process can foster ownership and promote a sense of trust in the models.

As machine learning and artificial intelligence improve the accuracy of prediction models, there is potential to revolutionize obstetric care by enabling more accurate individualized risk assessment and decision-making. Machine learning has the potential to significantly enhance prediction models in obstetrics by leveraging complex algorithms and advanced computational techniques. However, the unpredictable nature of clinician interpretation poses challenges to the effective utilization of these models.

By emphasizing communication, collaboration, education, and continuous evaluation, we can bridge the gap between prediction models and clinician interpretation that optimizes their use. This concerted effort will ultimately lead to improved patient care, enhanced clinical outcomes, and a more harmonious integration of these tools into obstetric practice.

Dr. Ramos is assistant professor of maternal fetal medicine and associate principal investigator at the Mother Infant Research Institute, Tufts University and Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

References

1. Ramos SZ et al. Predicting primary cesarean delivery in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jun 7;S0002-9378(23)00371-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.06.002.

2. Beninati MJ et al. Prediction model for vaginal birth after induction of labor in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;136(2):402-410. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003938.

3. Levine LD et al. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2):254.e1-254.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.603.

4. American Diabetes Association. Our 60-Second Type 2 Diabetes Risk Test.

In the dawn of artificial intelligence’s potential to inform clinical practice, the importance of understanding the intent and interpretation of prediction tools is vital. In medicine, informed decision-making promotes patient autonomy and can lead to improved patient satisfaction and engagement in their own care.

Prediction models can assist clinicians in providing comprehensive antenatal counseling that promotes discussion of potential risks and outcomes to help patients understand the implications of different management options. This shared understanding enables patients to make informed choices about their care, reducing anxiety and increasing confidence in medical decision-making.

Tufts University

In obstetric clinical practice, prediction tools have been created to assess risk of primary cesarean delivery in gestational diabetes,¹ cesarean delivery in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,² and failed induction of labor in nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervix.³ By assessing a patient’s risk profile, clinicians can identify high-risk individuals who may require closer monitoring, early interventions, or specialized care. This allows for more timely interventions to optimize maternal and fetal health outcomes.

Other prediction tools are created to better elucidate to patients their individual risk of an outcome that may be modifiable, aiding physician counseling on mitigating factors to improve overall results. A relevant example is the American Diabetes Association’s risk of type 2 diabetes calculator used for counseling patients on risk reduction. This model includes both preexisting (ethnicity, family history, age, sex assigned at birth) and modifiable risk factors (body mass index, hypertension, physical activity) to predict risk of type 2 diabetes and is widely used in clinical practice to encourage integration of lifestyle changes to decrease risk.⁴ This model highlights the utility of prediction tools in counseling, providing quantitative data to clinicians to discuss a patient’s individual risk and how to mitigate that risk.

While predictive models clearly have many advantages and potential to improve personalized medicine, concerns have been raised that their interpretation and application can sometimes have unintended consequences as the complexity of these models can lead to variation in understanding among clinicians that impact decision-making. Different clinicians may assign different levels of importance to the predicted risks, resulting in differences in treatment plans and interventions. This variability can lead to disparities in care and outcomes, as patients with similar risk profiles may receive different management approaches based on the interpreting clinician.

Providers may either overly rely on prediction models or completely disregard them, depending on their level of trust or skepticism. Overreliance on prediction models may lead to the neglect of important clinical information or intuition, while disregarding the models may result in missed opportunities for early intervention or appropriate risk stratification. Achieving a balance between clinical judgment and the use of prediction models is crucial for optimal decision-making.

An example of how misinterpretation of the role of prediction tools in patient counseling can have far reaching consequences is the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) calculator where race and ethnicity naturalized racial differences and likely contributed to cesarean overuse in Black pregnant people as non-White race was associated with a decreased chance of successful VBAC. Although the authors of the study that created the VBAC calculator intended it to be used as an adjunct to counseling, institutions and providers used low calculator scores to discourage or prohibit pregnant people from attempting a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This highlighted the importance of contextualizing the intent of prediction models within the broader clinical setting and individual patient circumstances and preferences.

This gap between intent and interpretation and subsequent application is influenced by individual clinician experience, training, personal biases, and subjective judgment. These subjective elements can introduce inconsistencies and variability in the utilization of prediction tools, leading to potential discrepancies in patient care. Inadequate understanding of prediction models and their statistical concepts can contribute to misinterpretation. It is this bias that prevents prediction models from serving their true purpose: to inform clinical decision-making, improve patient outcomes, and optimize resource allocation.

Clinicians may struggle with concepts such as predictive accuracy, overfitting, calibration, and external validation. Educational initiatives and enhanced training in statistical literacy can empower clinicians to better comprehend and apply prediction models in their practice. Researchers should make it clear that models should not be used in isolation, but rather integrated with clinical expertise and patient preferences. Understanding the limitations of prediction models and incorporating additional clinical information is essential.

Prediction models in obstetrics should undergo continuous evaluation and improvement to enhance their reliability and applicability. Regular updates, external validation, and recalibration are necessary to account for evolving clinical practices, changes in patient populations, and emerging evidence. Engaging clinicians in the evaluation process can foster ownership and promote a sense of trust in the models.

As machine learning and artificial intelligence improve the accuracy of prediction models, there is potential to revolutionize obstetric care by enabling more accurate individualized risk assessment and decision-making. Machine learning has the potential to significantly enhance prediction models in obstetrics by leveraging complex algorithms and advanced computational techniques. However, the unpredictable nature of clinician interpretation poses challenges to the effective utilization of these models.

By emphasizing communication, collaboration, education, and continuous evaluation, we can bridge the gap between prediction models and clinician interpretation that optimizes their use. This concerted effort will ultimately lead to improved patient care, enhanced clinical outcomes, and a more harmonious integration of these tools into obstetric practice.

Dr. Ramos is assistant professor of maternal fetal medicine and associate principal investigator at the Mother Infant Research Institute, Tufts University and Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

References

1. Ramos SZ et al. Predicting primary cesarean delivery in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jun 7;S0002-9378(23)00371-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.06.002.

2. Beninati MJ et al. Prediction model for vaginal birth after induction of labor in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;136(2):402-410. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003938.

3. Levine LD et al. A validated calculator to estimate risk of cesarean after an induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2):254.e1-254.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.603.

4. American Diabetes Association. Our 60-Second Type 2 Diabetes Risk Test.

Use of dural-puncture epidural (DPE) shortened the onset time to surgical anesthesia by approximately 3 minutes, compared with standard epidural in patients undergoing cesarean delivery, based on data from 140 individuals.

DPE, while not new, has become more popular as an option for initiating labor analgesia, but data comparing DPE with standard epidural in conversion to surgical anesthesia for cesarean deliveries are limited, Nadir Sharawi, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues wrote.

courtesy University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

DPE involves no injection of intrathecal drugs, and the potential advantages include easier translocation of epidural medications into the intrathecal space for improved analgesia, but the effects of DPE on the onset and reliability of surgical anesthesia remain unknown, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers randomized 70 women scheduled for cesarean delivery of singleton pregnancies to DPE and 70 to a standard epidural. The participants were aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of the 30.1 years; the study was conducted between April 2019 and October 2022 at a single center.

The primary outcome was the time to the loss of sharp sensation at T6, defined as “the start of epidural extension anesthesia (time zero on the stopwatch) to when the patient could no longer feel sharp sensation at T6 (assessed bilaterally at the midclavicular line),” the researchers wrote.

The onset time to surgical anesthesia was faster in the DPE group, compared with the standard group, with a median of 422 seconds versus 655 seconds.

A key secondary outcome was a composite measure of the quality of epidural anesthesia that included failure to achieve a T10 bilateral block preoperatively in the delivery room, failure to achieve a surgical block at T6 within 15 minutes of chloroprocaine administration, requirement for intraoperative analgesia, repeat neuraxial procedure, and conversion to general anesthesia. The composite rates of lower quality anesthesia were significantly less in the DPE group, compared with the standard group (15.7% vs. 36.3%; P = .007).

Additional secondary outcomes included maternal satisfaction and pain score during surgery, adverse events, opioid use in the first 24 hours, maternal vasopressor requirements, epidural block assessments, and neonatal outcomes. No significant differences in these outcomes were noted between the groups, and no instances of local anesthetic systemic toxicity or neurological complications were reported.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study population of women scheduled for cesarean delivery and not in labor, and the inability to detect less frequent complications such as post–dural-puncture headache and accidental dural puncture, the researchers noted.

In addition, the results may vary with the use of other combinations of local anesthetics and opioids. “Chloroprocaine was chosen in this study because of its ease of administration without the need for opioids and other additives along with the low risk of systemic toxic effects, which favors rapid administration for emergent cesarean delivery,” they wrote.

However, the results show an association between DPE within an hour of epidural extension for elective cesarean delivery and a faster onset of anesthesia, improved block quality, and a more favorable ratio of risks versus benefits, compared with the use of standard epidural, the researchers concluded.
 

No need for general anesthesia?

“There is controversy over whether the dural puncture epidural technique improves labor analgesia when compared to a standard epidural,” Dr. Shawari said in an interview. “However, there are limited data on whether the dural puncture epidural technique decreases the onset time to surgical anesthesia when compared to a standard epidural for cesarean delivery. This is important as a pre-existing epidural is commonly used to convert labor analgesia to surgical anesthesia in the setting of urgent cesarean delivery. A faster onset of epidural anesthesia could potentially avoid the need for general anesthesia in an emergency.”

The researchers were not surprised by the findings given their experience with performing dural puncture epidurals for labor analgesia, Dr. Shawari said. In those cases, DPE provided a faster onset when converting cesarean anesthesia, compared with a standard epidural.

The takeaway from the current study is that DPE also provided “a faster onset and improved quality of anesthesia when compared to standard epidural for elective cesarean delivery,” Dr. Shawari said. However, additional research is needed to confirm the findings for intrapartum cesarean delivery.
 

Progress in improving pain control

“Adequate pain control during cesarean delivery is incredibly important,” Catherine Albright, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Inadequate pain control leads to the need to provide additional intravenous medications or the need to be put under general anesthesia, which changes the birth experience and is more dangerous for the birthing person and the neonate.

courtesy University of Washington

“In my clinical experience, there are many times when patients do not have adequate pain control during a cesarean delivery,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study. “I am pleased to see that there is research underway about how to best manage pain on labor and delivery, especially in the setting of conversion from labor anesthesia to cesarean anesthesia.”

The findings may have implications for clinical practice, said Dr. Albright. If the dural puncture epidural can improve cesarean anesthesia following an epidural during labor, rather than anesthesia provided for an elective cesarean), “then I believe it would reduce the number of patients who require additional pain medication, have a poor cesarean experience, and/or need to be put under general anesthesia.”

However, “as noted by the authors, additional research is needed to further determine possible risks and side effects from this technique, and also to ensure that it also works in the setting of labor, rather than for an elective cesarean,” Dr. Albright added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of dural-puncture epidural (DPE) shortened the onset time to surgical anesthesia by approximately 3 minutes, compared with standard epidural in patients undergoing cesarean delivery, based on data from 140 individuals.

DPE, while not new, has become more popular as an option for initiating labor analgesia, but data comparing DPE with standard epidural in conversion to surgical anesthesia for cesarean deliveries are limited, Nadir Sharawi, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues wrote.

courtesy University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

DPE involves no injection of intrathecal drugs, and the potential advantages include easier translocation of epidural medications into the intrathecal space for improved analgesia, but the effects of DPE on the onset and reliability of surgical anesthesia remain unknown, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers randomized 70 women scheduled for cesarean delivery of singleton pregnancies to DPE and 70 to a standard epidural. The participants were aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of the 30.1 years; the study was conducted between April 2019 and October 2022 at a single center.

The primary outcome was the time to the loss of sharp sensation at T6, defined as “the start of epidural extension anesthesia (time zero on the stopwatch) to when the patient could no longer feel sharp sensation at T6 (assessed bilaterally at the midclavicular line),” the researchers wrote.

The onset time to surgical anesthesia was faster in the DPE group, compared with the standard group, with a median of 422 seconds versus 655 seconds.

A key secondary outcome was a composite measure of the quality of epidural anesthesia that included failure to achieve a T10 bilateral block preoperatively in the delivery room, failure to achieve a surgical block at T6 within 15 minutes of chloroprocaine administration, requirement for intraoperative analgesia, repeat neuraxial procedure, and conversion to general anesthesia. The composite rates of lower quality anesthesia were significantly less in the DPE group, compared with the standard group (15.7% vs. 36.3%; P = .007).

Additional secondary outcomes included maternal satisfaction and pain score during surgery, adverse events, opioid use in the first 24 hours, maternal vasopressor requirements, epidural block assessments, and neonatal outcomes. No significant differences in these outcomes were noted between the groups, and no instances of local anesthetic systemic toxicity or neurological complications were reported.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study population of women scheduled for cesarean delivery and not in labor, and the inability to detect less frequent complications such as post–dural-puncture headache and accidental dural puncture, the researchers noted.

In addition, the results may vary with the use of other combinations of local anesthetics and opioids. “Chloroprocaine was chosen in this study because of its ease of administration without the need for opioids and other additives along with the low risk of systemic toxic effects, which favors rapid administration for emergent cesarean delivery,” they wrote.

However, the results show an association between DPE within an hour of epidural extension for elective cesarean delivery and a faster onset of anesthesia, improved block quality, and a more favorable ratio of risks versus benefits, compared with the use of standard epidural, the researchers concluded.
 

No need for general anesthesia?

“There is controversy over whether the dural puncture epidural technique improves labor analgesia when compared to a standard epidural,” Dr. Shawari said in an interview. “However, there are limited data on whether the dural puncture epidural technique decreases the onset time to surgical anesthesia when compared to a standard epidural for cesarean delivery. This is important as a pre-existing epidural is commonly used to convert labor analgesia to surgical anesthesia in the setting of urgent cesarean delivery. A faster onset of epidural anesthesia could potentially avoid the need for general anesthesia in an emergency.”

The researchers were not surprised by the findings given their experience with performing dural puncture epidurals for labor analgesia, Dr. Shawari said. In those cases, DPE provided a faster onset when converting cesarean anesthesia, compared with a standard epidural.

The takeaway from the current study is that DPE also provided “a faster onset and improved quality of anesthesia when compared to standard epidural for elective cesarean delivery,” Dr. Shawari said. However, additional research is needed to confirm the findings for intrapartum cesarean delivery.
 

Progress in improving pain control

“Adequate pain control during cesarean delivery is incredibly important,” Catherine Albright, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Inadequate pain control leads to the need to provide additional intravenous medications or the need to be put under general anesthesia, which changes the birth experience and is more dangerous for the birthing person and the neonate.

courtesy University of Washington

“In my clinical experience, there are many times when patients do not have adequate pain control during a cesarean delivery,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study. “I am pleased to see that there is research underway about how to best manage pain on labor and delivery, especially in the setting of conversion from labor anesthesia to cesarean anesthesia.”

The findings may have implications for clinical practice, said Dr. Albright. If the dural puncture epidural can improve cesarean anesthesia following an epidural during labor, rather than anesthesia provided for an elective cesarean), “then I believe it would reduce the number of patients who require additional pain medication, have a poor cesarean experience, and/or need to be put under general anesthesia.”

However, “as noted by the authors, additional research is needed to further determine possible risks and side effects from this technique, and also to ensure that it also works in the setting of labor, rather than for an elective cesarean,” Dr. Albright added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of dural-puncture epidural (DPE) shortened the onset time to surgical anesthesia by approximately 3 minutes, compared with standard epidural in patients undergoing cesarean delivery, based on data from 140 individuals.

DPE, while not new, has become more popular as an option for initiating labor analgesia, but data comparing DPE with standard epidural in conversion to surgical anesthesia for cesarean deliveries are limited, Nadir Sharawi, MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues wrote.

courtesy University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

DPE involves no injection of intrathecal drugs, and the potential advantages include easier translocation of epidural medications into the intrathecal space for improved analgesia, but the effects of DPE on the onset and reliability of surgical anesthesia remain unknown, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers randomized 70 women scheduled for cesarean delivery of singleton pregnancies to DPE and 70 to a standard epidural. The participants were aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of the 30.1 years; the study was conducted between April 2019 and October 2022 at a single center.

The primary outcome was the time to the loss of sharp sensation at T6, defined as “the start of epidural extension anesthesia (time zero on the stopwatch) to when the patient could no longer feel sharp sensation at T6 (assessed bilaterally at the midclavicular line),” the researchers wrote.

The onset time to surgical anesthesia was faster in the DPE group, compared with the standard group, with a median of 422 seconds versus 655 seconds.

A key secondary outcome was a composite measure of the quality of epidural anesthesia that included failure to achieve a T10 bilateral block preoperatively in the delivery room, failure to achieve a surgical block at T6 within 15 minutes of chloroprocaine administration, requirement for intraoperative analgesia, repeat neuraxial procedure, and conversion to general anesthesia. The composite rates of lower quality anesthesia were significantly less in the DPE group, compared with the standard group (15.7% vs. 36.3%; P = .007).

Additional secondary outcomes included maternal satisfaction and pain score during surgery, adverse events, opioid use in the first 24 hours, maternal vasopressor requirements, epidural block assessments, and neonatal outcomes. No significant differences in these outcomes were noted between the groups, and no instances of local anesthetic systemic toxicity or neurological complications were reported.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study population of women scheduled for cesarean delivery and not in labor, and the inability to detect less frequent complications such as post–dural-puncture headache and accidental dural puncture, the researchers noted.

In addition, the results may vary with the use of other combinations of local anesthetics and opioids. “Chloroprocaine was chosen in this study because of its ease of administration without the need for opioids and other additives along with the low risk of systemic toxic effects, which favors rapid administration for emergent cesarean delivery,” they wrote.

However, the results show an association between DPE within an hour of epidural extension for elective cesarean delivery and a faster onset of anesthesia, improved block quality, and a more favorable ratio of risks versus benefits, compared with the use of standard epidural, the researchers concluded.
 

No need for general anesthesia?

“There is controversy over whether the dural puncture epidural technique improves labor analgesia when compared to a standard epidural,” Dr. Shawari said in an interview. “However, there are limited data on whether the dural puncture epidural technique decreases the onset time to surgical anesthesia when compared to a standard epidural for cesarean delivery. This is important as a pre-existing epidural is commonly used to convert labor analgesia to surgical anesthesia in the setting of urgent cesarean delivery. A faster onset of epidural anesthesia could potentially avoid the need for general anesthesia in an emergency.”

The researchers were not surprised by the findings given their experience with performing dural puncture epidurals for labor analgesia, Dr. Shawari said. In those cases, DPE provided a faster onset when converting cesarean anesthesia, compared with a standard epidural.

The takeaway from the current study is that DPE also provided “a faster onset and improved quality of anesthesia when compared to standard epidural for elective cesarean delivery,” Dr. Shawari said. However, additional research is needed to confirm the findings for intrapartum cesarean delivery.
 

Progress in improving pain control

“Adequate pain control during cesarean delivery is incredibly important,” Catherine Albright, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “Inadequate pain control leads to the need to provide additional intravenous medications or the need to be put under general anesthesia, which changes the birth experience and is more dangerous for the birthing person and the neonate.

courtesy University of Washington

“In my clinical experience, there are many times when patients do not have adequate pain control during a cesarean delivery,” said Dr. Albright, who was not involved in the current study. “I am pleased to see that there is research underway about how to best manage pain on labor and delivery, especially in the setting of conversion from labor anesthesia to cesarean anesthesia.”

The findings may have implications for clinical practice, said Dr. Albright. If the dural puncture epidural can improve cesarean anesthesia following an epidural during labor, rather than anesthesia provided for an elective cesarean), “then I believe it would reduce the number of patients who require additional pain medication, have a poor cesarean experience, and/or need to be put under general anesthesia.”

However, “as noted by the authors, additional research is needed to further determine possible risks and side effects from this technique, and also to ensure that it also works in the setting of labor, rather than for an elective cesarean,” Dr. Albright added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Albright had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A new lawsuit alleges that Cigna uses artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to inappropriately deny “hundreds or thousands” of claims at a time, bypassing legal requirements to complete individual claim reviews and forcing providers to bill patients in full.

In a complaint filed recently in California’s eastern district court, plaintiffs and Cigna health plan members Suzanne Kisting-Leung and Ayesha Smiley and their attorneys say that Cigna violates state insurance regulations by failing to conduct a “thorough, fair, and objective” review of their and other members’ claims.

The lawsuit says that, instead, Cigna relies on an algorithm, PxDx, to review and frequently deny medically necessary claims. According to court records, the system allows Cigna’s doctors to “instantly reject claims on medical grounds without ever opening patient files.” With use of the system, the average claims processing time is 1.2 seconds.

Cigna says it uses technology to verify coding on standard, low-cost procedures and to expedite physician reimbursement. In a statement to CBS News, the company called the lawsuit “highly questionable.”

The case highlights growing concerns about AI and its ability to replace humans for tasks and interactions in health care, business, and beyond. Public advocacy law firm Clarkson, which is representing the plaintiffs, has previously sued tech giants Google and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for harvesting Internet users’ personal and professional data to train their AI systems.

According to the complaint, Cigna denied the plaintiffs medically necessary tests, including blood work to screen for vitamin D deficiency and ultrasounds for patients suspected of having ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs’ attempts to appeal were unfruitful, and they were forced to pay out of pocket.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that the claims do not undergo more detailed reviews by physicians and employees, as mandated by California insurance laws, and that Cigna benefits by saving on labor costs.

Clarkson is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to certify the Cigna case as a federal class action, potentially allowing the insurer’s other 2 million health plan members in California to join the lawsuit.

I. Glenn Cohen, JD, deputy dean and professor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview that this is the first lawsuit he’s aware of in which AI was involved in denying health insurance claims and that it is probably an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.

“In the last 25 years, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions have made getting a class action approved more difficult. If allowed to go forward as a class action, which Cigna is likely to vigorously oppose, then the pressure on Cigna to settle the case becomes enormous,” he said.

The allegations come after a recent deep dive by the nonprofit ProPublica uncovered similar claim denial issues. One physician who worked for Cigna told the nonprofit that he and other company doctors essentially rubber-stamped the denials in batches, which took “all of 10 seconds to do 50 at a time.”

In 2022, the American Medical Association and two state physician groups joined another class action against Cigna stemming from allegations that the insurer’s intermediary, Multiplan, intentionally underpaid medical claims. And in March, Cigna’s pharmacy benefit manager, Express Scripts, was accused of conspiring with other PBMs to drive up prescription drug prices for Ohio consumers, violating state antitrust laws.

Mr. Cohen said he expects Cigna to push back in court about the California class size, which the plaintiff’s attorneys hope will encompass all Cigna health plan members in the state.

“The injury is primarily to those whose claims were denied by AI, presumably a much smaller set of individuals and harder to identify,” said Mr. Cohen.

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

A new lawsuit alleges that Cigna uses artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to inappropriately deny “hundreds or thousands” of claims at a time, bypassing legal requirements to complete individual claim reviews and forcing providers to bill patients in full.

In a complaint filed recently in California’s eastern district court, plaintiffs and Cigna health plan members Suzanne Kisting-Leung and Ayesha Smiley and their attorneys say that Cigna violates state insurance regulations by failing to conduct a “thorough, fair, and objective” review of their and other members’ claims.

The lawsuit says that, instead, Cigna relies on an algorithm, PxDx, to review and frequently deny medically necessary claims. According to court records, the system allows Cigna’s doctors to “instantly reject claims on medical grounds without ever opening patient files.” With use of the system, the average claims processing time is 1.2 seconds.

Cigna says it uses technology to verify coding on standard, low-cost procedures and to expedite physician reimbursement. In a statement to CBS News, the company called the lawsuit “highly questionable.”

The case highlights growing concerns about AI and its ability to replace humans for tasks and interactions in health care, business, and beyond. Public advocacy law firm Clarkson, which is representing the plaintiffs, has previously sued tech giants Google and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for harvesting Internet users’ personal and professional data to train their AI systems.

According to the complaint, Cigna denied the plaintiffs medically necessary tests, including blood work to screen for vitamin D deficiency and ultrasounds for patients suspected of having ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs’ attempts to appeal were unfruitful, and they were forced to pay out of pocket.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that the claims do not undergo more detailed reviews by physicians and employees, as mandated by California insurance laws, and that Cigna benefits by saving on labor costs.

Clarkson is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to certify the Cigna case as a federal class action, potentially allowing the insurer’s other 2 million health plan members in California to join the lawsuit.

I. Glenn Cohen, JD, deputy dean and professor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview that this is the first lawsuit he’s aware of in which AI was involved in denying health insurance claims and that it is probably an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.

“In the last 25 years, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions have made getting a class action approved more difficult. If allowed to go forward as a class action, which Cigna is likely to vigorously oppose, then the pressure on Cigna to settle the case becomes enormous,” he said.

The allegations come after a recent deep dive by the nonprofit ProPublica uncovered similar claim denial issues. One physician who worked for Cigna told the nonprofit that he and other company doctors essentially rubber-stamped the denials in batches, which took “all of 10 seconds to do 50 at a time.”

In 2022, the American Medical Association and two state physician groups joined another class action against Cigna stemming from allegations that the insurer’s intermediary, Multiplan, intentionally underpaid medical claims. And in March, Cigna’s pharmacy benefit manager, Express Scripts, was accused of conspiring with other PBMs to drive up prescription drug prices for Ohio consumers, violating state antitrust laws.

Mr. Cohen said he expects Cigna to push back in court about the California class size, which the plaintiff’s attorneys hope will encompass all Cigna health plan members in the state.

“The injury is primarily to those whose claims were denied by AI, presumably a much smaller set of individuals and harder to identify,” said Mr. Cohen.

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

A new lawsuit alleges that Cigna uses artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to inappropriately deny “hundreds or thousands” of claims at a time, bypassing legal requirements to complete individual claim reviews and forcing providers to bill patients in full.

In a complaint filed recently in California’s eastern district court, plaintiffs and Cigna health plan members Suzanne Kisting-Leung and Ayesha Smiley and their attorneys say that Cigna violates state insurance regulations by failing to conduct a “thorough, fair, and objective” review of their and other members’ claims.

The lawsuit says that, instead, Cigna relies on an algorithm, PxDx, to review and frequently deny medically necessary claims. According to court records, the system allows Cigna’s doctors to “instantly reject claims on medical grounds without ever opening patient files.” With use of the system, the average claims processing time is 1.2 seconds.

Cigna says it uses technology to verify coding on standard, low-cost procedures and to expedite physician reimbursement. In a statement to CBS News, the company called the lawsuit “highly questionable.”

The case highlights growing concerns about AI and its ability to replace humans for tasks and interactions in health care, business, and beyond. Public advocacy law firm Clarkson, which is representing the plaintiffs, has previously sued tech giants Google and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for harvesting Internet users’ personal and professional data to train their AI systems.

According to the complaint, Cigna denied the plaintiffs medically necessary tests, including blood work to screen for vitamin D deficiency and ultrasounds for patients suspected of having ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs’ attempts to appeal were unfruitful, and they were forced to pay out of pocket.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that the claims do not undergo more detailed reviews by physicians and employees, as mandated by California insurance laws, and that Cigna benefits by saving on labor costs.

Clarkson is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to certify the Cigna case as a federal class action, potentially allowing the insurer’s other 2 million health plan members in California to join the lawsuit.

I. Glenn Cohen, JD, deputy dean and professor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview that this is the first lawsuit he’s aware of in which AI was involved in denying health insurance claims and that it is probably an uphill battle for the plaintiffs.

“In the last 25 years, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions have made getting a class action approved more difficult. If allowed to go forward as a class action, which Cigna is likely to vigorously oppose, then the pressure on Cigna to settle the case becomes enormous,” he said.

The allegations come after a recent deep dive by the nonprofit ProPublica uncovered similar claim denial issues. One physician who worked for Cigna told the nonprofit that he and other company doctors essentially rubber-stamped the denials in batches, which took “all of 10 seconds to do 50 at a time.”

In 2022, the American Medical Association and two state physician groups joined another class action against Cigna stemming from allegations that the insurer’s intermediary, Multiplan, intentionally underpaid medical claims. And in March, Cigna’s pharmacy benefit manager, Express Scripts, was accused of conspiring with other PBMs to drive up prescription drug prices for Ohio consumers, violating state antitrust laws.

Mr. Cohen said he expects Cigna to push back in court about the California class size, which the plaintiff’s attorneys hope will encompass all Cigna health plan members in the state.

“The injury is primarily to those whose claims were denied by AI, presumably a much smaller set of individuals and harder to identify,” said Mr. Cohen.

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

Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”

After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.

“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.

When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”

The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.

Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.

Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.

African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.

“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.

She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.

But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”

Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.

California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.

The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.

“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.

“Your hair tells a story,” she said.

In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.

“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”

The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.

Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.

In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.

A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.

Researchers did test it in 2020.

The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.

Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.

Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.

After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.

“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”

No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.

The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”

Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.

“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”

Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.

“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.

Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.

In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.

Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.

She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.

Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”

Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.

“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”

After emergency surgery to remove the mass, along with her ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, and appendix, Ms. Hughes said, she saw an Instagram post in which a woman with uterine cancer linked her condition to chemical hair straighteners.

“I almost fell over,” she said from her home in Smyrna, Ga.

When Ms. Hughes was about 4, her mother began applying a chemical straightener, or relaxer, to her hair every 6-8 weeks. “It burned, and it smelled awful,” Ms. Hughes recalled. “But it was just part of our routine to ‘deal with my hair.’ ”

The routine continued until she went to college and met other Black women who wore their hair naturally. Soon, Ms. Hughes quit relaxers.

Social and economic pressures have long compelled Black girls and women to straighten their hair to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. But chemical straighteners are stinky and costly and sometimes cause painful scalp burns. Mounting evidence now shows they could be a health hazard.

Relaxers can contain carcinogens, such as formaldehyde-releasing agents, phthalates, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, according to National Institutes of Health studies. The compounds can mimic the body’s hormones and have been linked to breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers, studies show.

African American women’s often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill disproportionately more Black than White women, say researchers and cancer doctors.

“What’s in these products is harmful,” said Tamarra James-Todd, PhD, an epidemiology professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, who has studied straightening products for the past 20 years.

She believes manufacturers, policymakers, and physicians should warn consumers that relaxers might cause cancer and other health problems.

But regulators have been slow to act, physicians have been reluctant to take up the cause, and racism continues to dictate fashion standards that make it tough for women to quit relaxers, products so addictive they’re known as “creamy crack.”

Michelle Obama straightened her hair when Barack Obama served as president because she believed Americans were “not ready” to see her in braids, the former first lady said after leaving the White House. The U.S. military still prohibited popular Black hairstyles such as dreadlocks and twists while the nation’s first Black president was in office.

California in 2019 became the first of nearly two dozen states to ban race-based hair discrimination. Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation, known as the CROWN Act, for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. But the bill failed in the Senate.

The need for legislation underscores the challenges Black girls and women face at school and in the workplace.

“You have to pick your struggles,” said Atlanta-based surgical oncologist Ryland J. Gore, MD. She informs her breast cancer patients about the increased cancer risk from relaxers. Despite her knowledge, however, Dr. Gore continues to use chemical straighteners on her own hair, as she has since she was about 7 years old.

“Your hair tells a story,” she said.

In conversations with patients, Dr. Gore sometimes talks about how African American women once wove messages into their braids about the route to take on the Underground Railroad as they sought freedom from slavery.

“It’s just a deep discussion,” one that touches on culture, history, and research into current hairstyling practices, she said. “The data is out there. So patients should be warned, and then they can make a decision.”

The first hint of a connection between hair products and health issues surfaced in the 1990s. Doctors began seeing signs of sexual maturation in Black babies and young girls who developed breasts and pubic hair after using shampoo containing estrogen or placental extract. When the girls stopped using the shampoo, the hair and breast development receded, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics in 1998.

Since then, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers have linked chemicals in hair products to a variety of health issues more prevalent among Black women – from early puberty to preterm birth, obesity, and diabetes.

In recent years, researchers have focused on a possible connection between ingredients in chemical relaxers and hormone-related cancers, like the one Ms. Hughes developed, which tend to be more aggressive and deadly in Black women.

A 2017 study found White women who used chemical relaxers were nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as those who did not use them. Because the vast majority of the Black study participants used relaxers, researchers could not effectively test the association in Black women, said lead author Adana Llanos, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, New York.

Researchers did test it in 2020.

The so-called Sister Study, a landmark National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences investigation into the causes of breast cancer and related diseases, followed 50,000 U.S. women whose sisters had been diagnosed with breast cancer and who were cancer-free when they enrolled. Regardless of race, women who reported using relaxers in the prior year were 18% more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who used relaxers at least every 5-8 weeks had a 31% higher breast cancer risk.

Nearly 75% of the Black sisters used relaxers in the prior year, compared with 3% of the non-Hispanic White sisters. Three-quarters of Black women self-reported using the straighteners as adolescents, and frequent use of chemical straighteners during adolescence raised the risk of premenopausal breast cancer, a 2021 NIH-funded study in the International Journal of Cancer found.

Another 2021 analysis of the Sister Study data showed sisters who self-reported that they frequently used relaxers or pressing products doubled their ovarian cancer risk. In 2022, another study found frequent use more than doubled uterine cancer risk.

After researchers discovered the link with uterine cancer, some called for policy changes and other measures to reduce exposure to chemical relaxers.

“It is time to intervene,” Dr. Llanos and her colleagues wrote in a Journal of the National Cancer Institute editorial accompanying the uterine cancer analysis. While acknowledging the need for more research, they issued a “call for action.”

No one can say that using permanent hair straighteners will give you cancer, Dr. Llanos said in an interview. “That’s not how cancer works,” she said, noting that some smokers never develop lung cancer, despite tobacco use being a known risk factor.

The body of research linking hair straighteners and cancer is more limited, said Dr. Llanos, who quit using chemical relaxers 15 years ago. But, she asked rhetorically, “Do we need to do the research for 50 more years to know that chemical relaxers are harmful?”

Charlotte R. Gamble, MD, a gynecological oncologist whose Washington, D.C., practice includes Black women with uterine and ovarian cancer, said she and her colleagues see the uterine cancer study findings as worthy of further exploration – but not yet worthy of discussion with patients.

“The jury’s out for me personally,” she said. “There’s so much more data that’s needed.”

Meanwhile, Dr. James-Todd and other researchers believe they have built a solid body of evidence.

“There are enough things we do know to begin taking action, developing interventions, providing useful information to clinicians and patients and the general public,” said Traci N. Bethea, PhD, assistant professor in the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Research at Georgetown University.

Responsibility for regulating personal-care products, including chemical hair straighteners and hair dyes – which also have been linked to hormone-related cancers – lies with the Food and Drug Administration. But the FDA does not subject personal-care products to the same approval process it uses for food and drugs. The FDA restricts only 11 categories of chemicals used in cosmetics, while concerns about health effects have prompted the European Union to restrict the use of at least 2,400 substances.

In March, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) asked the FDA to investigate the potential health threat posed by chemical relaxers. An FDA representative said the agency would look into it.

Natural hairstyles are enjoying a resurgence among Black girls and women, but many continue to rely on the creamy crack, said Dede Teteh, DrPH, assistant professor of public health at Chapman University, Irvine, Calif.

She had her first straightening perm at 8 and has struggled to withdraw from relaxers as an adult, said Dr. Teteh, who now wears locs. Not long ago, she considered chemically straightening her hair for an academic job interview because she didn’t want her hair to “be a hindrance” when she appeared before White professors.

Dr. Teteh led “The Cost of Beauty,” a hair-health research project published in 2017. She and her team interviewed 91 Black women in Southern California. Some became “combative” at the idea of quitting relaxers and claimed “everything can cause cancer.”

Their reactions speak to the challenges Black women face in America, Dr. Teteh said.

“It’s not that people do not want to hear the information related to their health,” she said. “But they want people to share the information in a way that it’s really empathetic to the plight of being Black here in the United States.”
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Deanna Denham Hughes was stunned when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2022. She was only 32. She had no family history of cancer, and tests found no genetic link. Ms. Hughes wondered why she, an otherwise healthy Black mother of two, would develop a malignancy known as a “silent killer.”