MDedge Endocrinology

A new lawsuit seeking to force the Food and Drug Administration to act on a request to add stricter warnings to finasteride or remove it from the market may rekindle a debate on whether some of the observed side effects from the hair loss drug merit a closer look and, potentially, better counseling and monitoring from clinicians.

The nonprofit advocacy group Public Citizen filed the suit on behalf of the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (PFSF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The PFSF had filed a citizen’s petition in 2017 that requested that the FDA either take the 1-mg formulation off the market, or add warnings about the potential for erectile dysfunction, depression, and suicidal ideation, among other adverse reactions.

The PFSF has alleged that long-term use of Propecia (and its generic equivalents) can lead to postfinasteride syndrome (PFS), characterized by sexual dysfunction and psycho-neurocognitive symptoms. The symptoms may continue long after men stop taking the drug, according to PFSF.

Public Citizen said the FDA needs to take action in part because U.S. prescriptions of the hair loss formulation “more than doubled from 2015 to 2020,” and online and telemedicine companies such as Hims, Roman, and Keeps “aggressively market and sell generic finasteride for hair loss.” According to GoodRx, a 1-month supply of generic 1-mg tablets costs as little as $8-$10.

Both Canadian and British regulatory authorities have added warnings about depression and suicide to the Propecia label but the FDA has not changed its labeling. An agency spokesperson told this news organization that the “FDA does not comment on the status of pending citizen petitions or on pending litigation.”

Propecia’s developer, Merck, has not responded to several requests for comment from this news organization.

Why some patients develop PFS and others do not is still not understood, but some clinicians said they counsel all patients on the risks of severe and persistent side effects that have been associated with Propecia.

Robert M. Bernstein, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University, New York, and a fellow of the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery, said that 2%-4% of his patients have some side effects, similar to the original reported incidence, with sexual dysfunction being the most common.

If a man experiences an adverse effect, the drug should be stopped, Dr. Bernstein said in an interview. He noted that “there seems to be a significant increased risk of persistent side effects in people with certain psychiatric conditions, and those people should be counseled carefully before considering the medication.”

“Everybody should be warned that the risk of persistent side effects is real but in the average person it is quite uncommon,” added Dr. Bernstein, founder of Bernstein Medical, a division of Schweiger Dermatology Group focusing on the diagnosis and treatment of hair loss. “I don’t think it should be withdrawn from the market,” he said.

Other countries warn of psychiatric effects

The FDA approved the 1-mg form of finasteride for male pattern hair loss in 1997.

In 2012, the label and the patient insert were updated to state that side effects included less desire for sex, erectile dysfunction, and a decrease in the amount of semen produced, but that those adverse events occurred in less than 2% of men and generally went away in most men who stopped taking the drug.

That label change unleashed a flood of more than 1,000 lawsuits against Merck. The company reportedly settled at least half of them for $4.3 million in 2018. The Superior Court of New Jersey closed out the consolidated class action against Merck in May 2021, noting that all of the cases had been settled or dismissed.

The suits generally accused Merck of not giving adequate warning about sexual side effects, according to an investigation by Reuters. That 2019 special report found that Merck had understated the number of men who experienced sexual side effects and the duration of those symptoms. The news organization also reported that from 2009 to 2018, the FDA received 5,000 reports of sexual or mental health side effects – and sometimes both – in men who took finasteride. Some 350 of the men reported suicidal thoughts, and there were 50 reports of suicide.

Public Citizen’s lawsuit alleges that VigiBase, which is managed by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, lists 378 cases of suicidal ideation, 39 cases of suicide attempt, and 88 cases of completed suicide associated with finasteride use. VigiBase collects data from 153 countries on adverse reactions to medications.

In February 2021, more documents from the class action lawsuits were unsealed in response to a Reuters request. According to the news organization, the documents showed that Merck knew of reports of depression, including suicidal thoughts, as early as 2009.

However, according to Reuters, the FDA in 2011 granted Merck’s request to only note depression as a potential side effect, without including the risk of suicidal ideation.

The current FDA label notes a small incidence of sexual dysfunction, including decreased libido (1.8% in trials) and erectile dysfunction (1.3%) and mentions depression as a side effect observed during the postmarketing period.

The Canadian label has the same statistics on sexual side effects but is much stronger on mental adverse effects: “Psychiatric disorders: mood alterations and depression, decreased libido that continued after discontinuation of treatment. Mood alterations including depressed mood and, less frequently, suicidal ideation have been reported in patients treated with finasteride 1 mg. Patients should be monitored for psychiatric symptoms, and if these occur, the patient should be advised to seek medical advice.”

In the United Kingdom, patients prescribed the drug are given a leaflet, which notes that “Mood alterations such as depressed mood, depression and, less frequently, suicidal thoughts have been reported in patients treated with Propecia,” and advises patients to stop taking the drug if they experience any of those symptoms and to discuss it with their physician.

Public Citizen noted in its lawsuit that French and German drug regulators have sent letters to clinicians advising them to inform patients of the risk of suicidal thoughts and anxiety.

Is there biological plausibility?

To bolster its argument that finasteride has dangerous psychiatric side effects, the advocacy organization cited a study first published in JAMA Dermatology in late 2020 that investigated suicidality and psychological adverse events in patients taking finasteride.

David-Dan Nguyen, MPH, and his colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, McGill University, Montreal, and the University of Montreal, examined the VigiBase database and found 356 cases of suicidality and 2,926 psychological adverse events; cases were highest from 2015 to 2019.

They documented what they called a “significant disproportionality signal for suicidality (reporting odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.90-4.15) and psychological adverse events (ROR, 4.33; 95% CI, 4.17-4.49) with finasteride, especially in younger men and those with alopecia, but not in older men or those with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

The study authors noted that some studies have suggested that men with depression have low levels of the neurosteroid allopregnanolone, which is produced by the 5-alpha reductase enzyme. Finasteride is a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor.

According to Public Citizen’s lawsuit, “The product labeling does not disclose important information about finasteride’s mechanism of action,” and “the drug inhibits multiple steroid hormone pathways that are responsible for the formation of brain neurosteroids that regulate many critical functions in the central nervous system, like sexual function, mood, sleep, cognitive function, the stress response, and motivation.”

Dr. Jacobs said that “there’s a lot of good solid high-quality research, mostly in animals, but also some on humans, showing a plausible link between blocking 5-alpha reductase in the brain, deficiency of neuroactive steroids, and depression.”

The author of an accompanying editorial, Roger S. Ho, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the department of dermatology, New York University, was skeptical. “Without a plausible biological hypothesis pharmacodynamically linking the drug and the reported adverse event, this kind of analysis may lead to false findings,” Dr. Ho said in the editorial about the Nguyen study.

Dr. Ho also wrote that he believed that the lack of a suicidality signal for dutasteride, a drug with a similar mechanism of action, but without as much media attention, “hints at a potential reporting bias unique to finasteride.”

He recommended that clinicians “conduct a full evaluation and a detailed, personalized risk-benefit assessment for patients before each prescription of finasteride.”
 

Important medicine, important caveats

Dr. Jacobs said that many of the men who come to him with side effects after taking finasteride have “been blown off by most of the doctors they go to see.”

Urologists dismiss them because their sexual dysfunction is not a gonad issue. They are told that it’s in their head, said Dr. Jacobs, adding that, “it is in their head, but it’s biological.”

The drug’s label advises that sexual side effects disappear when the drug is stopped. “That’s only true most of the time, not all of the time,” said Dr. Jacobs, adding that the persistence of any side effects impacts what he calls a “small subset” of men who take the drug.

“We have treated tens of thousands of patients who have benefited from the medicine and had no side effects,” said Dr. Bernstein. “But there is a lot that’s still not known about it.”

Even so, “baldness in young people is not a benign condition,” he said, adding that it can be socially debilitating. “An 18-year-old with a full head of thick hair who’s totally bald in 3 or 4 years – that can totally change his psyche,” Dr. Bernstein said. Finasteride may be the best option for those young men, and it is an important medication, he said. Does it need to be used more carefully? “Certainly you can’t argue with that,” he commented.

Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Irwig reported no conflicts. Dr. Jacobs disclosed that he is an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a suit against Propecia maker Merck.

A new lawsuit seeking to force the Food and Drug Administration to act on a request to add stricter warnings to finasteride or remove it from the market may rekindle a debate on whether some of the observed side effects from the hair loss drug merit a closer look and, potentially, better counseling and monitoring from clinicians.

The nonprofit advocacy group Public Citizen filed the suit on behalf of the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (PFSF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The PFSF had filed a citizen’s petition in 2017 that requested that the FDA either take the 1-mg formulation off the market, or add warnings about the potential for erectile dysfunction, depression, and suicidal ideation, among other adverse reactions.

The PFSF has alleged that long-term use of Propecia (and its generic equivalents) can lead to postfinasteride syndrome (PFS), characterized by sexual dysfunction and psycho-neurocognitive symptoms. The symptoms may continue long after men stop taking the drug, according to PFSF.

Public Citizen said the FDA needs to take action in part because U.S. prescriptions of the hair loss formulation “more than doubled from 2015 to 2020,” and online and telemedicine companies such as Hims, Roman, and Keeps “aggressively market and sell generic finasteride for hair loss.” According to GoodRx, a 1-month supply of generic 1-mg tablets costs as little as $8-$10.

Both Canadian and British regulatory authorities have added warnings about depression and suicide to the Propecia label but the FDA has not changed its labeling. An agency spokesperson told this news organization that the “FDA does not comment on the status of pending citizen petitions or on pending litigation.”

Propecia’s developer, Merck, has not responded to several requests for comment from this news organization.

Why some patients develop PFS and others do not is still not understood, but some clinicians said they counsel all patients on the risks of severe and persistent side effects that have been associated with Propecia.

Robert M. Bernstein, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University, New York, and a fellow of the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery, said that 2%-4% of his patients have some side effects, similar to the original reported incidence, with sexual dysfunction being the most common.

If a man experiences an adverse effect, the drug should be stopped, Dr. Bernstein said in an interview. He noted that “there seems to be a significant increased risk of persistent side effects in people with certain psychiatric conditions, and those people should be counseled carefully before considering the medication.”

“Everybody should be warned that the risk of persistent side effects is real but in the average person it is quite uncommon,” added Dr. Bernstein, founder of Bernstein Medical, a division of Schweiger Dermatology Group focusing on the diagnosis and treatment of hair loss. “I don’t think it should be withdrawn from the market,” he said.

Other countries warn of psychiatric effects

The FDA approved the 1-mg form of finasteride for male pattern hair loss in 1997.

In 2012, the label and the patient insert were updated to state that side effects included less desire for sex, erectile dysfunction, and a decrease in the amount of semen produced, but that those adverse events occurred in less than 2% of men and generally went away in most men who stopped taking the drug.

That label change unleashed a flood of more than 1,000 lawsuits against Merck. The company reportedly settled at least half of them for $4.3 million in 2018. The Superior Court of New Jersey closed out the consolidated class action against Merck in May 2021, noting that all of the cases had been settled or dismissed.

The suits generally accused Merck of not giving adequate warning about sexual side effects, according to an investigation by Reuters. That 2019 special report found that Merck had understated the number of men who experienced sexual side effects and the duration of those symptoms. The news organization also reported that from 2009 to 2018, the FDA received 5,000 reports of sexual or mental health side effects – and sometimes both – in men who took finasteride. Some 350 of the men reported suicidal thoughts, and there were 50 reports of suicide.

Public Citizen’s lawsuit alleges that VigiBase, which is managed by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, lists 378 cases of suicidal ideation, 39 cases of suicide attempt, and 88 cases of completed suicide associated with finasteride use. VigiBase collects data from 153 countries on adverse reactions to medications.

In February 2021, more documents from the class action lawsuits were unsealed in response to a Reuters request. According to the news organization, the documents showed that Merck knew of reports of depression, including suicidal thoughts, as early as 2009.

However, according to Reuters, the FDA in 2011 granted Merck’s request to only note depression as a potential side effect, without including the risk of suicidal ideation.

The current FDA label notes a small incidence of sexual dysfunction, including decreased libido (1.8% in trials) and erectile dysfunction (1.3%) and mentions depression as a side effect observed during the postmarketing period.

The Canadian label has the same statistics on sexual side effects but is much stronger on mental adverse effects: “Psychiatric disorders: mood alterations and depression, decreased libido that continued after discontinuation of treatment. Mood alterations including depressed mood and, less frequently, suicidal ideation have been reported in patients treated with finasteride 1 mg. Patients should be monitored for psychiatric symptoms, and if these occur, the patient should be advised to seek medical advice.”

In the United Kingdom, patients prescribed the drug are given a leaflet, which notes that “Mood alterations such as depressed mood, depression and, less frequently, suicidal thoughts have been reported in patients treated with Propecia,” and advises patients to stop taking the drug if they experience any of those symptoms and to discuss it with their physician.

Public Citizen noted in its lawsuit that French and German drug regulators have sent letters to clinicians advising them to inform patients of the risk of suicidal thoughts and anxiety.

Is there biological plausibility?

To bolster its argument that finasteride has dangerous psychiatric side effects, the advocacy organization cited a study first published in JAMA Dermatology in late 2020 that investigated suicidality and psychological adverse events in patients taking finasteride.

David-Dan Nguyen, MPH, and his colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, McGill University, Montreal, and the University of Montreal, examined the VigiBase database and found 356 cases of suicidality and 2,926 psychological adverse events; cases were highest from 2015 to 2019.

They documented what they called a “significant disproportionality signal for suicidality (reporting odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.90-4.15) and psychological adverse events (ROR, 4.33; 95% CI, 4.17-4.49) with finasteride, especially in younger men and those with alopecia, but not in older men or those with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

The study authors noted that some studies have suggested that men with depression have low levels of the neurosteroid allopregnanolone, which is produced by the 5-alpha reductase enzyme. Finasteride is a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor.

According to Public Citizen’s lawsuit, “The product labeling does not disclose important information about finasteride’s mechanism of action,” and “the drug inhibits multiple steroid hormone pathways that are responsible for the formation of brain neurosteroids that regulate many critical functions in the central nervous system, like sexual function, mood, sleep, cognitive function, the stress response, and motivation.”

Dr. Jacobs said that “there’s a lot of good solid high-quality research, mostly in animals, but also some on humans, showing a plausible link between blocking 5-alpha reductase in the brain, deficiency of neuroactive steroids, and depression.”

The author of an accompanying editorial, Roger S. Ho, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the department of dermatology, New York University, was skeptical. “Without a plausible biological hypothesis pharmacodynamically linking the drug and the reported adverse event, this kind of analysis may lead to false findings,” Dr. Ho said in the editorial about the Nguyen study.

Dr. Ho also wrote that he believed that the lack of a suicidality signal for dutasteride, a drug with a similar mechanism of action, but without as much media attention, “hints at a potential reporting bias unique to finasteride.”

He recommended that clinicians “conduct a full evaluation and a detailed, personalized risk-benefit assessment for patients before each prescription of finasteride.”
 

Important medicine, important caveats

Dr. Jacobs said that many of the men who come to him with side effects after taking finasteride have “been blown off by most of the doctors they go to see.”

Urologists dismiss them because their sexual dysfunction is not a gonad issue. They are told that it’s in their head, said Dr. Jacobs, adding that, “it is in their head, but it’s biological.”

The drug’s label advises that sexual side effects disappear when the drug is stopped. “That’s only true most of the time, not all of the time,” said Dr. Jacobs, adding that the persistence of any side effects impacts what he calls a “small subset” of men who take the drug.

“We have treated tens of thousands of patients who have benefited from the medicine and had no side effects,” said Dr. Bernstein. “But there is a lot that’s still not known about it.”

Even so, “baldness in young people is not a benign condition,” he said, adding that it can be socially debilitating. “An 18-year-old with a full head of thick hair who’s totally bald in 3 or 4 years – that can totally change his psyche,” Dr. Bernstein said. Finasteride may be the best option for those young men, and it is an important medication, he said. Does it need to be used more carefully? “Certainly you can’t argue with that,” he commented.

Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Irwig reported no conflicts. Dr. Jacobs disclosed that he is an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a suit against Propecia maker Merck.

A new lawsuit seeking to force the Food and Drug Administration to act on a request to add stricter warnings to finasteride or remove it from the market may rekindle a debate on whether some of the observed side effects from the hair loss drug merit a closer look and, potentially, better counseling and monitoring from clinicians.

The nonprofit advocacy group Public Citizen filed the suit on behalf of the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (PFSF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The PFSF had filed a citizen’s petition in 2017 that requested that the FDA either take the 1-mg formulation off the market, or add warnings about the potential for erectile dysfunction, depression, and suicidal ideation, among other adverse reactions.

The PFSF has alleged that long-term use of Propecia (and its generic equivalents) can lead to postfinasteride syndrome (PFS), characterized by sexual dysfunction and psycho-neurocognitive symptoms. The symptoms may continue long after men stop taking the drug, according to PFSF.

Public Citizen said the FDA needs to take action in part because U.S. prescriptions of the hair loss formulation “more than doubled from 2015 to 2020,” and online and telemedicine companies such as Hims, Roman, and Keeps “aggressively market and sell generic finasteride for hair loss.” According to GoodRx, a 1-month supply of generic 1-mg tablets costs as little as $8-$10.

Both Canadian and British regulatory authorities have added warnings about depression and suicide to the Propecia label but the FDA has not changed its labeling. An agency spokesperson told this news organization that the “FDA does not comment on the status of pending citizen petitions or on pending litigation.”

Propecia’s developer, Merck, has not responded to several requests for comment from this news organization.

Why some patients develop PFS and others do not is still not understood, but some clinicians said they counsel all patients on the risks of severe and persistent side effects that have been associated with Propecia.

Robert M. Bernstein, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University, New York, and a fellow of the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery, said that 2%-4% of his patients have some side effects, similar to the original reported incidence, with sexual dysfunction being the most common.

If a man experiences an adverse effect, the drug should be stopped, Dr. Bernstein said in an interview. He noted that “there seems to be a significant increased risk of persistent side effects in people with certain psychiatric conditions, and those people should be counseled carefully before considering the medication.”

“Everybody should be warned that the risk of persistent side effects is real but in the average person it is quite uncommon,” added Dr. Bernstein, founder of Bernstein Medical, a division of Schweiger Dermatology Group focusing on the diagnosis and treatment of hair loss. “I don’t think it should be withdrawn from the market,” he said.

Other countries warn of psychiatric effects

The FDA approved the 1-mg form of finasteride for male pattern hair loss in 1997.

In 2012, the label and the patient insert were updated to state that side effects included less desire for sex, erectile dysfunction, and a decrease in the amount of semen produced, but that those adverse events occurred in less than 2% of men and generally went away in most men who stopped taking the drug.

That label change unleashed a flood of more than 1,000 lawsuits against Merck. The company reportedly settled at least half of them for $4.3 million in 2018. The Superior Court of New Jersey closed out the consolidated class action against Merck in May 2021, noting that all of the cases had been settled or dismissed.

The suits generally accused Merck of not giving adequate warning about sexual side effects, according to an investigation by Reuters. That 2019 special report found that Merck had understated the number of men who experienced sexual side effects and the duration of those symptoms. The news organization also reported that from 2009 to 2018, the FDA received 5,000 reports of sexual or mental health side effects – and sometimes both – in men who took finasteride. Some 350 of the men reported suicidal thoughts, and there were 50 reports of suicide.

Public Citizen’s lawsuit alleges that VigiBase, which is managed by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, lists 378 cases of suicidal ideation, 39 cases of suicide attempt, and 88 cases of completed suicide associated with finasteride use. VigiBase collects data from 153 countries on adverse reactions to medications.

In February 2021, more documents from the class action lawsuits were unsealed in response to a Reuters request. According to the news organization, the documents showed that Merck knew of reports of depression, including suicidal thoughts, as early as 2009.

However, according to Reuters, the FDA in 2011 granted Merck’s request to only note depression as a potential side effect, without including the risk of suicidal ideation.

The current FDA label notes a small incidence of sexual dysfunction, including decreased libido (1.8% in trials) and erectile dysfunction (1.3%) and mentions depression as a side effect observed during the postmarketing period.

The Canadian label has the same statistics on sexual side effects but is much stronger on mental adverse effects: “Psychiatric disorders: mood alterations and depression, decreased libido that continued after discontinuation of treatment. Mood alterations including depressed mood and, less frequently, suicidal ideation have been reported in patients treated with finasteride 1 mg. Patients should be monitored for psychiatric symptoms, and if these occur, the patient should be advised to seek medical advice.”

In the United Kingdom, patients prescribed the drug are given a leaflet, which notes that “Mood alterations such as depressed mood, depression and, less frequently, suicidal thoughts have been reported in patients treated with Propecia,” and advises patients to stop taking the drug if they experience any of those symptoms and to discuss it with their physician.

Public Citizen noted in its lawsuit that French and German drug regulators have sent letters to clinicians advising them to inform patients of the risk of suicidal thoughts and anxiety.

Is there biological plausibility?

To bolster its argument that finasteride has dangerous psychiatric side effects, the advocacy organization cited a study first published in JAMA Dermatology in late 2020 that investigated suicidality and psychological adverse events in patients taking finasteride.

David-Dan Nguyen, MPH, and his colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, McGill University, Montreal, and the University of Montreal, examined the VigiBase database and found 356 cases of suicidality and 2,926 psychological adverse events; cases were highest from 2015 to 2019.

They documented what they called a “significant disproportionality signal for suicidality (reporting odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 2.90-4.15) and psychological adverse events (ROR, 4.33; 95% CI, 4.17-4.49) with finasteride, especially in younger men and those with alopecia, but not in older men or those with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

The study authors noted that some studies have suggested that men with depression have low levels of the neurosteroid allopregnanolone, which is produced by the 5-alpha reductase enzyme. Finasteride is a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor.

According to Public Citizen’s lawsuit, “The product labeling does not disclose important information about finasteride’s mechanism of action,” and “the drug inhibits multiple steroid hormone pathways that are responsible for the formation of brain neurosteroids that regulate many critical functions in the central nervous system, like sexual function, mood, sleep, cognitive function, the stress response, and motivation.”

Dr. Jacobs said that “there’s a lot of good solid high-quality research, mostly in animals, but also some on humans, showing a plausible link between blocking 5-alpha reductase in the brain, deficiency of neuroactive steroids, and depression.”

The author of an accompanying editorial, Roger S. Ho, MD, MPH, an associate professor in the department of dermatology, New York University, was skeptical. “Without a plausible biological hypothesis pharmacodynamically linking the drug and the reported adverse event, this kind of analysis may lead to false findings,” Dr. Ho said in the editorial about the Nguyen study.

Dr. Ho also wrote that he believed that the lack of a suicidality signal for dutasteride, a drug with a similar mechanism of action, but without as much media attention, “hints at a potential reporting bias unique to finasteride.”

He recommended that clinicians “conduct a full evaluation and a detailed, personalized risk-benefit assessment for patients before each prescription of finasteride.”
 

Important medicine, important caveats

Dr. Jacobs said that many of the men who come to him with side effects after taking finasteride have “been blown off by most of the doctors they go to see.”

Urologists dismiss them because their sexual dysfunction is not a gonad issue. They are told that it’s in their head, said Dr. Jacobs, adding that, “it is in their head, but it’s biological.”

The drug’s label advises that sexual side effects disappear when the drug is stopped. “That’s only true most of the time, not all of the time,” said Dr. Jacobs, adding that the persistence of any side effects impacts what he calls a “small subset” of men who take the drug.

“We have treated tens of thousands of patients who have benefited from the medicine and had no side effects,” said Dr. Bernstein. “But there is a lot that’s still not known about it.”

Even so, “baldness in young people is not a benign condition,” he said, adding that it can be socially debilitating. “An 18-year-old with a full head of thick hair who’s totally bald in 3 or 4 years – that can totally change his psyche,” Dr. Bernstein said. Finasteride may be the best option for those young men, and it is an important medication, he said. Does it need to be used more carefully? “Certainly you can’t argue with that,” he commented.

Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Irwig reported no conflicts. Dr. Jacobs disclosed that he is an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a suit against Propecia maker Merck.

Cobra the dog has been hard at work at the Miami International Airport, sniffing masks proffered by American Airlines employees making their way through a security checkpoint. If she identifies a specific scent, she’ll let her handler know simply by sitting down. When this good girl sits, that means Cobra has detected an olfactory signal of the coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Cobra, a Belgian Malinois, is one of two canines – her partner is One Betta, a Dutch shepherd – working this checkpoint at Miami International. They are part of a pilot program with the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, using the detection dogs as a quick screen for people who have COVID-19.

Their detection rate is high, at more than 98%, and the program has been such a success that it’s being extended for another month at the airport.

If these two dogs continue to accurately detect COVID-19, they and other canines with similar training could be deployed to other places with lots of people coming and going at once, including other airports or even schools. In fact, COVID-sniffing dogs are in use in some university classrooms already.

But building up a big brigade of live animals as disease detectors involves some thorny issues, including where the animals retire once their careers are complete.

“When COVID first arose, we said let’s see if we can train these two dogs on either the virus or the odor of COVID-19,” says Kenneth Furton, PhD, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, provost, and executive vice president at Florida International University.

His team had completed a study with what he calls “medical detector dogs,” animals that might be able to detect the odor of someone having a seizure. That led them to see how well the animals could detect other kinds of disorders.

Training a dog to sniff out specific odors starts with getting them to understand the task in general. Dr. Furton says that the animals first are trained to grasp that their job is to detect one odor among many. Once the dogs grasp that, they can be trained on just about any specific odor.

In fact, in addition to detecting seizures, dogs reportedly have been able to identify diabetes and even some cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

Dr. Furton says he’s not aware of any previous use of dogs to screen for infectious disease. That may simply be because nothing recently has struck with the global ferocity of COVID, driving humans to turn to their best friends for help.

Cobra and One Betta got their start learning to identify the presence of laurel wilt, a fungus that attacks avocado trees and kills them, costing Florida growers millions. With that expertise under their collars, the two dogs need only a few weeks to get good at detecting other smells assigned to them.
 

Training the dogs, safely

To train Cobra and One Betta on COVID-19 odors, Dr. Furton’s team first acquired mask samples from people hospitalized with COVID and people who did not have the disease. In battling the viruses, people produce certain chemicals that they exhale every time they breathe. When Dr. Furton and his colleagues compared the exhaled components trapped in the masks, they found differences between masks from people with COVID and those without.

Having confirmed that exhalations can be COVID-specific, the research team trained four dogs – Cobra, One Betta, Hubble, and Max – to detect masks from people with COVID among an assortment of mask choices. Before this step, though, the researchers made sure that any trace of active virus was destroyed by ultraviolet light so that the dogs would not be infected.

Each time the dogs accurately selected a mask from a COVID patient, their reward was access to a favorite toy: A red ball to chew on. Although all four dogs performed very well, yes, they did, Cobra and One Betta showed the most accuracy, outperforming their training colleagues. From their training scores, Cobra ranked first, with 99.45% accuracy. Despite her name, says Dr. Furton, One Betta was “not one better,” coming in second at 98.1%, which is still quite high.

Both dogs are good at their airport screening duties. If one of them sits after sniffing a mask at the checkpoint, the next step is for the mask owner to be tested.

From Aug. 23 to Sept. 8, the two canines screened 1,093 people during 8 working days, alerting on only one case, according to Greg Chin, communications director for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. That person had tested positive for COVID 2 weeks earlier and was returning to work after quarantine, and their rapid test after the dog alerted was negative.

Dr. Furton says that there are some reports of dogs also alerting before tests can show a positive result, suggesting the dogs’ odor detection can be more precise. They hope to expand their study to see how tight the window of dog-based detection is.

For now, the detector dogs are doing so well that the program has been extended for 30 more days, Mr. Chin says.

As promising as this seems, using dogs for screening carries some logistical and ethical tangles. Training a canine army to deploy for high-volume detection points means that once the work is done, a whole lot of dogs will need a safe place to retire. In addition, the initial training takes several months, says Dr. Furton, whereas if a device were developed for screening, manufacturing could likely be ramped up quickly to meet demand.

The dogs might not need to retire right away, though.

“We envision that they could be redeployed to another type of detection for another infectious disease” if the need arises, Dr. Furton says. But in the end, when working with dogs, he says, there is “a moral connection that you don’t have to deal with using instruments.”

Although the pilot screening at Miami International is the first airport test, the dogs have also done this work in other venues, including at a state emergency operations center in Florida and in some university classrooms, says Dr. Furton.

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

Cobra the dog has been hard at work at the Miami International Airport, sniffing masks proffered by American Airlines employees making their way through a security checkpoint. If she identifies a specific scent, she’ll let her handler know simply by sitting down. When this good girl sits, that means Cobra has detected an olfactory signal of the coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Cobra, a Belgian Malinois, is one of two canines – her partner is One Betta, a Dutch shepherd – working this checkpoint at Miami International. They are part of a pilot program with the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, using the detection dogs as a quick screen for people who have COVID-19.

Their detection rate is high, at more than 98%, and the program has been such a success that it’s being extended for another month at the airport.

If these two dogs continue to accurately detect COVID-19, they and other canines with similar training could be deployed to other places with lots of people coming and going at once, including other airports or even schools. In fact, COVID-sniffing dogs are in use in some university classrooms already.

But building up a big brigade of live animals as disease detectors involves some thorny issues, including where the animals retire once their careers are complete.

“When COVID first arose, we said let’s see if we can train these two dogs on either the virus or the odor of COVID-19,” says Kenneth Furton, PhD, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, provost, and executive vice president at Florida International University.

His team had completed a study with what he calls “medical detector dogs,” animals that might be able to detect the odor of someone having a seizure. That led them to see how well the animals could detect other kinds of disorders.

Training a dog to sniff out specific odors starts with getting them to understand the task in general. Dr. Furton says that the animals first are trained to grasp that their job is to detect one odor among many. Once the dogs grasp that, they can be trained on just about any specific odor.

In fact, in addition to detecting seizures, dogs reportedly have been able to identify diabetes and even some cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

Dr. Furton says he’s not aware of any previous use of dogs to screen for infectious disease. That may simply be because nothing recently has struck with the global ferocity of COVID, driving humans to turn to their best friends for help.

Cobra and One Betta got their start learning to identify the presence of laurel wilt, a fungus that attacks avocado trees and kills them, costing Florida growers millions. With that expertise under their collars, the two dogs need only a few weeks to get good at detecting other smells assigned to them.
 

Training the dogs, safely

To train Cobra and One Betta on COVID-19 odors, Dr. Furton’s team first acquired mask samples from people hospitalized with COVID and people who did not have the disease. In battling the viruses, people produce certain chemicals that they exhale every time they breathe. When Dr. Furton and his colleagues compared the exhaled components trapped in the masks, they found differences between masks from people with COVID and those without.

Having confirmed that exhalations can be COVID-specific, the research team trained four dogs – Cobra, One Betta, Hubble, and Max – to detect masks from people with COVID among an assortment of mask choices. Before this step, though, the researchers made sure that any trace of active virus was destroyed by ultraviolet light so that the dogs would not be infected.

Each time the dogs accurately selected a mask from a COVID patient, their reward was access to a favorite toy: A red ball to chew on. Although all four dogs performed very well, yes, they did, Cobra and One Betta showed the most accuracy, outperforming their training colleagues. From their training scores, Cobra ranked first, with 99.45% accuracy. Despite her name, says Dr. Furton, One Betta was “not one better,” coming in second at 98.1%, which is still quite high.

Both dogs are good at their airport screening duties. If one of them sits after sniffing a mask at the checkpoint, the next step is for the mask owner to be tested.

From Aug. 23 to Sept. 8, the two canines screened 1,093 people during 8 working days, alerting on only one case, according to Greg Chin, communications director for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. That person had tested positive for COVID 2 weeks earlier and was returning to work after quarantine, and their rapid test after the dog alerted was negative.

Dr. Furton says that there are some reports of dogs also alerting before tests can show a positive result, suggesting the dogs’ odor detection can be more precise. They hope to expand their study to see how tight the window of dog-based detection is.

For now, the detector dogs are doing so well that the program has been extended for 30 more days, Mr. Chin says.

As promising as this seems, using dogs for screening carries some logistical and ethical tangles. Training a canine army to deploy for high-volume detection points means that once the work is done, a whole lot of dogs will need a safe place to retire. In addition, the initial training takes several months, says Dr. Furton, whereas if a device were developed for screening, manufacturing could likely be ramped up quickly to meet demand.

The dogs might not need to retire right away, though.

“We envision that they could be redeployed to another type of detection for another infectious disease” if the need arises, Dr. Furton says. But in the end, when working with dogs, he says, there is “a moral connection that you don’t have to deal with using instruments.”

Although the pilot screening at Miami International is the first airport test, the dogs have also done this work in other venues, including at a state emergency operations center in Florida and in some university classrooms, says Dr. Furton.

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

Cobra the dog has been hard at work at the Miami International Airport, sniffing masks proffered by American Airlines employees making their way through a security checkpoint. If she identifies a specific scent, she’ll let her handler know simply by sitting down. When this good girl sits, that means Cobra has detected an olfactory signal of the coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Cobra, a Belgian Malinois, is one of two canines – her partner is One Betta, a Dutch shepherd – working this checkpoint at Miami International. They are part of a pilot program with the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, using the detection dogs as a quick screen for people who have COVID-19.

Their detection rate is high, at more than 98%, and the program has been such a success that it’s being extended for another month at the airport.

If these two dogs continue to accurately detect COVID-19, they and other canines with similar training could be deployed to other places with lots of people coming and going at once, including other airports or even schools. In fact, COVID-sniffing dogs are in use in some university classrooms already.

But building up a big brigade of live animals as disease detectors involves some thorny issues, including where the animals retire once their careers are complete.

“When COVID first arose, we said let’s see if we can train these two dogs on either the virus or the odor of COVID-19,” says Kenneth Furton, PhD, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, provost, and executive vice president at Florida International University.

His team had completed a study with what he calls “medical detector dogs,” animals that might be able to detect the odor of someone having a seizure. That led them to see how well the animals could detect other kinds of disorders.

Training a dog to sniff out specific odors starts with getting them to understand the task in general. Dr. Furton says that the animals first are trained to grasp that their job is to detect one odor among many. Once the dogs grasp that, they can be trained on just about any specific odor.

In fact, in addition to detecting seizures, dogs reportedly have been able to identify diabetes and even some cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

Dr. Furton says he’s not aware of any previous use of dogs to screen for infectious disease. That may simply be because nothing recently has struck with the global ferocity of COVID, driving humans to turn to their best friends for help.

Cobra and One Betta got their start learning to identify the presence of laurel wilt, a fungus that attacks avocado trees and kills them, costing Florida growers millions. With that expertise under their collars, the two dogs need only a few weeks to get good at detecting other smells assigned to them.
 

Training the dogs, safely

To train Cobra and One Betta on COVID-19 odors, Dr. Furton’s team first acquired mask samples from people hospitalized with COVID and people who did not have the disease. In battling the viruses, people produce certain chemicals that they exhale every time they breathe. When Dr. Furton and his colleagues compared the exhaled components trapped in the masks, they found differences between masks from people with COVID and those without.

Having confirmed that exhalations can be COVID-specific, the research team trained four dogs – Cobra, One Betta, Hubble, and Max – to detect masks from people with COVID among an assortment of mask choices. Before this step, though, the researchers made sure that any trace of active virus was destroyed by ultraviolet light so that the dogs would not be infected.

Each time the dogs accurately selected a mask from a COVID patient, their reward was access to a favorite toy: A red ball to chew on. Although all four dogs performed very well, yes, they did, Cobra and One Betta showed the most accuracy, outperforming their training colleagues. From their training scores, Cobra ranked first, with 99.45% accuracy. Despite her name, says Dr. Furton, One Betta was “not one better,” coming in second at 98.1%, which is still quite high.

Both dogs are good at their airport screening duties. If one of them sits after sniffing a mask at the checkpoint, the next step is for the mask owner to be tested.

From Aug. 23 to Sept. 8, the two canines screened 1,093 people during 8 working days, alerting on only one case, according to Greg Chin, communications director for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. That person had tested positive for COVID 2 weeks earlier and was returning to work after quarantine, and their rapid test after the dog alerted was negative.

Dr. Furton says that there are some reports of dogs also alerting before tests can show a positive result, suggesting the dogs’ odor detection can be more precise. They hope to expand their study to see how tight the window of dog-based detection is.

For now, the detector dogs are doing so well that the program has been extended for 30 more days, Mr. Chin says.

As promising as this seems, using dogs for screening carries some logistical and ethical tangles. Training a canine army to deploy for high-volume detection points means that once the work is done, a whole lot of dogs will need a safe place to retire. In addition, the initial training takes several months, says Dr. Furton, whereas if a device were developed for screening, manufacturing could likely be ramped up quickly to meet demand.

The dogs might not need to retire right away, though.

“We envision that they could be redeployed to another type of detection for another infectious disease” if the need arises, Dr. Furton says. But in the end, when working with dogs, he says, there is “a moral connection that you don’t have to deal with using instruments.”

Although the pilot screening at Miami International is the first airport test, the dogs have also done this work in other venues, including at a state emergency operations center in Florida and in some university classrooms, says Dr. Furton.

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

On Sept. 5, Rashid Buttar, DO, posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got the COVID vaccine would be dead by 2025.

His statement is a recent example in what has been a steady stream of spurious claims surrounding the COVID vaccines and treatments that swirl around the public consciousness. Others include testimony in June by Sherri Jane Tenpenny, DO, before Ohio state legislators that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the Internet. On April 9, 2020, Joseph Mercola, DO, posted a video titled “Could hydrogen peroxide treat coronavirus?” which was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Dr. Mercola said inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID.

These physicians are identified as members of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top superspreaders of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, based on an analysis of antivaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is composed of physicians, antivaccine activists, and people known for promoting alternative medicine.

The physician voices are of particular concern because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous pronouncements. All three continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their COVID-related statements.

But leaders of professional medical organizations increasingly are calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.

In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella organization for the state-based boards, issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their licenses. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement Sept. 9 in support of the state boards’ position, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”

And the superspreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. KHN identified 20 other doctors who have made false or misleading claims about COVID by combing through published fact checks and other news coverage.

For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dan Stock, MD, claimed the surge in covid cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from people receiving covid vaccines. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.

Stella Immanuel, MD, a member of a group America’s Frontline Doctors, which has consistently made false statements about COVID, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t needed because covid could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as COVID treatments.

Two of the doctors mentioned by name in this article responded to requests for comment. Dr. Mercola offered documents to rebut criticisms of his hydrogen peroxide COVID treatment and took issue with the center’s “Disinformation Dozen” report methodology. Dr. Buttar defended his positions, saying via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.” He also pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, considered inconclusive by many experts.

Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. And many experts blame it for undermining efforts to curb the coronavirus’s spread. A recent poll showed that more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated cited conspiracy theories as their reasons – for example, saying the vaccines cause infertility or alter DNA.

Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing COVID-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and falsehoods via social media, conservative talk shows, and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat COVID, doctors’ words can be especially powerful. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.

“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” said Rachel Moran, PhD, a researcher who studies COVID misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”

While COVID is a novel and complicated infectious disease, physicians spreading misinformation generally have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. Scott Atlas, MD, who endorsed former President Donald Trump’s unproven statements about the course of the pandemic, is a radiation oncologist.

Traditionally, the responsibility of policing physicians has fallen to state medical boards. Beyond overseeing the licensing process, these panels investigate complaints about doctors and discipline those who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.

“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”

To date, only two doctors have reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Steven LaTulippe, MD, had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective in curbing the spread of COVID, and even dangerous. Thomas Cowan, MD, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, however, said it’s possible some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.

KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.

During a 1-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In all, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading covid misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 in the past year. South Carolina said it had about 10 since January. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five states said they had received only a couple, and 11 states reported receiving no complaints regarding COVID misinformation.

Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing information about complaints.

Social media companies have also been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts – specifically those among the Disinformation Dozen – have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.

“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Mr. Ahmed said, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed over 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Dr. Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means fewer people will see them. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola still have Instagram accounts.

Part of the challenge may be that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.

“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” said Dr. Caplan. “The doctors who were advising Trump – like Scott Atlas – recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”

Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that the public health will.

“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” said Dr. Moran. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

On Sept. 5, Rashid Buttar, DO, posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got the COVID vaccine would be dead by 2025.

His statement is a recent example in what has been a steady stream of spurious claims surrounding the COVID vaccines and treatments that swirl around the public consciousness. Others include testimony in June by Sherri Jane Tenpenny, DO, before Ohio state legislators that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the Internet. On April 9, 2020, Joseph Mercola, DO, posted a video titled “Could hydrogen peroxide treat coronavirus?” which was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Dr. Mercola said inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID.

These physicians are identified as members of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top superspreaders of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, based on an analysis of antivaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is composed of physicians, antivaccine activists, and people known for promoting alternative medicine.

The physician voices are of particular concern because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous pronouncements. All three continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their COVID-related statements.

But leaders of professional medical organizations increasingly are calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.

In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella organization for the state-based boards, issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their licenses. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement Sept. 9 in support of the state boards’ position, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”

And the superspreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. KHN identified 20 other doctors who have made false or misleading claims about COVID by combing through published fact checks and other news coverage.

For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dan Stock, MD, claimed the surge in covid cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from people receiving covid vaccines. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.

Stella Immanuel, MD, a member of a group America’s Frontline Doctors, which has consistently made false statements about COVID, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t needed because covid could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as COVID treatments.

Two of the doctors mentioned by name in this article responded to requests for comment. Dr. Mercola offered documents to rebut criticisms of his hydrogen peroxide COVID treatment and took issue with the center’s “Disinformation Dozen” report methodology. Dr. Buttar defended his positions, saying via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.” He also pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, considered inconclusive by many experts.

Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. And many experts blame it for undermining efforts to curb the coronavirus’s spread. A recent poll showed that more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated cited conspiracy theories as their reasons – for example, saying the vaccines cause infertility or alter DNA.

Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing COVID-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and falsehoods via social media, conservative talk shows, and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat COVID, doctors’ words can be especially powerful. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.

“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” said Rachel Moran, PhD, a researcher who studies COVID misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”

While COVID is a novel and complicated infectious disease, physicians spreading misinformation generally have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. Scott Atlas, MD, who endorsed former President Donald Trump’s unproven statements about the course of the pandemic, is a radiation oncologist.

Traditionally, the responsibility of policing physicians has fallen to state medical boards. Beyond overseeing the licensing process, these panels investigate complaints about doctors and discipline those who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.

“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”

To date, only two doctors have reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Steven LaTulippe, MD, had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective in curbing the spread of COVID, and even dangerous. Thomas Cowan, MD, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, however, said it’s possible some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.

KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.

During a 1-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In all, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading covid misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 in the past year. South Carolina said it had about 10 since January. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five states said they had received only a couple, and 11 states reported receiving no complaints regarding COVID misinformation.

Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing information about complaints.

Social media companies have also been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts – specifically those among the Disinformation Dozen – have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.

“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Mr. Ahmed said, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed over 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Dr. Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means fewer people will see them. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola still have Instagram accounts.

Part of the challenge may be that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.

“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” said Dr. Caplan. “The doctors who were advising Trump – like Scott Atlas – recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”

Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that the public health will.

“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” said Dr. Moran. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

On Sept. 5, Rashid Buttar, DO, posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got the COVID vaccine would be dead by 2025.

His statement is a recent example in what has been a steady stream of spurious claims surrounding the COVID vaccines and treatments that swirl around the public consciousness. Others include testimony in June by Sherri Jane Tenpenny, DO, before Ohio state legislators that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the Internet. On April 9, 2020, Joseph Mercola, DO, posted a video titled “Could hydrogen peroxide treat coronavirus?” which was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Dr. Mercola said inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID.

These physicians are identified as members of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top superspreaders of COVID vaccine misinformation on social media, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, based on an analysis of antivaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is composed of physicians, antivaccine activists, and people known for promoting alternative medicine.

The physician voices are of particular concern because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous pronouncements. All three continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their COVID-related statements.

But leaders of professional medical organizations increasingly are calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.

In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella organization for the state-based boards, issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including the suspension or revocation of their licenses. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement Sept. 9 in support of the state boards’ position, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”

And the superspreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. KHN identified 20 other doctors who have made false or misleading claims about COVID by combing through published fact checks and other news coverage.

For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dan Stock, MD, claimed the surge in covid cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from people receiving covid vaccines. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.

Stella Immanuel, MD, a member of a group America’s Frontline Doctors, which has consistently made false statements about COVID, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t needed because covid could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as COVID treatments.

Two of the doctors mentioned by name in this article responded to requests for comment. Dr. Mercola offered documents to rebut criticisms of his hydrogen peroxide COVID treatment and took issue with the center’s “Disinformation Dozen” report methodology. Dr. Buttar defended his positions, saying via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.” He also pointed to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, considered inconclusive by many experts.

Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. And many experts blame it for undermining efforts to curb the coronavirus’s spread. A recent poll showed that more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated cited conspiracy theories as their reasons – for example, saying the vaccines cause infertility or alter DNA.

Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing COVID-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and falsehoods via social media, conservative talk shows, and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat COVID, doctors’ words can be especially powerful. Public opinion polls consistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.

“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” said Rachel Moran, PhD, a researcher who studies COVID misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”

While COVID is a novel and complicated infectious disease, physicians spreading misinformation generally have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. Scott Atlas, MD, who endorsed former President Donald Trump’s unproven statements about the course of the pandemic, is a radiation oncologist.

Traditionally, the responsibility of policing physicians has fallen to state medical boards. Beyond overseeing the licensing process, these panels investigate complaints about doctors and discipline those who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.

“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”

To date, only two doctors have reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Steven LaTulippe, MD, had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective in curbing the spread of COVID, and even dangerous. Thomas Cowan, MD, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, however, said it’s possible some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.

KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.

During a 1-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In all, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading covid misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 in the past year. South Carolina said it had about 10 since January. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five states said they had received only a couple, and 11 states reported receiving no complaints regarding COVID misinformation.

Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing information about complaints.

Social media companies have also been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts – specifically those among the Disinformation Dozen – have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, said social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.

“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Mr. Ahmed said, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed over 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Dr. Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means fewer people will see them. Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola still have Instagram accounts.

Part of the challenge may be that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.

“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” said Dr. Caplan. “The doctors who were advising Trump – like Scott Atlas – recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”

Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that the public health will.

“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” said Dr. Moran. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at [email protected].

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at [email protected].

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at [email protected].

Whereas previous scientific statements from the American Heart Association have addressed how diet, physical activity, and weight control can help prevent and manage hypertension, a new AHA statement focuses on obesity-related hypertension. 

verbaska_studio/thinkstockphotos

The document, which was published online Sept. 20, 2021, in Hypertension, also identifies knowledge gaps and suggests future research directions.

“Given [that] obesity is a major risk factor for hypertension, and hypertension is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) attributable risk factors for most cardiovascular diseases, we thought it was important to focus on weight loss strategies and update what we know about the treatment options that are available to treat obesity hypertension,” writing group chair Michael E. Hall, MD, told this news organization. 

“Medical and surgical strategies may help with long-term weight and blood pressure improvement, in addition to a heart-healthy diet and physical activity,” he noted in a press release from the AHA. “We often don’t consider medications or metabolic surgery until after there has been target organ damage, such as heart injury or having a stroke.”

However, by acting earlier, “we may be able to prevent these complications,” added Dr. Hall, associate division director for cardiovascular diseases at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson.

“This is not a call for greater use of one specific therapy,” he clarified. “However, we do know that more aggressive treatments including antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery are underutilized.”

According to Dr. Hall, “we treat the secondary problem [i.e., the hypertension or diabetes], but we are not treating the root cause [obesity] as aggressively.”

“Hopefully this statement will increase awareness that there are several [treatment] options [and] bring attention to this major health issue,” he said.

He added that the most important question, in his mind, is how best to tackle obesity among children and adolescents to lower their risk of hypertension and other associated complications.

The statement is aimed at both primary care providers and specialists.
 

Diet, physical activity help, but weight regain common

Losing 5%-10% of body weight can lead to a more than 5–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure and a 4–mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure, the statement notes. Losing 10 kg may lower systolic blood pressure by 5-20 mm Hg.

To manage weight, control hypertension, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, guidelines recommend the Mediterranean diet or the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, which both emphasize fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds, with moderate intake of fish, seafood, poultry, and dairy, and low intake of red and processed meats and sweets. The Mediterranean diet also includes olive oil and moderate consumption of (mainly red) wine.  

The effect of intermittent fasting on blood pressure control is not clear, the statement noted.

It added that typically 150-225 minutes and 225-420 minutes of physical activity per week can produce weight loss of 2-3 kg or 5-7.5 kg respectively, and 200-300 minutes of physical activity per week is needed to maintain this weight loss.

“Successful weight-loss maintenance over years therefore typically requires high levels of [physical activity] and limited sedentary time, frequent weight monitoring, and high levels of dietary restraint,” and weight regain is common, the authors summarize.
 

Other options to address obesity, hypertension

Weight-loss pharmacotherapies and metabolic surgery are other options to treat obesity and lower hypertension.

The statement reports that four drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term weight loss: Orlistat (Xenical, Alli), phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), and liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda). On June 4, the FDA approved a fifth drug, semaglutide (Wegovy).

The long-term effects of antiobesity medications on blood pressure are mixed.

However, “prescription rates for these drugs remain low, likely because of limited insurance coverage and low levels of clinical proficiency with treating obesity,” Dr. Hall and colleagues write.

Metabolic surgery could be a weight loss option for certain patients, and it is associated with blood pressure lowering.

In the 100-patient Gastric Bypass to Treat Obese Patients With Steady Hypertension (GATEWAY) trial, published in Circulation in 2018, more patients in the Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass group than the control group (84% vs. 13%) met the primary outcome of a 30% or greater reduction in the number of blood pressure-lowering medications at 12 months while maintaining an office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg.

Unanswered questions, future research directions

In 2015-2016, an estimated 18.5% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 2-19 years had obesity, the statement notes. Children with obesity have a twofold increased risk of incident hypertension, and those with severe obesity have an over fourfold increased risk of this outcome, compared with children who have a healthy weight.

Dr. Hall and colleagues emphasized that, “as the prevalence of obesity continues to increase, hypertension and associated cardiorenal diseases will also increase unless more effective strategies to prevent and treat obesity are developed.”

They identified 17 unanswered questions (knowledge gaps) that can guide the direction of future research. These include:

• What new strategies and science-based guidelines are needed to curb the growing evidence of childhood obesity?
• Does intentional weight loss with pharmacotherapy or metabolic surgery in childhood and early adulthood prevent hypertension and subsequent target organ damage in later life?
• What is the optimal amount of time that clinicians should allow before recommending more aggressive weight management strategies (that is, antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery) or hypertension strategies beyond lifestyle changes?

“To me,” Dr. Hall said, “addressing childhood obesity hypertension and determining optimal timing of antiobesity therapies are the most important [issues]. Certainly, these therapies (i.e., diets, medications, surgeries) have some risks, but we don’t have a clear understanding if their benefits outweigh these risks in younger obese people or whether initiating these therapies before the onset of target organ damage such as heart failure” outweigh the risks.

Dr. Hall has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

Whereas previous scientific statements from the American Heart Association have addressed how diet, physical activity, and weight control can help prevent and manage hypertension, a new AHA statement focuses on obesity-related hypertension. 

verbaska_studio/thinkstockphotos

The document, which was published online Sept. 20, 2021, in Hypertension, also identifies knowledge gaps and suggests future research directions.

“Given [that] obesity is a major risk factor for hypertension, and hypertension is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) attributable risk factors for most cardiovascular diseases, we thought it was important to focus on weight loss strategies and update what we know about the treatment options that are available to treat obesity hypertension,” writing group chair Michael E. Hall, MD, told this news organization. 

“Medical and surgical strategies may help with long-term weight and blood pressure improvement, in addition to a heart-healthy diet and physical activity,” he noted in a press release from the AHA. “We often don’t consider medications or metabolic surgery until after there has been target organ damage, such as heart injury or having a stroke.”

However, by acting earlier, “we may be able to prevent these complications,” added Dr. Hall, associate division director for cardiovascular diseases at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson.

“This is not a call for greater use of one specific therapy,” he clarified. “However, we do know that more aggressive treatments including antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery are underutilized.”

According to Dr. Hall, “we treat the secondary problem [i.e., the hypertension or diabetes], but we are not treating the root cause [obesity] as aggressively.”

“Hopefully this statement will increase awareness that there are several [treatment] options [and] bring attention to this major health issue,” he said.

He added that the most important question, in his mind, is how best to tackle obesity among children and adolescents to lower their risk of hypertension and other associated complications.

The statement is aimed at both primary care providers and specialists.
 

Diet, physical activity help, but weight regain common

Losing 5%-10% of body weight can lead to a more than 5–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure and a 4–mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure, the statement notes. Losing 10 kg may lower systolic blood pressure by 5-20 mm Hg.

To manage weight, control hypertension, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, guidelines recommend the Mediterranean diet or the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, which both emphasize fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds, with moderate intake of fish, seafood, poultry, and dairy, and low intake of red and processed meats and sweets. The Mediterranean diet also includes olive oil and moderate consumption of (mainly red) wine.  

The effect of intermittent fasting on blood pressure control is not clear, the statement noted.

It added that typically 150-225 minutes and 225-420 minutes of physical activity per week can produce weight loss of 2-3 kg or 5-7.5 kg respectively, and 200-300 minutes of physical activity per week is needed to maintain this weight loss.

“Successful weight-loss maintenance over years therefore typically requires high levels of [physical activity] and limited sedentary time, frequent weight monitoring, and high levels of dietary restraint,” and weight regain is common, the authors summarize.
 

Other options to address obesity, hypertension

Weight-loss pharmacotherapies and metabolic surgery are other options to treat obesity and lower hypertension.

The statement reports that four drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term weight loss: Orlistat (Xenical, Alli), phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), and liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda). On June 4, the FDA approved a fifth drug, semaglutide (Wegovy).

The long-term effects of antiobesity medications on blood pressure are mixed.

However, “prescription rates for these drugs remain low, likely because of limited insurance coverage and low levels of clinical proficiency with treating obesity,” Dr. Hall and colleagues write.

Metabolic surgery could be a weight loss option for certain patients, and it is associated with blood pressure lowering.

In the 100-patient Gastric Bypass to Treat Obese Patients With Steady Hypertension (GATEWAY) trial, published in Circulation in 2018, more patients in the Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass group than the control group (84% vs. 13%) met the primary outcome of a 30% or greater reduction in the number of blood pressure-lowering medications at 12 months while maintaining an office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg.

Unanswered questions, future research directions

In 2015-2016, an estimated 18.5% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 2-19 years had obesity, the statement notes. Children with obesity have a twofold increased risk of incident hypertension, and those with severe obesity have an over fourfold increased risk of this outcome, compared with children who have a healthy weight.

Dr. Hall and colleagues emphasized that, “as the prevalence of obesity continues to increase, hypertension and associated cardiorenal diseases will also increase unless more effective strategies to prevent and treat obesity are developed.”

They identified 17 unanswered questions (knowledge gaps) that can guide the direction of future research. These include:

• What new strategies and science-based guidelines are needed to curb the growing evidence of childhood obesity?
• Does intentional weight loss with pharmacotherapy or metabolic surgery in childhood and early adulthood prevent hypertension and subsequent target organ damage in later life?
• What is the optimal amount of time that clinicians should allow before recommending more aggressive weight management strategies (that is, antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery) or hypertension strategies beyond lifestyle changes?

“To me,” Dr. Hall said, “addressing childhood obesity hypertension and determining optimal timing of antiobesity therapies are the most important [issues]. Certainly, these therapies (i.e., diets, medications, surgeries) have some risks, but we don’t have a clear understanding if their benefits outweigh these risks in younger obese people or whether initiating these therapies before the onset of target organ damage such as heart failure” outweigh the risks.

Dr. Hall has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

Whereas previous scientific statements from the American Heart Association have addressed how diet, physical activity, and weight control can help prevent and manage hypertension, a new AHA statement focuses on obesity-related hypertension. 

verbaska_studio/thinkstockphotos

The document, which was published online Sept. 20, 2021, in Hypertension, also identifies knowledge gaps and suggests future research directions.

“Given [that] obesity is a major risk factor for hypertension, and hypertension is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) attributable risk factors for most cardiovascular diseases, we thought it was important to focus on weight loss strategies and update what we know about the treatment options that are available to treat obesity hypertension,” writing group chair Michael E. Hall, MD, told this news organization. 

“Medical and surgical strategies may help with long-term weight and blood pressure improvement, in addition to a heart-healthy diet and physical activity,” he noted in a press release from the AHA. “We often don’t consider medications or metabolic surgery until after there has been target organ damage, such as heart injury or having a stroke.”

However, by acting earlier, “we may be able to prevent these complications,” added Dr. Hall, associate division director for cardiovascular diseases at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson.

“This is not a call for greater use of one specific therapy,” he clarified. “However, we do know that more aggressive treatments including antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery are underutilized.”

According to Dr. Hall, “we treat the secondary problem [i.e., the hypertension or diabetes], but we are not treating the root cause [obesity] as aggressively.”

“Hopefully this statement will increase awareness that there are several [treatment] options [and] bring attention to this major health issue,” he said.

He added that the most important question, in his mind, is how best to tackle obesity among children and adolescents to lower their risk of hypertension and other associated complications.

The statement is aimed at both primary care providers and specialists.
 

Diet, physical activity help, but weight regain common

Losing 5%-10% of body weight can lead to a more than 5–mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure and a 4–mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure, the statement notes. Losing 10 kg may lower systolic blood pressure by 5-20 mm Hg.

To manage weight, control hypertension, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, guidelines recommend the Mediterranean diet or the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, which both emphasize fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds, with moderate intake of fish, seafood, poultry, and dairy, and low intake of red and processed meats and sweets. The Mediterranean diet also includes olive oil and moderate consumption of (mainly red) wine.  

The effect of intermittent fasting on blood pressure control is not clear, the statement noted.

It added that typically 150-225 minutes and 225-420 minutes of physical activity per week can produce weight loss of 2-3 kg or 5-7.5 kg respectively, and 200-300 minutes of physical activity per week is needed to maintain this weight loss.

“Successful weight-loss maintenance over years therefore typically requires high levels of [physical activity] and limited sedentary time, frequent weight monitoring, and high levels of dietary restraint,” and weight regain is common, the authors summarize.
 

Other options to address obesity, hypertension

Weight-loss pharmacotherapies and metabolic surgery are other options to treat obesity and lower hypertension.

The statement reports that four drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term weight loss: Orlistat (Xenical, Alli), phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), and liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda). On June 4, the FDA approved a fifth drug, semaglutide (Wegovy).

The long-term effects of antiobesity medications on blood pressure are mixed.

However, “prescription rates for these drugs remain low, likely because of limited insurance coverage and low levels of clinical proficiency with treating obesity,” Dr. Hall and colleagues write.

Metabolic surgery could be a weight loss option for certain patients, and it is associated with blood pressure lowering.

In the 100-patient Gastric Bypass to Treat Obese Patients With Steady Hypertension (GATEWAY) trial, published in Circulation in 2018, more patients in the Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass group than the control group (84% vs. 13%) met the primary outcome of a 30% or greater reduction in the number of blood pressure-lowering medications at 12 months while maintaining an office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg.

Unanswered questions, future research directions

In 2015-2016, an estimated 18.5% of U.S. children and adolescents aged 2-19 years had obesity, the statement notes. Children with obesity have a twofold increased risk of incident hypertension, and those with severe obesity have an over fourfold increased risk of this outcome, compared with children who have a healthy weight.

Dr. Hall and colleagues emphasized that, “as the prevalence of obesity continues to increase, hypertension and associated cardiorenal diseases will also increase unless more effective strategies to prevent and treat obesity are developed.”

They identified 17 unanswered questions (knowledge gaps) that can guide the direction of future research. These include:

• What new strategies and science-based guidelines are needed to curb the growing evidence of childhood obesity?
• Does intentional weight loss with pharmacotherapy or metabolic surgery in childhood and early adulthood prevent hypertension and subsequent target organ damage in later life?
• What is the optimal amount of time that clinicians should allow before recommending more aggressive weight management strategies (that is, antiobesity medications or metabolic surgery) or hypertension strategies beyond lifestyle changes?

“To me,” Dr. Hall said, “addressing childhood obesity hypertension and determining optimal timing of antiobesity therapies are the most important [issues]. Certainly, these therapies (i.e., diets, medications, surgeries) have some risks, but we don’t have a clear understanding if their benefits outweigh these risks in younger obese people or whether initiating these therapies before the onset of target organ damage such as heart failure” outweigh the risks.

Dr. Hall has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

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

Amid ongoing debate over potential adverse effects of radioactive iodine (RAI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, a new meta-analysis shows no significant increase in the risk of cancer or cancer mortality in the vast majority of cases, with an increased dose-response risk with higher doses shown in some studies.

“These findings suggest that radiation-induced cancer risks following RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism are small and, in observational studies, may only be detectable at higher levels of administered dose,” report the authors of the analysis, published Sept. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary published along with the study, Bernadette Biondi, MD, noted that, despite some limitations, “the current analysis from recent literature studies is reassuring on the potential negative effects of RAI”.

“These data can help reduce anxiety in both patients and clinicians as to the risk of cancer after RAI.”

Martin A. Walter, MD, agreed. “When including nearly a half-million patients into the analysis, there is no significant increase of risk for secondary cancers after radioiodine therapy for hyperthyroidism,” Dr. Walter, who was a coauthor on the American Thyroid Association’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism (Thyroid. 2016 Oct;26:1343-421), told this news organization.

“For me, this paper is rather reassuring of the safety of the therapy,” he added.

Though used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism for more than 7 decades, the frequent use of RAI continues to generate concern of potential carcinogenic effects, with some previous studies linking the treatment with subsequent malignant neoplasms, while others have shown no risk.

However, the potential role of a dose-response effect on the cancer risk has not been well explored, the authors note.

For their meta-analysis, Sung Ryul Shim, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues identified 12 studies including 479,452 participants that involved evaluation of cancer incidence and mortality with exposure versus nonexposure to RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the results showed no significant difference in the pooled cancer incidence ratio between those who were and were not exposed to RAI therapy (incidence ratio, 1.02), and there also were no significant differences in mortality (IR, 0.98).

There were no increases in the risk of any specific cancers with the exception of thyroid cancer, which had a higher incidence among those with RAI treatment (1.86), and more than twice the risk of mortality (2.22).

Two studies did report a linear dose-response association between RAI for hyperthyroidism and breast cancer mortality (1.35 per 370 MBq; P = .03) and solid cancer mortality (1.14 per 370 MBq; P = .01).

Among them was a 2019 study, using data on nearly 19,000 patients from the multicenter Cooperative Thyrotoxicosis Therapy Follow-up Study, showing a dose-response effect on solid-cancer mortality that the study authors described as “modest.”

“For every 1,000 patients with hyperthyroidism receiving typical doses to the stomach (150-250 mGy), an estimated lifetime excess of 19-32 solid cancer deaths could occur,” the study concluded.

Caveats surrounding the issue include that hyperthyroidism itself has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, suggesting a potential role of an excess of thyroid hormone excess on cancer risk.

“The underlying conditions of the thyroid gland could be another possible reason for the increased risk of malignant thyroid tumor after RAI for hyperthyroidism,” the investigators of the current study write.

“Thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating antibodies, present in Graves disease, may play a role in carcinogenesis and tumoral growth, and hyperthyroidism is associated with a high incidence of thyroid carcinoma,” they add.

Tumors developing from hyperthyroid tissue show aggressive behavior, they add, and note that an increased overall risk of cancer and greater cancer mortality has been also reported with the alternative of antithyroid drug therapy when compared with RAI.

Nevertheless, considering the dose-response risk observed in the two studies, the authors and Dr. Bondi agree that more rigorous studies are needed to investigate the issue.

“The limited quality of the evidence in the literature on the adverse effects of RAI underlines the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area,” writes Dr. Bondi, of the department of clinical medicine and surgery, University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, in her editorial.

In further commenting, Dr. Walter, of the department of nuclear medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, agreed that the benefits of treatment need to be weighed against the risks.

“There is always caution used when deciding for a medical therapy, including radioiodine therapy,” he added. “It has to be emphasized though, that poorly controlled hyperthyroidism is a serious condition that, for instance, can lead to arrhythmia, and that in elderly patients is associated with increased mortality,” Dr, Walter cautioned.

“Statistically significant does not always mean clinically relevant, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”

The authors, Dr. Bondi, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures to report.

Amid ongoing debate over potential adverse effects of radioactive iodine (RAI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, a new meta-analysis shows no significant increase in the risk of cancer or cancer mortality in the vast majority of cases, with an increased dose-response risk with higher doses shown in some studies.

“These findings suggest that radiation-induced cancer risks following RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism are small and, in observational studies, may only be detectable at higher levels of administered dose,” report the authors of the analysis, published Sept. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary published along with the study, Bernadette Biondi, MD, noted that, despite some limitations, “the current analysis from recent literature studies is reassuring on the potential negative effects of RAI”.

“These data can help reduce anxiety in both patients and clinicians as to the risk of cancer after RAI.”

Martin A. Walter, MD, agreed. “When including nearly a half-million patients into the analysis, there is no significant increase of risk for secondary cancers after radioiodine therapy for hyperthyroidism,” Dr. Walter, who was a coauthor on the American Thyroid Association’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism (Thyroid. 2016 Oct;26:1343-421), told this news organization.

“For me, this paper is rather reassuring of the safety of the therapy,” he added.

Though used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism for more than 7 decades, the frequent use of RAI continues to generate concern of potential carcinogenic effects, with some previous studies linking the treatment with subsequent malignant neoplasms, while others have shown no risk.

However, the potential role of a dose-response effect on the cancer risk has not been well explored, the authors note.

For their meta-analysis, Sung Ryul Shim, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues identified 12 studies including 479,452 participants that involved evaluation of cancer incidence and mortality with exposure versus nonexposure to RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the results showed no significant difference in the pooled cancer incidence ratio between those who were and were not exposed to RAI therapy (incidence ratio, 1.02), and there also were no significant differences in mortality (IR, 0.98).

There were no increases in the risk of any specific cancers with the exception of thyroid cancer, which had a higher incidence among those with RAI treatment (1.86), and more than twice the risk of mortality (2.22).

Two studies did report a linear dose-response association between RAI for hyperthyroidism and breast cancer mortality (1.35 per 370 MBq; P = .03) and solid cancer mortality (1.14 per 370 MBq; P = .01).

Among them was a 2019 study, using data on nearly 19,000 patients from the multicenter Cooperative Thyrotoxicosis Therapy Follow-up Study, showing a dose-response effect on solid-cancer mortality that the study authors described as “modest.”

“For every 1,000 patients with hyperthyroidism receiving typical doses to the stomach (150-250 mGy), an estimated lifetime excess of 19-32 solid cancer deaths could occur,” the study concluded.

Caveats surrounding the issue include that hyperthyroidism itself has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, suggesting a potential role of an excess of thyroid hormone excess on cancer risk.

“The underlying conditions of the thyroid gland could be another possible reason for the increased risk of malignant thyroid tumor after RAI for hyperthyroidism,” the investigators of the current study write.

“Thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating antibodies, present in Graves disease, may play a role in carcinogenesis and tumoral growth, and hyperthyroidism is associated with a high incidence of thyroid carcinoma,” they add.

Tumors developing from hyperthyroid tissue show aggressive behavior, they add, and note that an increased overall risk of cancer and greater cancer mortality has been also reported with the alternative of antithyroid drug therapy when compared with RAI.

Nevertheless, considering the dose-response risk observed in the two studies, the authors and Dr. Bondi agree that more rigorous studies are needed to investigate the issue.

“The limited quality of the evidence in the literature on the adverse effects of RAI underlines the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area,” writes Dr. Bondi, of the department of clinical medicine and surgery, University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, in her editorial.

In further commenting, Dr. Walter, of the department of nuclear medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, agreed that the benefits of treatment need to be weighed against the risks.

“There is always caution used when deciding for a medical therapy, including radioiodine therapy,” he added. “It has to be emphasized though, that poorly controlled hyperthyroidism is a serious condition that, for instance, can lead to arrhythmia, and that in elderly patients is associated with increased mortality,” Dr, Walter cautioned.

“Statistically significant does not always mean clinically relevant, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”

The authors, Dr. Bondi, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures to report.

Amid ongoing debate over potential adverse effects of radioactive iodine (RAI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, a new meta-analysis shows no significant increase in the risk of cancer or cancer mortality in the vast majority of cases, with an increased dose-response risk with higher doses shown in some studies.

“These findings suggest that radiation-induced cancer risks following RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism are small and, in observational studies, may only be detectable at higher levels of administered dose,” report the authors of the analysis, published Sept. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

In a commentary published along with the study, Bernadette Biondi, MD, noted that, despite some limitations, “the current analysis from recent literature studies is reassuring on the potential negative effects of RAI”.

“These data can help reduce anxiety in both patients and clinicians as to the risk of cancer after RAI.”

Martin A. Walter, MD, agreed. “When including nearly a half-million patients into the analysis, there is no significant increase of risk for secondary cancers after radioiodine therapy for hyperthyroidism,” Dr. Walter, who was a coauthor on the American Thyroid Association’s guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hyperthyroidism (Thyroid. 2016 Oct;26:1343-421), told this news organization.

“For me, this paper is rather reassuring of the safety of the therapy,” he added.

Though used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism for more than 7 decades, the frequent use of RAI continues to generate concern of potential carcinogenic effects, with some previous studies linking the treatment with subsequent malignant neoplasms, while others have shown no risk.

However, the potential role of a dose-response effect on the cancer risk has not been well explored, the authors note.

For their meta-analysis, Sung Ryul Shim, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues identified 12 studies including 479,452 participants that involved evaluation of cancer incidence and mortality with exposure versus nonexposure to RAI therapy for hyperthyroidism.

Overall, the results showed no significant difference in the pooled cancer incidence ratio between those who were and were not exposed to RAI therapy (incidence ratio, 1.02), and there also were no significant differences in mortality (IR, 0.98).

There were no increases in the risk of any specific cancers with the exception of thyroid cancer, which had a higher incidence among those with RAI treatment (1.86), and more than twice the risk of mortality (2.22).

Two studies did report a linear dose-response association between RAI for hyperthyroidism and breast cancer mortality (1.35 per 370 MBq; P = .03) and solid cancer mortality (1.14 per 370 MBq; P = .01).

Among them was a 2019 study, using data on nearly 19,000 patients from the multicenter Cooperative Thyrotoxicosis Therapy Follow-up Study, showing a dose-response effect on solid-cancer mortality that the study authors described as “modest.”

“For every 1,000 patients with hyperthyroidism receiving typical doses to the stomach (150-250 mGy), an estimated lifetime excess of 19-32 solid cancer deaths could occur,” the study concluded.

Caveats surrounding the issue include that hyperthyroidism itself has been associated with an increased risk of cancer, suggesting a potential role of an excess of thyroid hormone excess on cancer risk.

“The underlying conditions of the thyroid gland could be another possible reason for the increased risk of malignant thyroid tumor after RAI for hyperthyroidism,” the investigators of the current study write.

“Thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating antibodies, present in Graves disease, may play a role in carcinogenesis and tumoral growth, and hyperthyroidism is associated with a high incidence of thyroid carcinoma,” they add.

Tumors developing from hyperthyroid tissue show aggressive behavior, they add, and note that an increased overall risk of cancer and greater cancer mortality has been also reported with the alternative of antithyroid drug therapy when compared with RAI.

Nevertheless, considering the dose-response risk observed in the two studies, the authors and Dr. Bondi agree that more rigorous studies are needed to investigate the issue.

“The limited quality of the evidence in the literature on the adverse effects of RAI underlines the need for future randomized clinical trials in this area,” writes Dr. Bondi, of the department of clinical medicine and surgery, University of Naples (Italy) Federico II, in her editorial.

In further commenting, Dr. Walter, of the department of nuclear medicine, University Hospital, University of Geneva, agreed that the benefits of treatment need to be weighed against the risks.

“There is always caution used when deciding for a medical therapy, including radioiodine therapy,” he added. “It has to be emphasized though, that poorly controlled hyperthyroidism is a serious condition that, for instance, can lead to arrhythmia, and that in elderly patients is associated with increased mortality,” Dr, Walter cautioned.

“Statistically significant does not always mean clinically relevant, and the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.”

The authors, Dr. Bondi, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures to report.

Alcohol intake and obesity are independent risk factors for morbidity among patients with cirrhosis, but the two factors do not appear to combine for a stronger effect (supra-additive), according to conclusions from a new analysis of participants in the UK Biobank study published in Hepatology.

Nikada/iStockphoto

The researchers analyzed data from the records of 489,285 individuals in the UK Biobank from May 2006 to July 2010. Researchers defined morbidity as first-time hospitalization for cirrhosis and calculated the cumulative incidence at 10 years among included individuals. The researchers defined obesity as body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and healthy BMI as 20-25. Safe drinking was defined as having fewer than 22 units per week for males or fewer than 15 units for females, harmful drinking was defined as more than 50 units per week for males or more than 35 for females, and hazardous drinking was defined as 22-49 units per week for males and 15-35 for females. The researchers assumed 2 units in a pint of beer or cider, 1.5 units in a glass of wine and “other” drinks, and 1 unit per measure of spirits.

The mean age was 57.0 years, and 45.4% were male. Overall, 24.3% of subjects were obese, 76.5% had safe levels of alcohol consumption, 19.7% had hazardous alcohol consumption, and 3.8% were classified as harmful drinkers.

Overall, harmful drinking was associated with 5.0 times the 10-year cumulative incidence of cirrhosis morbidity among harmful versus safe drinkers (1.51% vs. 0.30%). However, among those with a healthy BMI, harmful was associated with an 8.6-fold increase of cirrhosis morbidity, compared with safe drinkers (1.38% vs. 0.16%). On the other hand, obese patients with harmful drinking habits had a 3.6-fold increase over obese safe drinkers (1.99% vs. 0.56%).

When looked at according to BMI, 10-year cumulative incidence was 3.1 times higher in patients who with obesity versus those who with healthy BMI (0.65% vs. 0.21%). This varied strongly with drinking: Safe drinkers who with obesity had 3.7 times the incidence, compared with safe drinkers with healthy BMI (0.56% vs. 0.15%), and harmful drinkers who were obese had a 1.4-fold increased incidence, compared with harmful drinkers of a healthy weight (1.99% vs. 1.38%).

“In contrast to some previous studies, we found little evidence that [obesity and drinking] interacted supra-additively to modulate the risk of cirrhosis morbidity,” the authors wrote. “On the contrary, through a relative risk lens, the association between alcohol intake and cirrhosis morbidity was actually weaker for individuals with obesity than for individuals with a healthy BMI (indicating a sub-additive relationship).”

Fine-Gray regression modelling seemed to confirm that the relationship was sub-additive. After controlling for various factors, researchers found that harmful drinkers had a 6.84-fold increased risk at a healthy BMI, while the risk was only 3.14 times higher in obese patients (P _interaction = 3.53 x 10^–6).

The findings contradict previous studies, which suggested that high BMI and harmful drinking combined may produce much higher risk than either factor alone, possibly because obesity might “prime” the liver to be vulnerable to the effects of alcohol.

The authors suggest that the differences in findings may be caused by methodological limitations of the earlier studies, such as reliance on self-reported BMI data; small sample sizes and a relatively small number of liver events among those with obesity and harmful alcohol consumption; and the failure to use a competing risk perspective. The latter is relevant because alcohol and obesity are risk factors for other potentially fatal health conditions.

But the current study is not without its own limitations, according to Nancy Reau, MD, who is a professor of medicine and chair of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Reau pointed out that the authors found the highest frequency of complications was observed in people with harmful alcohol intake whose BMI was under 20. That group may be composed of subjects with sarcopenia and end-stage liver disease from alcohol use. “Until you can separate these from the truly healthy BMI but [with harmful alcohol use], you can’t interpret this arm,” said Dr. Reau.

Beyond that, the researchers found increased risks of harm among individuals regardless of BMI, but the risks were highest among those with BMI over 30. Dr. Reau posited that the frequency might have been significantly greater at BMI higher than 35 and 40, but the researchers didn’t report results among these subcategories.

“In no way does this suggest that we need to ignore alcohol use in our patients with NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] or [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis],” said Dr. Reau.

In fact, she pointed to a figure in the paper that showed the highest increase in frequency among those with harmful alcohol use and obesity. “It’s clear that both conditions are much more serious than just obesity alone. It is incredibly important to council our NAFLD patients on appropriate alcohol use, [since] problematic drinking increases their risk. Problematic drinking remains a serious problem and increased awareness and linking to addiction services is important,” she said.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Reau has no relevant financial disclosures.

Alcohol intake and obesity are independent risk factors for morbidity among patients with cirrhosis, but the two factors do not appear to combine for a stronger effect (supra-additive), according to conclusions from a new analysis of participants in the UK Biobank study published in Hepatology.

Nikada/iStockphoto

The researchers analyzed data from the records of 489,285 individuals in the UK Biobank from May 2006 to July 2010. Researchers defined morbidity as first-time hospitalization for cirrhosis and calculated the cumulative incidence at 10 years among included individuals. The researchers defined obesity as body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and healthy BMI as 20-25. Safe drinking was defined as having fewer than 22 units per week for males or fewer than 15 units for females, harmful drinking was defined as more than 50 units per week for males or more than 35 for females, and hazardous drinking was defined as 22-49 units per week for males and 15-35 for females. The researchers assumed 2 units in a pint of beer or cider, 1.5 units in a glass of wine and “other” drinks, and 1 unit per measure of spirits.

The mean age was 57.0 years, and 45.4% were male. Overall, 24.3% of subjects were obese, 76.5% had safe levels of alcohol consumption, 19.7% had hazardous alcohol consumption, and 3.8% were classified as harmful drinkers.

Overall, harmful drinking was associated with 5.0 times the 10-year cumulative incidence of cirrhosis morbidity among harmful versus safe drinkers (1.51% vs. 0.30%). However, among those with a healthy BMI, harmful was associated with an 8.6-fold increase of cirrhosis morbidity, compared with safe drinkers (1.38% vs. 0.16%). On the other hand, obese patients with harmful drinking habits had a 3.6-fold increase over obese safe drinkers (1.99% vs. 0.56%).

When looked at according to BMI, 10-year cumulative incidence was 3.1 times higher in patients who with obesity versus those who with healthy BMI (0.65% vs. 0.21%). This varied strongly with drinking: Safe drinkers who with obesity had 3.7 times the incidence, compared with safe drinkers with healthy BMI (0.56% vs. 0.15%), and harmful drinkers who were obese had a 1.4-fold increased incidence, compared with harmful drinkers of a healthy weight (1.99% vs. 1.38%).

“In contrast to some previous studies, we found little evidence that [obesity and drinking] interacted supra-additively to modulate the risk of cirrhosis morbidity,” the authors wrote. “On the contrary, through a relative risk lens, the association between alcohol intake and cirrhosis morbidity was actually weaker for individuals with obesity than for individuals with a healthy BMI (indicating a sub-additive relationship).”

Fine-Gray regression modelling seemed to confirm that the relationship was sub-additive. After controlling for various factors, researchers found that harmful drinkers had a 6.84-fold increased risk at a healthy BMI, while the risk was only 3.14 times higher in obese patients (P _interaction = 3.53 x 10^–6).

The findings contradict previous studies, which suggested that high BMI and harmful drinking combined may produce much higher risk than either factor alone, possibly because obesity might “prime” the liver to be vulnerable to the effects of alcohol.

The authors suggest that the differences in findings may be caused by methodological limitations of the earlier studies, such as reliance on self-reported BMI data; small sample sizes and a relatively small number of liver events among those with obesity and harmful alcohol consumption; and the failure to use a competing risk perspective. The latter is relevant because alcohol and obesity are risk factors for other potentially fatal health conditions.

But the current study is not without its own limitations, according to Nancy Reau, MD, who is a professor of medicine and chair of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Reau pointed out that the authors found the highest frequency of complications was observed in people with harmful alcohol intake whose BMI was under 20. That group may be composed of subjects with sarcopenia and end-stage liver disease from alcohol use. “Until you can separate these from the truly healthy BMI but [with harmful alcohol use], you can’t interpret this arm,” said Dr. Reau.

Beyond that, the researchers found increased risks of harm among individuals regardless of BMI, but the risks were highest among those with BMI over 30. Dr. Reau posited that the frequency might have been significantly greater at BMI higher than 35 and 40, but the researchers didn’t report results among these subcategories.

“In no way does this suggest that we need to ignore alcohol use in our patients with NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] or [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis],” said Dr. Reau.

In fact, she pointed to a figure in the paper that showed the highest increase in frequency among those with harmful alcohol use and obesity. “It’s clear that both conditions are much more serious than just obesity alone. It is incredibly important to council our NAFLD patients on appropriate alcohol use, [since] problematic drinking increases their risk. Problematic drinking remains a serious problem and increased awareness and linking to addiction services is important,” she said.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Reau has no relevant financial disclosures.

Alcohol intake and obesity are independent risk factors for morbidity among patients with cirrhosis, but the two factors do not appear to combine for a stronger effect (supra-additive), according to conclusions from a new analysis of participants in the UK Biobank study published in Hepatology.

Nikada/iStockphoto

The researchers analyzed data from the records of 489,285 individuals in the UK Biobank from May 2006 to July 2010. Researchers defined morbidity as first-time hospitalization for cirrhosis and calculated the cumulative incidence at 10 years among included individuals. The researchers defined obesity as body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and healthy BMI as 20-25. Safe drinking was defined as having fewer than 22 units per week for males or fewer than 15 units for females, harmful drinking was defined as more than 50 units per week for males or more than 35 for females, and hazardous drinking was defined as 22-49 units per week for males and 15-35 for females. The researchers assumed 2 units in a pint of beer or cider, 1.5 units in a glass of wine and “other” drinks, and 1 unit per measure of spirits.

The mean age was 57.0 years, and 45.4% were male. Overall, 24.3% of subjects were obese, 76.5% had safe levels of alcohol consumption, 19.7% had hazardous alcohol consumption, and 3.8% were classified as harmful drinkers.

Overall, harmful drinking was associated with 5.0 times the 10-year cumulative incidence of cirrhosis morbidity among harmful versus safe drinkers (1.51% vs. 0.30%). However, among those with a healthy BMI, harmful was associated with an 8.6-fold increase of cirrhosis morbidity, compared with safe drinkers (1.38% vs. 0.16%). On the other hand, obese patients with harmful drinking habits had a 3.6-fold increase over obese safe drinkers (1.99% vs. 0.56%).

When looked at according to BMI, 10-year cumulative incidence was 3.1 times higher in patients who with obesity versus those who with healthy BMI (0.65% vs. 0.21%). This varied strongly with drinking: Safe drinkers who with obesity had 3.7 times the incidence, compared with safe drinkers with healthy BMI (0.56% vs. 0.15%), and harmful drinkers who were obese had a 1.4-fold increased incidence, compared with harmful drinkers of a healthy weight (1.99% vs. 1.38%).

“In contrast to some previous studies, we found little evidence that [obesity and drinking] interacted supra-additively to modulate the risk of cirrhosis morbidity,” the authors wrote. “On the contrary, through a relative risk lens, the association between alcohol intake and cirrhosis morbidity was actually weaker for individuals with obesity than for individuals with a healthy BMI (indicating a sub-additive relationship).”

Fine-Gray regression modelling seemed to confirm that the relationship was sub-additive. After controlling for various factors, researchers found that harmful drinkers had a 6.84-fold increased risk at a healthy BMI, while the risk was only 3.14 times higher in obese patients (P _interaction = 3.53 x 10^–6).

The findings contradict previous studies, which suggested that high BMI and harmful drinking combined may produce much higher risk than either factor alone, possibly because obesity might “prime” the liver to be vulnerable to the effects of alcohol.

The authors suggest that the differences in findings may be caused by methodological limitations of the earlier studies, such as reliance on self-reported BMI data; small sample sizes and a relatively small number of liver events among those with obesity and harmful alcohol consumption; and the failure to use a competing risk perspective. The latter is relevant because alcohol and obesity are risk factors for other potentially fatal health conditions.

But the current study is not without its own limitations, according to Nancy Reau, MD, who is a professor of medicine and chair of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Reau pointed out that the authors found the highest frequency of complications was observed in people with harmful alcohol intake whose BMI was under 20. That group may be composed of subjects with sarcopenia and end-stage liver disease from alcohol use. “Until you can separate these from the truly healthy BMI but [with harmful alcohol use], you can’t interpret this arm,” said Dr. Reau.

Beyond that, the researchers found increased risks of harm among individuals regardless of BMI, but the risks were highest among those with BMI over 30. Dr. Reau posited that the frequency might have been significantly greater at BMI higher than 35 and 40, but the researchers didn’t report results among these subcategories.

“In no way does this suggest that we need to ignore alcohol use in our patients with NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] or [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis],” said Dr. Reau.

In fact, she pointed to a figure in the paper that showed the highest increase in frequency among those with harmful alcohol use and obesity. “It’s clear that both conditions are much more serious than just obesity alone. It is incredibly important to council our NAFLD patients on appropriate alcohol use, [since] problematic drinking increases their risk. Problematic drinking remains a serious problem and increased awareness and linking to addiction services is important,” she said.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Reau has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, alcohol intake of half a drink to one drink daily was associated with a 55% lower risk for subsequent type 2 diabetes, based on data from approximately 4,700 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II cohort.

However, the findings must be considered in the context of other risks and benefits of alcohol consumption before making statements or clinical recommendations, wrote Stefanie N. Hinkle, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

Women with a history of gestational diabetes remain at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes, so modifiable diet and lifestyle factors deserve further study, the researchers noted. Previous research has shown an association between light to moderate alcohol consumption and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes among women in the general population, but data on a similar risk reduction for women with a history of gestational diabetes are lacking, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 4,740 women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study II who reported a history of gestational diabetes. These women were followed from Jan. 1, 1991, to Dec. 31, 2017, as part of the Diabetes & Women’s Health Study; dietary intake, including alcohol intake, was assessed every 4 years via validated food frequency questionnaires.

The average age at baseline was 38 years, and the median follow-up time was 24 years, yielding a total of 78,328 person-years of follow-up. Alcohol consumption was divided into four categories: none; 0.1 g/day to 4.9 g/day; 5.0 to 14.9 g/day, and 15.0 g/day or higher.

A total of 897 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were reported during the study period. After adjustment for multiple dietary and lifestyle variables, including diet and physical activity, only alcohol consumption of 5.0-14.9 g/day (approximately half a drink to one drink) was associated with a significantly decreased risk for incident type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.45) compared with women who reported no alcohol consumption.

On further adjustment for body mass index, women who reported alcohol consumption in the 5.0-14.9 g/day range had a 41% lower risk for developing incident type 2 diabetes (HR, 0.59); alcohol consumption in the other ranges remained unassociated with type 2 diabetes risk, although the researchers noted that these estimates were attenuated.

The median daily intake for women who consumed alcohol was 2.3 g/day, approximately one drink per week. Beer was the most frequently consumed type of alcohol.

When the researchers analyzed the data by alcohol type, notably, “only beer consumption of 1 or more servings a week was associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes,” although previous studies have suggested a stronger association in diabetes risk reduction with wine consumption vs. beer, the researchers noted.

The study findings were the potential for confounding factors not included in the adjustment, potential underreporting of alcohol intake, and potential screening bias toward women who were more health conscious, the researchers noted. Other limitations were lack of generalizability given that most of the study participants were white women, and a lack of data on binge drinking and whether alcohol was consumed with meals, they added. The study strengths included the prospective design, large size, long-term follow-up, and use of validated questionnaires, they said.

The researchers cautioned that the results should not be interpreted without considering other health outcomes. “Consistent with the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommend that adults who do not consume alcohol do not initiate drinking, it may not be prudent for those with a history of gestational diabetes who do not consume alcohol to initiate drinking alcohol solely to reduce their risk for type 2 diabetes,” they emphasized.
 

Risk/benefit ratio for alcohol includes many factors

“There is a relative paucity of data regarding women’s long-term health as it may relate to pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes,” Angela Bianco, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.

Dr. Bianco said she was surprised by some of the study findings.

“Generally speaking, I consider alcohol to be of little to no nutritional value, and to have a high sugar content/glycemic index,” she said. “However, a reduced incidence of adult-onset diabetes has been observed among moderate drinkers in other large prospective studies as well,” she noted. “In contrast, some studies have shown an increased risk of diabetes among a proportion of subjects in the top alcohol consumption category, while other studies have found no association. Possible inconsistencies may be due to differences in drinking patterns and the types of beverages consumed,” Dr. Bianco explained.

A key point for clinicians to keep in mind is that “the study may be flawed based on the different criteria used to make a diagnosis of history of gestational diabetes, the fact that they excluded patients that did not return the questionnaires, and the fact that respondents may not have answered correctly due to recall bias” or other reasons, Dr. Bianco said. “Additionally, those who responded obviously had access to health care, which in and of itself is a confounder,” she noted.

Another key point is that “the effect of alcohol being consumed with or without a meal was not examined,” said Dr. Bianco. “Alcohol concentration is reduced if consumed with meals. Alcohol can lead to hypoglycemia (from reduced gluconeogenesis) during fasting states, but after meals (postprandial states) it can result in lower glucose disposal and higher blood glucose levels,” she said. “The available literature suggests that alcohol may improve insulin sensitivity and reduce resistance, but there is likely a U-shaped association between alcohol consumption and the risk of diabetes,” Dr. Bianco noted. “There is likely a delicate balance between benefits and risks of alcohol intake. The inherent benefit/risk ratio must take into account with other potential comorbidities including BMI, activity level, stress, and preexisting conditions,” she said.

“Additional long-term studies engaging patients with diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds with detailed information regarding the role of nutrition, alcohol intake, tobacco and drug use, environmental exposures, and medical comorbidities need to be performed,” Dr. Bianco concluded.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the Nurses’ Health Study II was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Lead author Dr. Hinkle and coauthor Cuilin Zhang, MD, are employees of the U.S. federal government. The researchers and Dr. Bianco had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, alcohol intake of half a drink to one drink daily was associated with a 55% lower risk for subsequent type 2 diabetes, based on data from approximately 4,700 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II cohort.

However, the findings must be considered in the context of other risks and benefits of alcohol consumption before making statements or clinical recommendations, wrote Stefanie N. Hinkle, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

Women with a history of gestational diabetes remain at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes, so modifiable diet and lifestyle factors deserve further study, the researchers noted. Previous research has shown an association between light to moderate alcohol consumption and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes among women in the general population, but data on a similar risk reduction for women with a history of gestational diabetes are lacking, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 4,740 women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study II who reported a history of gestational diabetes. These women were followed from Jan. 1, 1991, to Dec. 31, 2017, as part of the Diabetes & Women’s Health Study; dietary intake, including alcohol intake, was assessed every 4 years via validated food frequency questionnaires.

The average age at baseline was 38 years, and the median follow-up time was 24 years, yielding a total of 78,328 person-years of follow-up. Alcohol consumption was divided into four categories: none; 0.1 g/day to 4.9 g/day; 5.0 to 14.9 g/day, and 15.0 g/day or higher.

A total of 897 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were reported during the study period. After adjustment for multiple dietary and lifestyle variables, including diet and physical activity, only alcohol consumption of 5.0-14.9 g/day (approximately half a drink to one drink) was associated with a significantly decreased risk for incident type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.45) compared with women who reported no alcohol consumption.

On further adjustment for body mass index, women who reported alcohol consumption in the 5.0-14.9 g/day range had a 41% lower risk for developing incident type 2 diabetes (HR, 0.59); alcohol consumption in the other ranges remained unassociated with type 2 diabetes risk, although the researchers noted that these estimates were attenuated.

The median daily intake for women who consumed alcohol was 2.3 g/day, approximately one drink per week. Beer was the most frequently consumed type of alcohol.

When the researchers analyzed the data by alcohol type, notably, “only beer consumption of 1 or more servings a week was associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes,” although previous studies have suggested a stronger association in diabetes risk reduction with wine consumption vs. beer, the researchers noted.

The study findings were the potential for confounding factors not included in the adjustment, potential underreporting of alcohol intake, and potential screening bias toward women who were more health conscious, the researchers noted. Other limitations were lack of generalizability given that most of the study participants were white women, and a lack of data on binge drinking and whether alcohol was consumed with meals, they added. The study strengths included the prospective design, large size, long-term follow-up, and use of validated questionnaires, they said.

The researchers cautioned that the results should not be interpreted without considering other health outcomes. “Consistent with the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommend that adults who do not consume alcohol do not initiate drinking, it may not be prudent for those with a history of gestational diabetes who do not consume alcohol to initiate drinking alcohol solely to reduce their risk for type 2 diabetes,” they emphasized.
 

Risk/benefit ratio for alcohol includes many factors

“There is a relative paucity of data regarding women’s long-term health as it may relate to pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes,” Angela Bianco, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.

Dr. Bianco said she was surprised by some of the study findings.

“Generally speaking, I consider alcohol to be of little to no nutritional value, and to have a high sugar content/glycemic index,” she said. “However, a reduced incidence of adult-onset diabetes has been observed among moderate drinkers in other large prospective studies as well,” she noted. “In contrast, some studies have shown an increased risk of diabetes among a proportion of subjects in the top alcohol consumption category, while other studies have found no association. Possible inconsistencies may be due to differences in drinking patterns and the types of beverages consumed,” Dr. Bianco explained.

A key point for clinicians to keep in mind is that “the study may be flawed based on the different criteria used to make a diagnosis of history of gestational diabetes, the fact that they excluded patients that did not return the questionnaires, and the fact that respondents may not have answered correctly due to recall bias” or other reasons, Dr. Bianco said. “Additionally, those who responded obviously had access to health care, which in and of itself is a confounder,” she noted.

Another key point is that “the effect of alcohol being consumed with or without a meal was not examined,” said Dr. Bianco. “Alcohol concentration is reduced if consumed with meals. Alcohol can lead to hypoglycemia (from reduced gluconeogenesis) during fasting states, but after meals (postprandial states) it can result in lower glucose disposal and higher blood glucose levels,” she said. “The available literature suggests that alcohol may improve insulin sensitivity and reduce resistance, but there is likely a U-shaped association between alcohol consumption and the risk of diabetes,” Dr. Bianco noted. “There is likely a delicate balance between benefits and risks of alcohol intake. The inherent benefit/risk ratio must take into account with other potential comorbidities including BMI, activity level, stress, and preexisting conditions,” she said.

“Additional long-term studies engaging patients with diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds with detailed information regarding the role of nutrition, alcohol intake, tobacco and drug use, environmental exposures, and medical comorbidities need to be performed,” Dr. Bianco concluded.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the Nurses’ Health Study II was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Lead author Dr. Hinkle and coauthor Cuilin Zhang, MD, are employees of the U.S. federal government. The researchers and Dr. Bianco had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, alcohol intake of half a drink to one drink daily was associated with a 55% lower risk for subsequent type 2 diabetes, based on data from approximately 4,700 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II cohort.

However, the findings must be considered in the context of other risks and benefits of alcohol consumption before making statements or clinical recommendations, wrote Stefanie N. Hinkle, PhD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

Women with a history of gestational diabetes remain at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes, so modifiable diet and lifestyle factors deserve further study, the researchers noted. Previous research has shown an association between light to moderate alcohol consumption and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes among women in the general population, but data on a similar risk reduction for women with a history of gestational diabetes are lacking, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 4,740 women enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study II who reported a history of gestational diabetes. These women were followed from Jan. 1, 1991, to Dec. 31, 2017, as part of the Diabetes & Women’s Health Study; dietary intake, including alcohol intake, was assessed every 4 years via validated food frequency questionnaires.

The average age at baseline was 38 years, and the median follow-up time was 24 years, yielding a total of 78,328 person-years of follow-up. Alcohol consumption was divided into four categories: none; 0.1 g/day to 4.9 g/day; 5.0 to 14.9 g/day, and 15.0 g/day or higher.

A total of 897 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were reported during the study period. After adjustment for multiple dietary and lifestyle variables, including diet and physical activity, only alcohol consumption of 5.0-14.9 g/day (approximately half a drink to one drink) was associated with a significantly decreased risk for incident type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.45) compared with women who reported no alcohol consumption.

On further adjustment for body mass index, women who reported alcohol consumption in the 5.0-14.9 g/day range had a 41% lower risk for developing incident type 2 diabetes (HR, 0.59); alcohol consumption in the other ranges remained unassociated with type 2 diabetes risk, although the researchers noted that these estimates were attenuated.

The median daily intake for women who consumed alcohol was 2.3 g/day, approximately one drink per week. Beer was the most frequently consumed type of alcohol.

When the researchers analyzed the data by alcohol type, notably, “only beer consumption of 1 or more servings a week was associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes,” although previous studies have suggested a stronger association in diabetes risk reduction with wine consumption vs. beer, the researchers noted.

The study findings were the potential for confounding factors not included in the adjustment, potential underreporting of alcohol intake, and potential screening bias toward women who were more health conscious, the researchers noted. Other limitations were lack of generalizability given that most of the study participants were white women, and a lack of data on binge drinking and whether alcohol was consumed with meals, they added. The study strengths included the prospective design, large size, long-term follow-up, and use of validated questionnaires, they said.

The researchers cautioned that the results should not be interpreted without considering other health outcomes. “Consistent with the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommend that adults who do not consume alcohol do not initiate drinking, it may not be prudent for those with a history of gestational diabetes who do not consume alcohol to initiate drinking alcohol solely to reduce their risk for type 2 diabetes,” they emphasized.
 

Risk/benefit ratio for alcohol includes many factors

“There is a relative paucity of data regarding women’s long-term health as it may relate to pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes,” Angela Bianco, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.

Dr. Bianco said she was surprised by some of the study findings.

“Generally speaking, I consider alcohol to be of little to no nutritional value, and to have a high sugar content/glycemic index,” she said. “However, a reduced incidence of adult-onset diabetes has been observed among moderate drinkers in other large prospective studies as well,” she noted. “In contrast, some studies have shown an increased risk of diabetes among a proportion of subjects in the top alcohol consumption category, while other studies have found no association. Possible inconsistencies may be due to differences in drinking patterns and the types of beverages consumed,” Dr. Bianco explained.

A key point for clinicians to keep in mind is that “the study may be flawed based on the different criteria used to make a diagnosis of history of gestational diabetes, the fact that they excluded patients that did not return the questionnaires, and the fact that respondents may not have answered correctly due to recall bias” or other reasons, Dr. Bianco said. “Additionally, those who responded obviously had access to health care, which in and of itself is a confounder,” she noted.

Another key point is that “the effect of alcohol being consumed with or without a meal was not examined,” said Dr. Bianco. “Alcohol concentration is reduced if consumed with meals. Alcohol can lead to hypoglycemia (from reduced gluconeogenesis) during fasting states, but after meals (postprandial states) it can result in lower glucose disposal and higher blood glucose levels,” she said. “The available literature suggests that alcohol may improve insulin sensitivity and reduce resistance, but there is likely a U-shaped association between alcohol consumption and the risk of diabetes,” Dr. Bianco noted. “There is likely a delicate balance between benefits and risks of alcohol intake. The inherent benefit/risk ratio must take into account with other potential comorbidities including BMI, activity level, stress, and preexisting conditions,” she said.

“Additional long-term studies engaging patients with diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds with detailed information regarding the role of nutrition, alcohol intake, tobacco and drug use, environmental exposures, and medical comorbidities need to be performed,” Dr. Bianco concluded.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the Nurses’ Health Study II was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Lead author Dr. Hinkle and coauthor Cuilin Zhang, MD, are employees of the U.S. federal government. The researchers and Dr. Bianco had no financial conflicts to disclose.

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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