Amanda wanted to warn someone. In June 2021, her daughter – the one she and her husband had tried for 3 years to conceive – had died after only 28 hours. With an underdeveloped nose, she had battled for every breath.

Nobody knew why. Later, an autopsy report revealed their daughter had an extra 13th chromosome. The condition is nearly always fatal.

“But didn’t we test for that?” Amanda recalled asking herself. “That was kind of where the light bulb clicked.”

Through her doctor, Amanda had gotten a popular prenatal screening from a lab company. It had come back “negative.”

For three major conditions, including the one her baby had, the report gave the impression of near certainty. The likelihood that she would be born without them was “greater than 99%.”

As she recovered from a cesarean section, Amanda found herself facing a long maternity leave without a child. She shut the door to the empty nursery and began spending what seemed like endless hours of that hazy summer learning about the test.

It’s a simple blood draw designed to check for an array of genetic anomalies. But Amanda, a science researcher, read academic articles showing there was a higher risk of inaccurate results than she had realized. (She asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her privacy.)

On Reddit, she found other women reporting problems with the tests, too. She thought Labcorp, the company that made her test, would want to know about the screening that failed her. Maybe by alerting them, she could help other families. Maybe it would help her understand what happened.

“I was trying to gain answers,” said Amanda, now 32. She tried calling Labcorp’s customer service line, but she said she was passed along from one person to another. “It was just a circle,” she remembered.

She phoned Labcorp a second time. The call ended when an employee hung up on her.

Amanda was baffled. Why didn’t the company seem interested in her experience? Why, she wondered, wouldn’t it want to collect this data? Why wasn’t there someone who could answer her questions about how often this happens, and why?

If she had taken any number of other common commercial tests – including certain tests for COVID-19 or, say, pregnancy – the company would have been required to inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about reports of so-called adverse events.

But the test Amanda had falls into a regulatory void. No federal agency checks to make sure these prenatal screenings work the way they claim before they’re sold to health care providers. The FDA doesn’t ensure that marketing claims are backed up by evidence before screenings reach patients. And companies aren’t required to publicly report instances of when the tests get it wrong – sometimes catastrophically.

The broader lab testing industry and its lobbyists have successfully fought for years to keep it this way, cowing regulators into staying on the sidelines.

Worried about a growing variety of tests escaping scrutiny, the FDA was on the cusp of stepping in 6 years ago. But then it backed down.

Peter Lurie, then a top agency official, was at the meetings where the FDA tabled its plans. Not pushing harder, he told ProPublica, “remains one of my greatest regrets.”

The risk of false positives from prenatal screenings, in particular, has been known for years.

In 2014, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting detailed how some companies gave a misleading impression of the precision of the prenatal screenings. Women often didn’t understand they needed diagnostic testing to confirm the results. Some had gotten abortions based on false positive results, the story said. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported how companies sell optional extra screenings that are “usually wrong” when they predict a disorder.

Despite these stories and calls for reform by patient advocates, the government has done little to improve oversight of prenatal screenings. ProPublica set out to examine the forces that led to this inertia and left patients like Amanda feeling misled. Interviews with more than three dozen women revealed ongoing confusion about the screenings – and anger when their reliability proved to be overblown.

“This is a Wild West scenario where everybody is on their own,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University, Washington, law professor specializing in bioethics.

The stakes for families are increasing. Upward of half of all pregnant people now receive one of these prenatal screenings. And with many states banning abortions or limiting them to early in pregnancies, the need for fast, accurate information has become more urgent.

The FDA itself acknowledges the problem. In correspondence with ProPublica, a spokesperson cited an “outdated policy” regarding the lack of vetting of many lab tests that the agency has “spent the better part of the last 2 decades trying to address.”

The screening industry, meanwhile, continues to expand, proving lucrative for those who lead it. The chief executive of Natera, which claims about 40% of the market share of prenatal screenings, received a $23 million compensation package last year, the highest of any executive at a publicly traded lab company.

Testing companies told ProPublica that, even without the FDA, there is significant oversight. Labs must abide by state regulations, and another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is charged with monitoring quality standards. It does not, however, check whether the tests the labs perform are clinically valid.

Companies also said the screenings offer important guidance to expectant families. Echoing others in the field, Labcorp said in a statement that the screenings, when used properly, “provide vital information about the presence of increased risk, but do not provide a definitive diagnosis.” (It declined to discuss the specifics of Amanda’s experience.)

Natera pointed out that its materials tell patients that “this test does not make a final diagnosis.” It reports results as “high-risk” or “low-risk,” not positive or negative.

Companies have stressed that, ultimately, it’s the responsibility of health care providers, who order the tests, to inform patients about the limits of screenings.

For all that, the statistical nuances of the test aren’t easy to parse for patients and even some doctors and nurses. For example, the test for trisomy 13, which doomed Amanda’s baby, is actually less likely to correctly predict the condition than other tests in the standard bundle of screenings offered to every patient.

When ProPublica asked readers to share their experiences with noninvasive prenatal screening tests, often referred to as NIPTs or NIPS, more than a thousand responded. Many said the tests had given them peace of mind. Some said they had provided an early warning about problems.

But others had more questions than answers. None more so than Amanda.

“What are these tests?” she wondered. “And how did mine end up in the margin of error?”
 

‘They started using it on humans, and then they went back and said: “Was our test accurate?” ’

Scientists have long tried to find ways to help parents and doctors understand what’s happening inside the womb. Amniocentesis was first used to reveal genetic anomalies in the late 1960s. But it didn’t become more popular until it began to be paired with ultrasound to precisely guide the procedure.

In the 1980s, doctors started using chorionic villus sampling, or CVS, an analysis of placental tissue that offers a diagnosis earlier in pregnancy. But, like amniocentesis, it is an invasive test that involves some risk to the fetus, though experts say it’s exceptionally low.

A breakthrough came in the late 1990s, when a scientist recognized that free-floating placental DNA could be detected in the mother’s blood. This meant that the fetus’s chromosomes could be examined by collecting a blood sample as soon as 9 weeks into pregnancy. This also provides an early opportunity to learn the likely fetal sex – a particularly popular feature.

Champions of the new science celebrated the arrival of a simple technique for patients that was particularly precise, at least for some conditions. Many favored it over other noninvasive options. But the industry that developed around NIPT has been marred by controversy from the beginning.

Dr. Ronald Wapner, director of reproductive genetics at Columbia University, described that time as “very chaotic.”

The tests had not been appropriately evaluated in clinical practice, said Dr. Wapner, whose research has sometimes been funded by testing companies. Because of this, he said, the industry “had very incomplete data on how well it worked.”

That didn’t stop the excitement. The chief executive of Sequenom, a biotechnology company that planned to release the first NIPT for Down syndrome, championed the company as the “Google of Molecular Diagnostics.” Its stock price soared.

Then, about 2 months before an expected launch in 2009, Sequenom killed the plan. The company’s research director, it turned out, had manipulated testing data and made misleading claims about how well the screening worked.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Bureau of Investigation opened investigations. Top executives were fired, and the research director pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Sequenom still managed to commercialize the test in 2011. (Labcorp, which later acquired Sequenom, said it uses a different kind of test.)

Other companies soon debuted their own tests. Still, there was little data on their clinical performance, researchers said.

As Megan Allyse, a bioethicist at the Mayo Clinic, put it, the companies “launched the test, they started using it on humans, and then they went back and said, ‘Was our test accurate?’ ” She also questioned the lack of attention to the ethics of how tests are presented to patients.

Despite missteps by the industry, the FDA didn’t scrutinize the screenings because they were considered lab-developed tests, which means they are created by the same laboratory that conducts them.

In 1976, Congress revamped oversight over medical devices. Since then, the FDA has effectively exempted such “home-brew” tests from key regulatory requirements. The idea was that when, say, a hospital lab wanted to create a simple test for its own patients, it was spared the time, money, and hassle of getting approval from Washington bureaucrats.

Today, lab-developed tests are vastly more numerous and complex. Because they aren’t registered with the federal government, nobody knows how many exist.

The distinction between tests the FDA actively regulates and those they don’t can seem nonsensical. It isn’t based on the complexity of the tests, or how people use them. It’s simply a matter of where the test is made.

The prenatal genetic screening industry took off almost immediately, powered by an army of aggressive sales representatives.

“At the very beginning, obstetricians in practice were being just completely inundated with visits from the sales reps,” said Dr. John Williams, director of reproductive health at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The push left many ob.gyns. and patients thinking the screenings were accurate enough to substitute for diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis or CVS.

In some cases, sales tactics escalated into lawbreaking.

Former Sequenom executives who exited during the fraud scandal created a new company that became Progenity, which also offered prenatal screening. Shortly after the company went public in 2020, it finalized a $49 million settlement with federal and state governments, where it admitted to falsifying insurance claims and giving kickbacks to physicians and their staff. According to a legal filing, one sales rep spent $65,658 on meals and alcohol for physicians in 1 year.

Now called Biora Therapeutics, the company said in a statement it no longer does any laboratory testing, including prenatal screenings.

Industry revenue continues to grow, but some testing companies are still fighting to make a profit, and competition to survive is fierce. “There’s a multibillion-dollar market, and they all want a piece of it,” said a former Progenity sales rep who quit in disgust after 5 months in 2016.

The rep, who requested anonymity because she continues to work in the field, said she still sees competitors from NIPT companies visiting medical practices “every week, buying breakfast or dinner, or taking them out for happy hour.”

Over time, companies pointed to new peer-reviewed studies, research the industry itself funded, to earn the confidence of doctors and other stakeholders. They showed that two tests – for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 – often performed better than other screening methods.

This research was valid, said Dr. Mary Norton, a perinatologist and clinical geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center’s prenatal diagnostic center. Considered a leading researcher in the field, she was an author of many of these key industry-funded studies.

But, she said, when research findings were presented publicly, the companies sometimes downplayed “inconvenient truths,” such as the exclusion of inconclusive results from accuracy estimates. Crucial caveats were also glossed over by some companies when they translated research into promotional copy aimed at health care providers and patients. Those materials didn’t always mention the many factors that can limit the performance of the screenings, including high body weight, the rarity of the condition tested, and younger maternal age.

Testing companies said they try to help patients understand the screenings through online resources and other materials. Some offer genetic counseling services.

The younger a person is, the lower the test’s positive predictive value – that is, the probability that a positive screening result will turn out to be correct – will be for some conditions. For instance, because Down syndrome is less prevalent in younger people’s pregnancies, a positive screening test is more likely to be a false positive for them.

Kristina was 30 years old in 2016, when her Progenity test came back positive for Down syndrome. She and her husband, who asked not to be fully named to protect their privacy, said they didn’t plan to carry a pregnancy with this condition to term.

But waiting to get an amniocentesis, and then waiting for the results, took 5 agonizing weeks, she said. It showed her son did not have Down syndrome.

Kristina, who lives in Texas, is still troubled by what she describes as a traumatic experience.

“I researched both late-term abortion providers and cemeteries,” she said. They even picked out a burial place, near their house.

She bought a blue baby blanket she intended to bury the baby’s tiny body in. She still has it. Her son, now 5, sleeps with it every night.
 

‘I can’t believe I didn’t say more’

As lab-developed tests became a bigger business, moving well past their home-brew origins, regulators looked for a way to assert oversight. In 2014, after years of study and debate, the time seemed right.

The FDA released plans proposing to regulate the tests, prioritizing those used to make major medical decisions. The agency has pointed to NIPTs as 1 of 20 concerning tests.

But, over the next 2 years, a coalition of power players urged the FDA to back off. Professional associations issued statements and hosted webinars devoted to the issue. Some created polished websites featuring sample letters to send to Washington.

Academic medical centers and pathology departments joined the fight, too. Scientists from 23 of them put it bluntly in a letter to the Office of Management and Budget: “FDA regulation of LDTs would be contrary to the public health,” it said, using a common acronym for the tests.

“Critical testing would be unavailable in the ‘lag time’ between development of new tests and FDA authorizing them,” the authors of the letter wrote, “and subsequent improvements on existing tests would slow significantly under the rigid, inflexible, and duplicative FDA regulatory scheme.”

This could delay essential care for patients. What’s more, opponents argued, existing lab reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are sufficiently rigorous. Some have suggested modernizing the CMS review process to improve oversight.

An FDA spokesperson told ProPublica that the agency encountered “continued, negative feedback,” including a 25-page paper written by two legal heavyweights hired by the American Clinical Laboratory Association: Paul Clement, President George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, and Laurence Tribe, law professor at Harvard University.

Mr. Clement has reportedly commanded rates of $1,350 per hour. He and Mr. Tribe did not respond to ProPublica’s queries about their work.

Their brief argued that the FDA “lacked legal authority” to regulate lab-developed tests because they are properly seen as the practice of medicine: a service, rather than a product.

However, as lawyers representing the American Association of Bioanalysts countered, the FDA would vet tests before they reach the market, not control how doctors use them. The government proposal, they wrote, is “similar to imposing requirements to screen blood or label drugs.”

After the election of President Donald Trump, but before he took office, a handful of FDA officials discussed their battered proposal. It had represented a breakthrough in the decades of excruciating back-and-forth with industry. But now, with an incoming administration bent on deregulation, their efforts seemed futile.

The regulators feared anything they enacted would be undone by Congress – and, under the Congressional Review Act, they might not be able to reissue anything “substantially similar” in the future. So the FDA published a white paper instead, summarizing the issue “for further public discussion.”

After the meeting where officials made this call, Mr. Lurie, then the FDA’s associate commissioner, recalled a colleague approaching him: “I can’t believe you didn’t say more.”

“And I was like, ‘Yeah, actually, I can’t believe I didn’t say more either,’ ” Mr. Lurie later told ProPublica. (After leaving the agency, Mr. Lurie went on to lead the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, which has pushed the FDA to finally assert oversight over lab-developed tests.)

Nancy Stade, an attorney and senior policy official who left the FDA in 2015, said the agency often moves slowly as it seeks to get buy-in from industry and professional groups. In her work on regulatory policy, she saw it happen with lab-developed tests.

The agency is “always testing the waters,” she said, “and always coming out with something a little bit softer.”

In 2020, the influential American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, representing doctors who handle pregnancies, gave the screening industry another huge boost.

In a bulletin updating their advice on the tests, the two groups described growing research on the performance of some of the standard tests and said people have the right to information about their pregnancies, so the tests should be offered to all patients. Previously, they recommended this only for those facing higher risk of genetic anomalies.

The bulletin said the coauthors had disclosed no conflicts of interest. But two of the four coauthors, including Mary Norton, had disclosed in prior publications that test-makers had provided funding for their research. A company had provided a third coauthor with laboratory services needed to run tests, according to that researcher, a connection she also disclosed in past papers.

ACOG, in a statement to ProPublica, said the organization “identified no conflicts because research funding is provided to academic institutions with institutional review boards, not to individual investigators.” Two of the three researchers responded to questions from ProPublica and said they maintained independence over their work.

One test-maker, Illumina, celebrated the ACOG guidance in a tweet, saying it “recognizes the superior performance of #NIPT and the benefit it provides expectant families.” Natera’s share prices doubled in 5 months. UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest private insurer and long a target of industry lobbying, told ProPublica it changed its stance to cover screenings for all patients, regardless of risk, because of the recommendation.

In a recent shareholder report, Natera stated that prenatal genetic and carrier screenings “represent the significant majority of our revenues,” which totaled $625.5 million in 2021. The company expects more growth to come.

“The NIPT market is still very underpenetrated, compared to the 4 to 5 million pregnancies in the U.S.,” Natera’s chief executive said on a 2021 earnings call, “so there’s a long way to go.”

But even Dr. Norton, who coauthored the ACOG recommendation and favors NIPTs for patients 40 and over, has concerns about screenings becoming widespread among those who are younger. In most cases, she prefers other screening methods that catch the nongenetic problems younger moms are more likely to face. Negative results from an NIPT, she said, can be “falsely reassuring.”

In the years after the FDA set aside its regulatory proposal, the agency has assisted members of Congress on a proposed legislative solution. That effort, dubbed the VALID Act, aims to end any debate over the agency’s authority over lab-developed tests. An FDA press officer said the legislation would ensure the prenatal screening tests and others are “accurate and reliable.”

But, as in the past, intense lobbying followed the proposal. The VALID Act was a rider to a funding reauthorization bill, but in September the House and Senate agreed to remove it. Advocates now hope to attach it to proposed end-of-year legislation.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, 4 months after the New York Times story on the usefulness of some screenings, the FDA took a step toward more public awareness about prenatal genetic screening. It issued its first safety communication on them, noting the potential for false results.

It cautioned patients about making “critical health care decisions based on results from these screening tests alone.”

Cara Tenenbaum, a former FDA policy advisor, was pleased to see the statement. Still, she said, it was long overdue.

“This has been known – known, or should have been known – for 10 years,” she said.
 

‘It had me so messed up’

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, restrictive and ever-changing abortion laws can pressure people to act quickly with limited information, heightening the stakes of prenatal screening.

Julia, a mom from Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, knows what it’s like to face harrowing consequences while navigating state-imposed time limits – and doing so with little guidance. Last fall, she was pregnant with her fourth child when, she said, a nurse practitioner suggested prenatal genetic screening.

At 33, Julia had no risk factors. Her previous pregnancies hadn’t been screened with an NIPT. But with three sons and 18 nephews, she and her husband were curious about the baby’s sex. And the screening seemed like it had no downside.

Julia figured it would only be offered if it was reliable, so her nurse practitioner ordered her both the basic bundle of screenings and the extra tests. (The medical practice didn’t respond to interview requests. Julia is a family nickname that’s used here to protect her privacy.)

The screenings showed the baby was a girl – but the extra tests also detected trisomy 16, a condition caused by an extra chromosome that is so rare, the nurse didn’t know what it was, Julia recalled.

The nurse borrowed Julia’s phone, using it to search online and read aloud what she found. Julia was stunned to hear trisomy 16 was incompatible with life.

“I was utterly devastated,” she said. “I made it out of my doctor’s office but completely broke down in the car.”

But ACOG does not recommend the trisomy 16 screening, saying “its accuracy with regard to detection and the false-positive rate is not established.” Julia wasn’t informed of this, she said, and she’s not sure if her health care providers knew it either.

The lab report recommended diagnostic testing to confirm the results, but time was short. She had her amniocentesis at 17 weeks. It could take up to 4 more weeks to receive results.

That would be too late for a legal abortion in Mississippi. So she made an appointment for one in Florida, where the cutoff was 24 weeks. (It’s now 15 weeks in Florida, while Mississippi went from 15 weeks for legal procedures to a ban on nearly all abortions.)

The wait was excruciating. Julia was driving twice a week to New Orleans for specialized care. With work and child care, it was too hard. She quit the teaching job she loved.

One winter night, she felt the fetus move for the first time – ordinarily a milestone, but now, facing a fatal prognosis, she didn’t want to get attached. “It had me so messed up,” she said.

On the way to the amniocentesis, Julia and her husband chose a name. Drawing from a language conjured by J.R.R. Tolkien in the fantasy novels they love, it means “hope.”

More than halfway through her pregnancy, the amnio results arrived. The prenatal screening had given a false positive. The baby would be fine. In May, Julia gave birth to a healthy daughter.

Julia and her husband are upset about the needless anguish brought on by the screening. “They like to have it both ways,” said Julia’s husband. “They say they are 99% accurate, but when there’s a false positive, they say, ‘Well, we’re not diagnostic.’ ”

Believing the prenatal screening was likely accurate, they had seriously considered canceling the amniocentesis, saving their limited funds for an abortion in Florida, hundreds of miles away.

Their dilemma points to a longtime concern: ending pregnancies based on false positives. The FDA cited it as a risk as far back as 2015. Now, those with positive results are facing an even tighter time crunch. They must consider whether waiting for a definitive test, and possibly traveling to another state for an abortion later in pregnancy, is worth it.

In their promotional material, some companies not only sidestep the variability of the standard tests, they fail to distinguish them from the least reliable ones – those for exceptionally rare conditions. They tout the extra screenings as “premium,” “plus,” or “advanced” options.

“Going to greater lengths for the answers that matter most,” says a brochure aimed at health care providers from test-maker Illumina. Elsewhere it states that the “expanded” panel of tests provides “confident results” and “the additional insights you need.”

But the companies themselves know the accuracy of some of their tests has yet to be established in the research. Natera acknowledged in a recent shareholder report that many insurers won’t pay for screenings for missing chromosomal fragments, known as microdeletions, in part because there isn’t enough published data behind them.

The company, responding to ProPublica, stressed the quality of the data over the quantity, saying the research so far has been favorable. “Natera’s microdeletion testing was thoroughly validated with results published in peer-reviewed publications,” it said in a statement.

Natera pointed to a recent study that looked at DiGeorge syndrome, one of several chromosomal anomalies it checks for with its microdeletion screenings. Researchers found the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test to be 52.6%, meaning that nearly half of positive results are false positives. (For many patients, PPVs for more common conditions can exceed 90%.)

Natera said the performance of the diGeorge syndrome test “is excellent and not considered a low PPV,” because of the condition being extremely rare.

Companies also play up the danger of diagnostic tests like amnio. They “can cause miscarriages,” warns the marketing from Labcorp, which made Amanda’s screening, while its test “does not cause miscarriages.” But medical experts emphasize that diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis, are more accurate and, in fact, carry little risk to the pregnancy.

Labcorp, in a statement, said the company “acknowledges the well-documented risk associated with amniocentesis and CVS in our literature. It is the patient’s prerogative to decide which risks they are willing or unwilling to take.”

Marketing claims also sometimes skate over the nuances in the guidance from the leading professional societies. On a webpage targeting health care providers, for example, a Labcorp chart said groups such as ACOG “endorse and/or recognize” prenatal screenings as an option for all pregnancies. But the chart listed screenings ACOG does not recommend, including trisomy 16.

When asked about it, Labcorp said in a statement that ACOG “endorses NIPS for all pregnancies.” In fact, the guidance is not so sweeping. It says only that the basic bundle of tests should be offered to all, alongside other screening options. It explicitly advises providers to not offer patients the extra tests.

Soon after ProPublica’s query, the Labcorp webpage was updated to remove any mention of the professional societies.

Patients say they often don’t know where to turn for informed and unbiased information. That’s why the r/NIPT Reddit page became such a robust community. Facing difficult news, Julia turned to it for counsel from other prospective parents. Kristina in Texas found the same community. Amanda, too.
 

‘The margin of error is a human life’

On a warm and cloudy day this past June, on what would have been their daughter’s first birthday, Amanda and her husband visited her grave. They brought a unicorn balloon and vanilla cake, which they ate nearby on the grass. Her husband read a poem.

To them, their baby had been perfect. She had fingers and toes. A thatch of dark hair. While in intensive care, peering up at her parents, she grabbed for her mother’s hand.

Had her condition been known, they would’ve spared her futile medical interventions, as doctors tried to save her life. Their family priest would have been able to baptize her. As it was, they never got to hold their child while she was alive.

These days, when Amanda and her husband say grace before dinner, they give thanks for the 28 hours of their daughter’s life.

They’re also thinking about making comfort boxes the hospital could give to other parents who lose a child. It might include books on grief. Softer tissues. Something that says, as Amanda puts it, “This is to help you get through.”

Amid their grief, they had a prayer answered: Amanda is pregnant again.

It’s frightening to go through this again. She barely sleeps the night before visiting the doctor. It feels like she never stopped being pregnant. It will feel that way, she said, until she brings a baby home – one who lives past the first 2 nights.

Amanda planned to get another genetic screening test. At first she couldn’t bear it, wasn’t sure she could trust it. “The margin of error is a human life,” Amanda said.

The 10-week appointment passed. Then the 12-week appointment. After her 13th week, she took the plunge. The test she was given was from Labcorp.

Around this time, more than a year after Amanda had desperately tried to alert the company about what had happened to her and her first baby, she finally heard back. Labcorp’s vice president of genetic counseling and services reached out – after ProPublica contacted the company and shared Amanda’s story.

The executive would only speak to Amanda without a reporter present.

Amanda said that during the call, the executive told her that prenatal genetic tests are evolving, and doctors should be clear about what the screenings can and cannot do. By the end of the conversation, the executive offered Amanda her cell number.

Amanda said she appreciated the call. “I feel better. I feel like I got something.”

The same day, her screening results came back. They were negative.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Amanda wanted to warn someone. In June 2021, her daughter – the one she and her husband had tried for 3 years to conceive – had died after only 28 hours. With an underdeveloped nose, she had battled for every breath.

Nobody knew why. Later, an autopsy report revealed their daughter had an extra 13th chromosome. The condition is nearly always fatal.

“But didn’t we test for that?” Amanda recalled asking herself. “That was kind of where the light bulb clicked.”

Through her doctor, Amanda had gotten a popular prenatal screening from a lab company. It had come back “negative.”

For three major conditions, including the one her baby had, the report gave the impression of near certainty. The likelihood that she would be born without them was “greater than 99%.”

As she recovered from a cesarean section, Amanda found herself facing a long maternity leave without a child. She shut the door to the empty nursery and began spending what seemed like endless hours of that hazy summer learning about the test.

It’s a simple blood draw designed to check for an array of genetic anomalies. But Amanda, a science researcher, read academic articles showing there was a higher risk of inaccurate results than she had realized. (She asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her privacy.)

On Reddit, she found other women reporting problems with the tests, too. She thought Labcorp, the company that made her test, would want to know about the screening that failed her. Maybe by alerting them, she could help other families. Maybe it would help her understand what happened.

“I was trying to gain answers,” said Amanda, now 32. She tried calling Labcorp’s customer service line, but she said she was passed along from one person to another. “It was just a circle,” she remembered.

She phoned Labcorp a second time. The call ended when an employee hung up on her.

Amanda was baffled. Why didn’t the company seem interested in her experience? Why, she wondered, wouldn’t it want to collect this data? Why wasn’t there someone who could answer her questions about how often this happens, and why?

If she had taken any number of other common commercial tests – including certain tests for COVID-19 or, say, pregnancy – the company would have been required to inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about reports of so-called adverse events.

But the test Amanda had falls into a regulatory void. No federal agency checks to make sure these prenatal screenings work the way they claim before they’re sold to health care providers. The FDA doesn’t ensure that marketing claims are backed up by evidence before screenings reach patients. And companies aren’t required to publicly report instances of when the tests get it wrong – sometimes catastrophically.

The broader lab testing industry and its lobbyists have successfully fought for years to keep it this way, cowing regulators into staying on the sidelines.

Worried about a growing variety of tests escaping scrutiny, the FDA was on the cusp of stepping in 6 years ago. But then it backed down.

Peter Lurie, then a top agency official, was at the meetings where the FDA tabled its plans. Not pushing harder, he told ProPublica, “remains one of my greatest regrets.”

The risk of false positives from prenatal screenings, in particular, has been known for years.

In 2014, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting detailed how some companies gave a misleading impression of the precision of the prenatal screenings. Women often didn’t understand they needed diagnostic testing to confirm the results. Some had gotten abortions based on false positive results, the story said. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported how companies sell optional extra screenings that are “usually wrong” when they predict a disorder.

Despite these stories and calls for reform by patient advocates, the government has done little to improve oversight of prenatal screenings. ProPublica set out to examine the forces that led to this inertia and left patients like Amanda feeling misled. Interviews with more than three dozen women revealed ongoing confusion about the screenings – and anger when their reliability proved to be overblown.

“This is a Wild West scenario where everybody is on their own,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University, Washington, law professor specializing in bioethics.

The stakes for families are increasing. Upward of half of all pregnant people now receive one of these prenatal screenings. And with many states banning abortions or limiting them to early in pregnancies, the need for fast, accurate information has become more urgent.

The FDA itself acknowledges the problem. In correspondence with ProPublica, a spokesperson cited an “outdated policy” regarding the lack of vetting of many lab tests that the agency has “spent the better part of the last 2 decades trying to address.”

The screening industry, meanwhile, continues to expand, proving lucrative for those who lead it. The chief executive of Natera, which claims about 40% of the market share of prenatal screenings, received a $23 million compensation package last year, the highest of any executive at a publicly traded lab company.

Testing companies told ProPublica that, even without the FDA, there is significant oversight. Labs must abide by state regulations, and another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is charged with monitoring quality standards. It does not, however, check whether the tests the labs perform are clinically valid.

Companies also said the screenings offer important guidance to expectant families. Echoing others in the field, Labcorp said in a statement that the screenings, when used properly, “provide vital information about the presence of increased risk, but do not provide a definitive diagnosis.” (It declined to discuss the specifics of Amanda’s experience.)

Natera pointed out that its materials tell patients that “this test does not make a final diagnosis.” It reports results as “high-risk” or “low-risk,” not positive or negative.

Companies have stressed that, ultimately, it’s the responsibility of health care providers, who order the tests, to inform patients about the limits of screenings.

For all that, the statistical nuances of the test aren’t easy to parse for patients and even some doctors and nurses. For example, the test for trisomy 13, which doomed Amanda’s baby, is actually less likely to correctly predict the condition than other tests in the standard bundle of screenings offered to every patient.

When ProPublica asked readers to share their experiences with noninvasive prenatal screening tests, often referred to as NIPTs or NIPS, more than a thousand responded. Many said the tests had given them peace of mind. Some said they had provided an early warning about problems.

But others had more questions than answers. None more so than Amanda.

“What are these tests?” she wondered. “And how did mine end up in the margin of error?”
 

‘They started using it on humans, and then they went back and said: “Was our test accurate?” ’

Scientists have long tried to find ways to help parents and doctors understand what’s happening inside the womb. Amniocentesis was first used to reveal genetic anomalies in the late 1960s. But it didn’t become more popular until it began to be paired with ultrasound to precisely guide the procedure.

In the 1980s, doctors started using chorionic villus sampling, or CVS, an analysis of placental tissue that offers a diagnosis earlier in pregnancy. But, like amniocentesis, it is an invasive test that involves some risk to the fetus, though experts say it’s exceptionally low.

A breakthrough came in the late 1990s, when a scientist recognized that free-floating placental DNA could be detected in the mother’s blood. This meant that the fetus’s chromosomes could be examined by collecting a blood sample as soon as 9 weeks into pregnancy. This also provides an early opportunity to learn the likely fetal sex – a particularly popular feature.

Champions of the new science celebrated the arrival of a simple technique for patients that was particularly precise, at least for some conditions. Many favored it over other noninvasive options. But the industry that developed around NIPT has been marred by controversy from the beginning.

Dr. Ronald Wapner, director of reproductive genetics at Columbia University, described that time as “very chaotic.”

The tests had not been appropriately evaluated in clinical practice, said Dr. Wapner, whose research has sometimes been funded by testing companies. Because of this, he said, the industry “had very incomplete data on how well it worked.”

That didn’t stop the excitement. The chief executive of Sequenom, a biotechnology company that planned to release the first NIPT for Down syndrome, championed the company as the “Google of Molecular Diagnostics.” Its stock price soared.

Then, about 2 months before an expected launch in 2009, Sequenom killed the plan. The company’s research director, it turned out, had manipulated testing data and made misleading claims about how well the screening worked.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Bureau of Investigation opened investigations. Top executives were fired, and the research director pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Sequenom still managed to commercialize the test in 2011. (Labcorp, which later acquired Sequenom, said it uses a different kind of test.)

Other companies soon debuted their own tests. Still, there was little data on their clinical performance, researchers said.

As Megan Allyse, a bioethicist at the Mayo Clinic, put it, the companies “launched the test, they started using it on humans, and then they went back and said, ‘Was our test accurate?’ ” She also questioned the lack of attention to the ethics of how tests are presented to patients.

Despite missteps by the industry, the FDA didn’t scrutinize the screenings because they were considered lab-developed tests, which means they are created by the same laboratory that conducts them.

In 1976, Congress revamped oversight over medical devices. Since then, the FDA has effectively exempted such “home-brew” tests from key regulatory requirements. The idea was that when, say, a hospital lab wanted to create a simple test for its own patients, it was spared the time, money, and hassle of getting approval from Washington bureaucrats.

Today, lab-developed tests are vastly more numerous and complex. Because they aren’t registered with the federal government, nobody knows how many exist.

The distinction between tests the FDA actively regulates and those they don’t can seem nonsensical. It isn’t based on the complexity of the tests, or how people use them. It’s simply a matter of where the test is made.

The prenatal genetic screening industry took off almost immediately, powered by an army of aggressive sales representatives.

“At the very beginning, obstetricians in practice were being just completely inundated with visits from the sales reps,” said Dr. John Williams, director of reproductive health at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The push left many ob.gyns. and patients thinking the screenings were accurate enough to substitute for diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis or CVS.

In some cases, sales tactics escalated into lawbreaking.

Former Sequenom executives who exited during the fraud scandal created a new company that became Progenity, which also offered prenatal screening. Shortly after the company went public in 2020, it finalized a $49 million settlement with federal and state governments, where it admitted to falsifying insurance claims and giving kickbacks to physicians and their staff. According to a legal filing, one sales rep spent $65,658 on meals and alcohol for physicians in 1 year.

Now called Biora Therapeutics, the company said in a statement it no longer does any laboratory testing, including prenatal screenings.

Industry revenue continues to grow, but some testing companies are still fighting to make a profit, and competition to survive is fierce. “There’s a multibillion-dollar market, and they all want a piece of it,” said a former Progenity sales rep who quit in disgust after 5 months in 2016.

The rep, who requested anonymity because she continues to work in the field, said she still sees competitors from NIPT companies visiting medical practices “every week, buying breakfast or dinner, or taking them out for happy hour.”

Over time, companies pointed to new peer-reviewed studies, research the industry itself funded, to earn the confidence of doctors and other stakeholders. They showed that two tests – for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 – often performed better than other screening methods.

This research was valid, said Dr. Mary Norton, a perinatologist and clinical geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center’s prenatal diagnostic center. Considered a leading researcher in the field, she was an author of many of these key industry-funded studies.

But, she said, when research findings were presented publicly, the companies sometimes downplayed “inconvenient truths,” such as the exclusion of inconclusive results from accuracy estimates. Crucial caveats were also glossed over by some companies when they translated research into promotional copy aimed at health care providers and patients. Those materials didn’t always mention the many factors that can limit the performance of the screenings, including high body weight, the rarity of the condition tested, and younger maternal age.

Testing companies said they try to help patients understand the screenings through online resources and other materials. Some offer genetic counseling services.

The younger a person is, the lower the test’s positive predictive value – that is, the probability that a positive screening result will turn out to be correct – will be for some conditions. For instance, because Down syndrome is less prevalent in younger people’s pregnancies, a positive screening test is more likely to be a false positive for them.

Kristina was 30 years old in 2016, when her Progenity test came back positive for Down syndrome. She and her husband, who asked not to be fully named to protect their privacy, said they didn’t plan to carry a pregnancy with this condition to term.

But waiting to get an amniocentesis, and then waiting for the results, took 5 agonizing weeks, she said. It showed her son did not have Down syndrome.

Kristina, who lives in Texas, is still troubled by what she describes as a traumatic experience.

“I researched both late-term abortion providers and cemeteries,” she said. They even picked out a burial place, near their house.

She bought a blue baby blanket she intended to bury the baby’s tiny body in. She still has it. Her son, now 5, sleeps with it every night.
 

‘I can’t believe I didn’t say more’

As lab-developed tests became a bigger business, moving well past their home-brew origins, regulators looked for a way to assert oversight. In 2014, after years of study and debate, the time seemed right.

The FDA released plans proposing to regulate the tests, prioritizing those used to make major medical decisions. The agency has pointed to NIPTs as 1 of 20 concerning tests.

But, over the next 2 years, a coalition of power players urged the FDA to back off. Professional associations issued statements and hosted webinars devoted to the issue. Some created polished websites featuring sample letters to send to Washington.

Academic medical centers and pathology departments joined the fight, too. Scientists from 23 of them put it bluntly in a letter to the Office of Management and Budget: “FDA regulation of LDTs would be contrary to the public health,” it said, using a common acronym for the tests.

“Critical testing would be unavailable in the ‘lag time’ between development of new tests and FDA authorizing them,” the authors of the letter wrote, “and subsequent improvements on existing tests would slow significantly under the rigid, inflexible, and duplicative FDA regulatory scheme.”

This could delay essential care for patients. What’s more, opponents argued, existing lab reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are sufficiently rigorous. Some have suggested modernizing the CMS review process to improve oversight.

An FDA spokesperson told ProPublica that the agency encountered “continued, negative feedback,” including a 25-page paper written by two legal heavyweights hired by the American Clinical Laboratory Association: Paul Clement, President George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, and Laurence Tribe, law professor at Harvard University.

Mr. Clement has reportedly commanded rates of $1,350 per hour. He and Mr. Tribe did not respond to ProPublica’s queries about their work.

Their brief argued that the FDA “lacked legal authority” to regulate lab-developed tests because they are properly seen as the practice of medicine: a service, rather than a product.

However, as lawyers representing the American Association of Bioanalysts countered, the FDA would vet tests before they reach the market, not control how doctors use them. The government proposal, they wrote, is “similar to imposing requirements to screen blood or label drugs.”

After the election of President Donald Trump, but before he took office, a handful of FDA officials discussed their battered proposal. It had represented a breakthrough in the decades of excruciating back-and-forth with industry. But now, with an incoming administration bent on deregulation, their efforts seemed futile.

The regulators feared anything they enacted would be undone by Congress – and, under the Congressional Review Act, they might not be able to reissue anything “substantially similar” in the future. So the FDA published a white paper instead, summarizing the issue “for further public discussion.”

After the meeting where officials made this call, Mr. Lurie, then the FDA’s associate commissioner, recalled a colleague approaching him: “I can’t believe you didn’t say more.”

“And I was like, ‘Yeah, actually, I can’t believe I didn’t say more either,’ ” Mr. Lurie later told ProPublica. (After leaving the agency, Mr. Lurie went on to lead the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, which has pushed the FDA to finally assert oversight over lab-developed tests.)

Nancy Stade, an attorney and senior policy official who left the FDA in 2015, said the agency often moves slowly as it seeks to get buy-in from industry and professional groups. In her work on regulatory policy, she saw it happen with lab-developed tests.

The agency is “always testing the waters,” she said, “and always coming out with something a little bit softer.”

In 2020, the influential American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, representing doctors who handle pregnancies, gave the screening industry another huge boost.

In a bulletin updating their advice on the tests, the two groups described growing research on the performance of some of the standard tests and said people have the right to information about their pregnancies, so the tests should be offered to all patients. Previously, they recommended this only for those facing higher risk of genetic anomalies.

The bulletin said the coauthors had disclosed no conflicts of interest. But two of the four coauthors, including Mary Norton, had disclosed in prior publications that test-makers had provided funding for their research. A company had provided a third coauthor with laboratory services needed to run tests, according to that researcher, a connection she also disclosed in past papers.

ACOG, in a statement to ProPublica, said the organization “identified no conflicts because research funding is provided to academic institutions with institutional review boards, not to individual investigators.” Two of the three researchers responded to questions from ProPublica and said they maintained independence over their work.

One test-maker, Illumina, celebrated the ACOG guidance in a tweet, saying it “recognizes the superior performance of #NIPT and the benefit it provides expectant families.” Natera’s share prices doubled in 5 months. UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest private insurer and long a target of industry lobbying, told ProPublica it changed its stance to cover screenings for all patients, regardless of risk, because of the recommendation.

In a recent shareholder report, Natera stated that prenatal genetic and carrier screenings “represent the significant majority of our revenues,” which totaled $625.5 million in 2021. The company expects more growth to come.

“The NIPT market is still very underpenetrated, compared to the 4 to 5 million pregnancies in the U.S.,” Natera’s chief executive said on a 2021 earnings call, “so there’s a long way to go.”

But even Dr. Norton, who coauthored the ACOG recommendation and favors NIPTs for patients 40 and over, has concerns about screenings becoming widespread among those who are younger. In most cases, she prefers other screening methods that catch the nongenetic problems younger moms are more likely to face. Negative results from an NIPT, she said, can be “falsely reassuring.”

In the years after the FDA set aside its regulatory proposal, the agency has assisted members of Congress on a proposed legislative solution. That effort, dubbed the VALID Act, aims to end any debate over the agency’s authority over lab-developed tests. An FDA press officer said the legislation would ensure the prenatal screening tests and others are “accurate and reliable.”

But, as in the past, intense lobbying followed the proposal. The VALID Act was a rider to a funding reauthorization bill, but in September the House and Senate agreed to remove it. Advocates now hope to attach it to proposed end-of-year legislation.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, 4 months after the New York Times story on the usefulness of some screenings, the FDA took a step toward more public awareness about prenatal genetic screening. It issued its first safety communication on them, noting the potential for false results.

It cautioned patients about making “critical health care decisions based on results from these screening tests alone.”

Cara Tenenbaum, a former FDA policy advisor, was pleased to see the statement. Still, she said, it was long overdue.

“This has been known – known, or should have been known – for 10 years,” she said.
 

‘It had me so messed up’

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, restrictive and ever-changing abortion laws can pressure people to act quickly with limited information, heightening the stakes of prenatal screening.

Julia, a mom from Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, knows what it’s like to face harrowing consequences while navigating state-imposed time limits – and doing so with little guidance. Last fall, she was pregnant with her fourth child when, she said, a nurse practitioner suggested prenatal genetic screening.

At 33, Julia had no risk factors. Her previous pregnancies hadn’t been screened with an NIPT. But with three sons and 18 nephews, she and her husband were curious about the baby’s sex. And the screening seemed like it had no downside.

Julia figured it would only be offered if it was reliable, so her nurse practitioner ordered her both the basic bundle of screenings and the extra tests. (The medical practice didn’t respond to interview requests. Julia is a family nickname that’s used here to protect her privacy.)

The screenings showed the baby was a girl – but the extra tests also detected trisomy 16, a condition caused by an extra chromosome that is so rare, the nurse didn’t know what it was, Julia recalled.

The nurse borrowed Julia’s phone, using it to search online and read aloud what she found. Julia was stunned to hear trisomy 16 was incompatible with life.

“I was utterly devastated,” she said. “I made it out of my doctor’s office but completely broke down in the car.”

But ACOG does not recommend the trisomy 16 screening, saying “its accuracy with regard to detection and the false-positive rate is not established.” Julia wasn’t informed of this, she said, and she’s not sure if her health care providers knew it either.

The lab report recommended diagnostic testing to confirm the results, but time was short. She had her amniocentesis at 17 weeks. It could take up to 4 more weeks to receive results.

That would be too late for a legal abortion in Mississippi. So she made an appointment for one in Florida, where the cutoff was 24 weeks. (It’s now 15 weeks in Florida, while Mississippi went from 15 weeks for legal procedures to a ban on nearly all abortions.)

The wait was excruciating. Julia was driving twice a week to New Orleans for specialized care. With work and child care, it was too hard. She quit the teaching job she loved.

One winter night, she felt the fetus move for the first time – ordinarily a milestone, but now, facing a fatal prognosis, she didn’t want to get attached. “It had me so messed up,” she said.

On the way to the amniocentesis, Julia and her husband chose a name. Drawing from a language conjured by J.R.R. Tolkien in the fantasy novels they love, it means “hope.”

More than halfway through her pregnancy, the amnio results arrived. The prenatal screening had given a false positive. The baby would be fine. In May, Julia gave birth to a healthy daughter.

Julia and her husband are upset about the needless anguish brought on by the screening. “They like to have it both ways,” said Julia’s husband. “They say they are 99% accurate, but when there’s a false positive, they say, ‘Well, we’re not diagnostic.’ ”

Believing the prenatal screening was likely accurate, they had seriously considered canceling the amniocentesis, saving their limited funds for an abortion in Florida, hundreds of miles away.

Their dilemma points to a longtime concern: ending pregnancies based on false positives. The FDA cited it as a risk as far back as 2015. Now, those with positive results are facing an even tighter time crunch. They must consider whether waiting for a definitive test, and possibly traveling to another state for an abortion later in pregnancy, is worth it.

In their promotional material, some companies not only sidestep the variability of the standard tests, they fail to distinguish them from the least reliable ones – those for exceptionally rare conditions. They tout the extra screenings as “premium,” “plus,” or “advanced” options.

“Going to greater lengths for the answers that matter most,” says a brochure aimed at health care providers from test-maker Illumina. Elsewhere it states that the “expanded” panel of tests provides “confident results” and “the additional insights you need.”

But the companies themselves know the accuracy of some of their tests has yet to be established in the research. Natera acknowledged in a recent shareholder report that many insurers won’t pay for screenings for missing chromosomal fragments, known as microdeletions, in part because there isn’t enough published data behind them.

The company, responding to ProPublica, stressed the quality of the data over the quantity, saying the research so far has been favorable. “Natera’s microdeletion testing was thoroughly validated with results published in peer-reviewed publications,” it said in a statement.

Natera pointed to a recent study that looked at DiGeorge syndrome, one of several chromosomal anomalies it checks for with its microdeletion screenings. Researchers found the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test to be 52.6%, meaning that nearly half of positive results are false positives. (For many patients, PPVs for more common conditions can exceed 90%.)

Natera said the performance of the diGeorge syndrome test “is excellent and not considered a low PPV,” because of the condition being extremely rare.

Companies also play up the danger of diagnostic tests like amnio. They “can cause miscarriages,” warns the marketing from Labcorp, which made Amanda’s screening, while its test “does not cause miscarriages.” But medical experts emphasize that diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis, are more accurate and, in fact, carry little risk to the pregnancy.

Labcorp, in a statement, said the company “acknowledges the well-documented risk associated with amniocentesis and CVS in our literature. It is the patient’s prerogative to decide which risks they are willing or unwilling to take.”

Marketing claims also sometimes skate over the nuances in the guidance from the leading professional societies. On a webpage targeting health care providers, for example, a Labcorp chart said groups such as ACOG “endorse and/or recognize” prenatal screenings as an option for all pregnancies. But the chart listed screenings ACOG does not recommend, including trisomy 16.

When asked about it, Labcorp said in a statement that ACOG “endorses NIPS for all pregnancies.” In fact, the guidance is not so sweeping. It says only that the basic bundle of tests should be offered to all, alongside other screening options. It explicitly advises providers to not offer patients the extra tests.

Soon after ProPublica’s query, the Labcorp webpage was updated to remove any mention of the professional societies.

Patients say they often don’t know where to turn for informed and unbiased information. That’s why the r/NIPT Reddit page became such a robust community. Facing difficult news, Julia turned to it for counsel from other prospective parents. Kristina in Texas found the same community. Amanda, too.
 

‘The margin of error is a human life’

On a warm and cloudy day this past June, on what would have been their daughter’s first birthday, Amanda and her husband visited her grave. They brought a unicorn balloon and vanilla cake, which they ate nearby on the grass. Her husband read a poem.

To them, their baby had been perfect. She had fingers and toes. A thatch of dark hair. While in intensive care, peering up at her parents, she grabbed for her mother’s hand.

Had her condition been known, they would’ve spared her futile medical interventions, as doctors tried to save her life. Their family priest would have been able to baptize her. As it was, they never got to hold their child while she was alive.

These days, when Amanda and her husband say grace before dinner, they give thanks for the 28 hours of their daughter’s life.

They’re also thinking about making comfort boxes the hospital could give to other parents who lose a child. It might include books on grief. Softer tissues. Something that says, as Amanda puts it, “This is to help you get through.”

Amid their grief, they had a prayer answered: Amanda is pregnant again.

It’s frightening to go through this again. She barely sleeps the night before visiting the doctor. It feels like she never stopped being pregnant. It will feel that way, she said, until she brings a baby home – one who lives past the first 2 nights.

Amanda planned to get another genetic screening test. At first she couldn’t bear it, wasn’t sure she could trust it. “The margin of error is a human life,” Amanda said.

The 10-week appointment passed. Then the 12-week appointment. After her 13th week, she took the plunge. The test she was given was from Labcorp.

Around this time, more than a year after Amanda had desperately tried to alert the company about what had happened to her and her first baby, she finally heard back. Labcorp’s vice president of genetic counseling and services reached out – after ProPublica contacted the company and shared Amanda’s story.

The executive would only speak to Amanda without a reporter present.

Amanda said that during the call, the executive told her that prenatal genetic tests are evolving, and doctors should be clear about what the screenings can and cannot do. By the end of the conversation, the executive offered Amanda her cell number.

Amanda said she appreciated the call. “I feel better. I feel like I got something.”

The same day, her screening results came back. They were negative.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Amanda wanted to warn someone. In June 2021, her daughter – the one she and her husband had tried for 3 years to conceive – had died after only 28 hours. With an underdeveloped nose, she had battled for every breath.

Nobody knew why. Later, an autopsy report revealed their daughter had an extra 13th chromosome. The condition is nearly always fatal.

“But didn’t we test for that?” Amanda recalled asking herself. “That was kind of where the light bulb clicked.”

Through her doctor, Amanda had gotten a popular prenatal screening from a lab company. It had come back “negative.”

For three major conditions, including the one her baby had, the report gave the impression of near certainty. The likelihood that she would be born without them was “greater than 99%.”

As she recovered from a cesarean section, Amanda found herself facing a long maternity leave without a child. She shut the door to the empty nursery and began spending what seemed like endless hours of that hazy summer learning about the test.

It’s a simple blood draw designed to check for an array of genetic anomalies. But Amanda, a science researcher, read academic articles showing there was a higher risk of inaccurate results than she had realized. (She asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her privacy.)

On Reddit, she found other women reporting problems with the tests, too. She thought Labcorp, the company that made her test, would want to know about the screening that failed her. Maybe by alerting them, she could help other families. Maybe it would help her understand what happened.

“I was trying to gain answers,” said Amanda, now 32. She tried calling Labcorp’s customer service line, but she said she was passed along from one person to another. “It was just a circle,” she remembered.

She phoned Labcorp a second time. The call ended when an employee hung up on her.

Amanda was baffled. Why didn’t the company seem interested in her experience? Why, she wondered, wouldn’t it want to collect this data? Why wasn’t there someone who could answer her questions about how often this happens, and why?

If she had taken any number of other common commercial tests – including certain tests for COVID-19 or, say, pregnancy – the company would have been required to inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about reports of so-called adverse events.

But the test Amanda had falls into a regulatory void. No federal agency checks to make sure these prenatal screenings work the way they claim before they’re sold to health care providers. The FDA doesn’t ensure that marketing claims are backed up by evidence before screenings reach patients. And companies aren’t required to publicly report instances of when the tests get it wrong – sometimes catastrophically.

The broader lab testing industry and its lobbyists have successfully fought for years to keep it this way, cowing regulators into staying on the sidelines.

Worried about a growing variety of tests escaping scrutiny, the FDA was on the cusp of stepping in 6 years ago. But then it backed down.

Peter Lurie, then a top agency official, was at the meetings where the FDA tabled its plans. Not pushing harder, he told ProPublica, “remains one of my greatest regrets.”

The risk of false positives from prenatal screenings, in particular, has been known for years.

In 2014, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting detailed how some companies gave a misleading impression of the precision of the prenatal screenings. Women often didn’t understand they needed diagnostic testing to confirm the results. Some had gotten abortions based on false positive results, the story said. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported how companies sell optional extra screenings that are “usually wrong” when they predict a disorder.

Despite these stories and calls for reform by patient advocates, the government has done little to improve oversight of prenatal screenings. ProPublica set out to examine the forces that led to this inertia and left patients like Amanda feeling misled. Interviews with more than three dozen women revealed ongoing confusion about the screenings – and anger when their reliability proved to be overblown.

“This is a Wild West scenario where everybody is on their own,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University, Washington, law professor specializing in bioethics.

The stakes for families are increasing. Upward of half of all pregnant people now receive one of these prenatal screenings. And with many states banning abortions or limiting them to early in pregnancies, the need for fast, accurate information has become more urgent.

The FDA itself acknowledges the problem. In correspondence with ProPublica, a spokesperson cited an “outdated policy” regarding the lack of vetting of many lab tests that the agency has “spent the better part of the last 2 decades trying to address.”

The screening industry, meanwhile, continues to expand, proving lucrative for those who lead it. The chief executive of Natera, which claims about 40% of the market share of prenatal screenings, received a $23 million compensation package last year, the highest of any executive at a publicly traded lab company.

Testing companies told ProPublica that, even without the FDA, there is significant oversight. Labs must abide by state regulations, and another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is charged with monitoring quality standards. It does not, however, check whether the tests the labs perform are clinically valid.

Companies also said the screenings offer important guidance to expectant families. Echoing others in the field, Labcorp said in a statement that the screenings, when used properly, “provide vital information about the presence of increased risk, but do not provide a definitive diagnosis.” (It declined to discuss the specifics of Amanda’s experience.)

Natera pointed out that its materials tell patients that “this test does not make a final diagnosis.” It reports results as “high-risk” or “low-risk,” not positive or negative.

Companies have stressed that, ultimately, it’s the responsibility of health care providers, who order the tests, to inform patients about the limits of screenings.

For all that, the statistical nuances of the test aren’t easy to parse for patients and even some doctors and nurses. For example, the test for trisomy 13, which doomed Amanda’s baby, is actually less likely to correctly predict the condition than other tests in the standard bundle of screenings offered to every patient.

When ProPublica asked readers to share their experiences with noninvasive prenatal screening tests, often referred to as NIPTs or NIPS, more than a thousand responded. Many said the tests had given them peace of mind. Some said they had provided an early warning about problems.

But others had more questions than answers. None more so than Amanda.

“What are these tests?” she wondered. “And how did mine end up in the margin of error?”
 

‘They started using it on humans, and then they went back and said: “Was our test accurate?” ’

Scientists have long tried to find ways to help parents and doctors understand what’s happening inside the womb. Amniocentesis was first used to reveal genetic anomalies in the late 1960s. But it didn’t become more popular until it began to be paired with ultrasound to precisely guide the procedure.

In the 1980s, doctors started using chorionic villus sampling, or CVS, an analysis of placental tissue that offers a diagnosis earlier in pregnancy. But, like amniocentesis, it is an invasive test that involves some risk to the fetus, though experts say it’s exceptionally low.

A breakthrough came in the late 1990s, when a scientist recognized that free-floating placental DNA could be detected in the mother’s blood. This meant that the fetus’s chromosomes could be examined by collecting a blood sample as soon as 9 weeks into pregnancy. This also provides an early opportunity to learn the likely fetal sex – a particularly popular feature.

Champions of the new science celebrated the arrival of a simple technique for patients that was particularly precise, at least for some conditions. Many favored it over other noninvasive options. But the industry that developed around NIPT has been marred by controversy from the beginning.

Dr. Ronald Wapner, director of reproductive genetics at Columbia University, described that time as “very chaotic.”

The tests had not been appropriately evaluated in clinical practice, said Dr. Wapner, whose research has sometimes been funded by testing companies. Because of this, he said, the industry “had very incomplete data on how well it worked.”

That didn’t stop the excitement. The chief executive of Sequenom, a biotechnology company that planned to release the first NIPT for Down syndrome, championed the company as the “Google of Molecular Diagnostics.” Its stock price soared.

Then, about 2 months before an expected launch in 2009, Sequenom killed the plan. The company’s research director, it turned out, had manipulated testing data and made misleading claims about how well the screening worked.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Bureau of Investigation opened investigations. Top executives were fired, and the research director pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Sequenom still managed to commercialize the test in 2011. (Labcorp, which later acquired Sequenom, said it uses a different kind of test.)

Other companies soon debuted their own tests. Still, there was little data on their clinical performance, researchers said.

As Megan Allyse, a bioethicist at the Mayo Clinic, put it, the companies “launched the test, they started using it on humans, and then they went back and said, ‘Was our test accurate?’ ” She also questioned the lack of attention to the ethics of how tests are presented to patients.

Despite missteps by the industry, the FDA didn’t scrutinize the screenings because they were considered lab-developed tests, which means they are created by the same laboratory that conducts them.

In 1976, Congress revamped oversight over medical devices. Since then, the FDA has effectively exempted such “home-brew” tests from key regulatory requirements. The idea was that when, say, a hospital lab wanted to create a simple test for its own patients, it was spared the time, money, and hassle of getting approval from Washington bureaucrats.

Today, lab-developed tests are vastly more numerous and complex. Because they aren’t registered with the federal government, nobody knows how many exist.

The distinction between tests the FDA actively regulates and those they don’t can seem nonsensical. It isn’t based on the complexity of the tests, or how people use them. It’s simply a matter of where the test is made.

The prenatal genetic screening industry took off almost immediately, powered by an army of aggressive sales representatives.

“At the very beginning, obstetricians in practice were being just completely inundated with visits from the sales reps,” said Dr. John Williams, director of reproductive health at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The push left many ob.gyns. and patients thinking the screenings were accurate enough to substitute for diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis or CVS.

In some cases, sales tactics escalated into lawbreaking.

Former Sequenom executives who exited during the fraud scandal created a new company that became Progenity, which also offered prenatal screening. Shortly after the company went public in 2020, it finalized a $49 million settlement with federal and state governments, where it admitted to falsifying insurance claims and giving kickbacks to physicians and their staff. According to a legal filing, one sales rep spent $65,658 on meals and alcohol for physicians in 1 year.

Now called Biora Therapeutics, the company said in a statement it no longer does any laboratory testing, including prenatal screenings.

Industry revenue continues to grow, but some testing companies are still fighting to make a profit, and competition to survive is fierce. “There’s a multibillion-dollar market, and they all want a piece of it,” said a former Progenity sales rep who quit in disgust after 5 months in 2016.

The rep, who requested anonymity because she continues to work in the field, said she still sees competitors from NIPT companies visiting medical practices “every week, buying breakfast or dinner, or taking them out for happy hour.”

Over time, companies pointed to new peer-reviewed studies, research the industry itself funded, to earn the confidence of doctors and other stakeholders. They showed that two tests – for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 – often performed better than other screening methods.

This research was valid, said Dr. Mary Norton, a perinatologist and clinical geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center’s prenatal diagnostic center. Considered a leading researcher in the field, she was an author of many of these key industry-funded studies.

But, she said, when research findings were presented publicly, the companies sometimes downplayed “inconvenient truths,” such as the exclusion of inconclusive results from accuracy estimates. Crucial caveats were also glossed over by some companies when they translated research into promotional copy aimed at health care providers and patients. Those materials didn’t always mention the many factors that can limit the performance of the screenings, including high body weight, the rarity of the condition tested, and younger maternal age.

Testing companies said they try to help patients understand the screenings through online resources and other materials. Some offer genetic counseling services.

The younger a person is, the lower the test’s positive predictive value – that is, the probability that a positive screening result will turn out to be correct – will be for some conditions. For instance, because Down syndrome is less prevalent in younger people’s pregnancies, a positive screening test is more likely to be a false positive for them.

Kristina was 30 years old in 2016, when her Progenity test came back positive for Down syndrome. She and her husband, who asked not to be fully named to protect their privacy, said they didn’t plan to carry a pregnancy with this condition to term.

But waiting to get an amniocentesis, and then waiting for the results, took 5 agonizing weeks, she said. It showed her son did not have Down syndrome.

Kristina, who lives in Texas, is still troubled by what she describes as a traumatic experience.

“I researched both late-term abortion providers and cemeteries,” she said. They even picked out a burial place, near their house.

She bought a blue baby blanket she intended to bury the baby’s tiny body in. She still has it. Her son, now 5, sleeps with it every night.
 

‘I can’t believe I didn’t say more’

As lab-developed tests became a bigger business, moving well past their home-brew origins, regulators looked for a way to assert oversight. In 2014, after years of study and debate, the time seemed right.

The FDA released plans proposing to regulate the tests, prioritizing those used to make major medical decisions. The agency has pointed to NIPTs as 1 of 20 concerning tests.

But, over the next 2 years, a coalition of power players urged the FDA to back off. Professional associations issued statements and hosted webinars devoted to the issue. Some created polished websites featuring sample letters to send to Washington.

Academic medical centers and pathology departments joined the fight, too. Scientists from 23 of them put it bluntly in a letter to the Office of Management and Budget: “FDA regulation of LDTs would be contrary to the public health,” it said, using a common acronym for the tests.

“Critical testing would be unavailable in the ‘lag time’ between development of new tests and FDA authorizing them,” the authors of the letter wrote, “and subsequent improvements on existing tests would slow significantly under the rigid, inflexible, and duplicative FDA regulatory scheme.”

This could delay essential care for patients. What’s more, opponents argued, existing lab reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are sufficiently rigorous. Some have suggested modernizing the CMS review process to improve oversight.

An FDA spokesperson told ProPublica that the agency encountered “continued, negative feedback,” including a 25-page paper written by two legal heavyweights hired by the American Clinical Laboratory Association: Paul Clement, President George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, and Laurence Tribe, law professor at Harvard University.

Mr. Clement has reportedly commanded rates of $1,350 per hour. He and Mr. Tribe did not respond to ProPublica’s queries about their work.

Their brief argued that the FDA “lacked legal authority” to regulate lab-developed tests because they are properly seen as the practice of medicine: a service, rather than a product.

However, as lawyers representing the American Association of Bioanalysts countered, the FDA would vet tests before they reach the market, not control how doctors use them. The government proposal, they wrote, is “similar to imposing requirements to screen blood or label drugs.”

After the election of President Donald Trump, but before he took office, a handful of FDA officials discussed their battered proposal. It had represented a breakthrough in the decades of excruciating back-and-forth with industry. But now, with an incoming administration bent on deregulation, their efforts seemed futile.

The regulators feared anything they enacted would be undone by Congress – and, under the Congressional Review Act, they might not be able to reissue anything “substantially similar” in the future. So the FDA published a white paper instead, summarizing the issue “for further public discussion.”

After the meeting where officials made this call, Mr. Lurie, then the FDA’s associate commissioner, recalled a colleague approaching him: “I can’t believe you didn’t say more.”

“And I was like, ‘Yeah, actually, I can’t believe I didn’t say more either,’ ” Mr. Lurie later told ProPublica. (After leaving the agency, Mr. Lurie went on to lead the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, which has pushed the FDA to finally assert oversight over lab-developed tests.)

Nancy Stade, an attorney and senior policy official who left the FDA in 2015, said the agency often moves slowly as it seeks to get buy-in from industry and professional groups. In her work on regulatory policy, she saw it happen with lab-developed tests.

The agency is “always testing the waters,” she said, “and always coming out with something a little bit softer.”

In 2020, the influential American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, representing doctors who handle pregnancies, gave the screening industry another huge boost.

In a bulletin updating their advice on the tests, the two groups described growing research on the performance of some of the standard tests and said people have the right to information about their pregnancies, so the tests should be offered to all patients. Previously, they recommended this only for those facing higher risk of genetic anomalies.

The bulletin said the coauthors had disclosed no conflicts of interest. But two of the four coauthors, including Mary Norton, had disclosed in prior publications that test-makers had provided funding for their research. A company had provided a third coauthor with laboratory services needed to run tests, according to that researcher, a connection she also disclosed in past papers.

ACOG, in a statement to ProPublica, said the organization “identified no conflicts because research funding is provided to academic institutions with institutional review boards, not to individual investigators.” Two of the three researchers responded to questions from ProPublica and said they maintained independence over their work.

One test-maker, Illumina, celebrated the ACOG guidance in a tweet, saying it “recognizes the superior performance of #NIPT and the benefit it provides expectant families.” Natera’s share prices doubled in 5 months. UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest private insurer and long a target of industry lobbying, told ProPublica it changed its stance to cover screenings for all patients, regardless of risk, because of the recommendation.

In a recent shareholder report, Natera stated that prenatal genetic and carrier screenings “represent the significant majority of our revenues,” which totaled $625.5 million in 2021. The company expects more growth to come.

“The NIPT market is still very underpenetrated, compared to the 4 to 5 million pregnancies in the U.S.,” Natera’s chief executive said on a 2021 earnings call, “so there’s a long way to go.”

But even Dr. Norton, who coauthored the ACOG recommendation and favors NIPTs for patients 40 and over, has concerns about screenings becoming widespread among those who are younger. In most cases, she prefers other screening methods that catch the nongenetic problems younger moms are more likely to face. Negative results from an NIPT, she said, can be “falsely reassuring.”

In the years after the FDA set aside its regulatory proposal, the agency has assisted members of Congress on a proposed legislative solution. That effort, dubbed the VALID Act, aims to end any debate over the agency’s authority over lab-developed tests. An FDA press officer said the legislation would ensure the prenatal screening tests and others are “accurate and reliable.”

But, as in the past, intense lobbying followed the proposal. The VALID Act was a rider to a funding reauthorization bill, but in September the House and Senate agreed to remove it. Advocates now hope to attach it to proposed end-of-year legislation.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, 4 months after the New York Times story on the usefulness of some screenings, the FDA took a step toward more public awareness about prenatal genetic screening. It issued its first safety communication on them, noting the potential for false results.

It cautioned patients about making “critical health care decisions based on results from these screening tests alone.”

Cara Tenenbaum, a former FDA policy advisor, was pleased to see the statement. Still, she said, it was long overdue.

“This has been known – known, or should have been known – for 10 years,” she said.
 

‘It had me so messed up’

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, restrictive and ever-changing abortion laws can pressure people to act quickly with limited information, heightening the stakes of prenatal screening.

Julia, a mom from Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, knows what it’s like to face harrowing consequences while navigating state-imposed time limits – and doing so with little guidance. Last fall, she was pregnant with her fourth child when, she said, a nurse practitioner suggested prenatal genetic screening.

At 33, Julia had no risk factors. Her previous pregnancies hadn’t been screened with an NIPT. But with three sons and 18 nephews, she and her husband were curious about the baby’s sex. And the screening seemed like it had no downside.

Julia figured it would only be offered if it was reliable, so her nurse practitioner ordered her both the basic bundle of screenings and the extra tests. (The medical practice didn’t respond to interview requests. Julia is a family nickname that’s used here to protect her privacy.)

The screenings showed the baby was a girl – but the extra tests also detected trisomy 16, a condition caused by an extra chromosome that is so rare, the nurse didn’t know what it was, Julia recalled.

The nurse borrowed Julia’s phone, using it to search online and read aloud what she found. Julia was stunned to hear trisomy 16 was incompatible with life.

“I was utterly devastated,” she said. “I made it out of my doctor’s office but completely broke down in the car.”

But ACOG does not recommend the trisomy 16 screening, saying “its accuracy with regard to detection and the false-positive rate is not established.” Julia wasn’t informed of this, she said, and she’s not sure if her health care providers knew it either.

The lab report recommended diagnostic testing to confirm the results, but time was short. She had her amniocentesis at 17 weeks. It could take up to 4 more weeks to receive results.

That would be too late for a legal abortion in Mississippi. So she made an appointment for one in Florida, where the cutoff was 24 weeks. (It’s now 15 weeks in Florida, while Mississippi went from 15 weeks for legal procedures to a ban on nearly all abortions.)

The wait was excruciating. Julia was driving twice a week to New Orleans for specialized care. With work and child care, it was too hard. She quit the teaching job she loved.

One winter night, she felt the fetus move for the first time – ordinarily a milestone, but now, facing a fatal prognosis, she didn’t want to get attached. “It had me so messed up,” she said.

On the way to the amniocentesis, Julia and her husband chose a name. Drawing from a language conjured by J.R.R. Tolkien in the fantasy novels they love, it means “hope.”

More than halfway through her pregnancy, the amnio results arrived. The prenatal screening had given a false positive. The baby would be fine. In May, Julia gave birth to a healthy daughter.

Julia and her husband are upset about the needless anguish brought on by the screening. “They like to have it both ways,” said Julia’s husband. “They say they are 99% accurate, but when there’s a false positive, they say, ‘Well, we’re not diagnostic.’ ”

Believing the prenatal screening was likely accurate, they had seriously considered canceling the amniocentesis, saving their limited funds for an abortion in Florida, hundreds of miles away.

Their dilemma points to a longtime concern: ending pregnancies based on false positives. The FDA cited it as a risk as far back as 2015. Now, those with positive results are facing an even tighter time crunch. They must consider whether waiting for a definitive test, and possibly traveling to another state for an abortion later in pregnancy, is worth it.

In their promotional material, some companies not only sidestep the variability of the standard tests, they fail to distinguish them from the least reliable ones – those for exceptionally rare conditions. They tout the extra screenings as “premium,” “plus,” or “advanced” options.

“Going to greater lengths for the answers that matter most,” says a brochure aimed at health care providers from test-maker Illumina. Elsewhere it states that the “expanded” panel of tests provides “confident results” and “the additional insights you need.”

But the companies themselves know the accuracy of some of their tests has yet to be established in the research. Natera acknowledged in a recent shareholder report that many insurers won’t pay for screenings for missing chromosomal fragments, known as microdeletions, in part because there isn’t enough published data behind them.

The company, responding to ProPublica, stressed the quality of the data over the quantity, saying the research so far has been favorable. “Natera’s microdeletion testing was thoroughly validated with results published in peer-reviewed publications,” it said in a statement.

Natera pointed to a recent study that looked at DiGeorge syndrome, one of several chromosomal anomalies it checks for with its microdeletion screenings. Researchers found the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test to be 52.6%, meaning that nearly half of positive results are false positives. (For many patients, PPVs for more common conditions can exceed 90%.)

Natera said the performance of the diGeorge syndrome test “is excellent and not considered a low PPV,” because of the condition being extremely rare.

Companies also play up the danger of diagnostic tests like amnio. They “can cause miscarriages,” warns the marketing from Labcorp, which made Amanda’s screening, while its test “does not cause miscarriages.” But medical experts emphasize that diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis, are more accurate and, in fact, carry little risk to the pregnancy.

Labcorp, in a statement, said the company “acknowledges the well-documented risk associated with amniocentesis and CVS in our literature. It is the patient’s prerogative to decide which risks they are willing or unwilling to take.”

Marketing claims also sometimes skate over the nuances in the guidance from the leading professional societies. On a webpage targeting health care providers, for example, a Labcorp chart said groups such as ACOG “endorse and/or recognize” prenatal screenings as an option for all pregnancies. But the chart listed screenings ACOG does not recommend, including trisomy 16.

When asked about it, Labcorp said in a statement that ACOG “endorses NIPS for all pregnancies.” In fact, the guidance is not so sweeping. It says only that the basic bundle of tests should be offered to all, alongside other screening options. It explicitly advises providers to not offer patients the extra tests.

Soon after ProPublica’s query, the Labcorp webpage was updated to remove any mention of the professional societies.

Patients say they often don’t know where to turn for informed and unbiased information. That’s why the r/NIPT Reddit page became such a robust community. Facing difficult news, Julia turned to it for counsel from other prospective parents. Kristina in Texas found the same community. Amanda, too.
 

‘The margin of error is a human life’

On a warm and cloudy day this past June, on what would have been their daughter’s first birthday, Amanda and her husband visited her grave. They brought a unicorn balloon and vanilla cake, which they ate nearby on the grass. Her husband read a poem.

To them, their baby had been perfect. She had fingers and toes. A thatch of dark hair. While in intensive care, peering up at her parents, she grabbed for her mother’s hand.

Had her condition been known, they would’ve spared her futile medical interventions, as doctors tried to save her life. Their family priest would have been able to baptize her. As it was, they never got to hold their child while she was alive.

These days, when Amanda and her husband say grace before dinner, they give thanks for the 28 hours of their daughter’s life.

They’re also thinking about making comfort boxes the hospital could give to other parents who lose a child. It might include books on grief. Softer tissues. Something that says, as Amanda puts it, “This is to help you get through.”

Amid their grief, they had a prayer answered: Amanda is pregnant again.

It’s frightening to go through this again. She barely sleeps the night before visiting the doctor. It feels like she never stopped being pregnant. It will feel that way, she said, until she brings a baby home – one who lives past the first 2 nights.

Amanda planned to get another genetic screening test. At first she couldn’t bear it, wasn’t sure she could trust it. “The margin of error is a human life,” Amanda said.

The 10-week appointment passed. Then the 12-week appointment. After her 13th week, she took the plunge. The test she was given was from Labcorp.

Around this time, more than a year after Amanda had desperately tried to alert the company about what had happened to her and her first baby, she finally heard back. Labcorp’s vice president of genetic counseling and services reached out – after ProPublica contacted the company and shared Amanda’s story.

The executive would only speak to Amanda without a reporter present.

Amanda said that during the call, the executive told her that prenatal genetic tests are evolving, and doctors should be clear about what the screenings can and cannot do. By the end of the conversation, the executive offered Amanda her cell number.

Amanda said she appreciated the call. “I feel better. I feel like I got something.”

The same day, her screening results came back. They were negative.
 

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – There is no negative impact of in utero exposure to antiseizure medications on children’s creativity, new research shows.

The results of this study, along with other research, suggest the risk for cognitive problems “is fairly low” overall for children of women with epilepsy taking lamotrigine or levetiracetam, study investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD, professor, department of neurology & neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“This is another encouraging piece that’s showing these new drugs are safe with regard to cognition.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
 

Capturing creativity

Fetal exposure to antiseizure medications can produce adverse neurodevelopmental effects. These are typically assessed using measures such as general intelligence, verbal/nonverbal abilities, or additional educational needs.

However, these measures don’t capture creativity, which “is related to intelligence but not completely,” said Dr. Meador. “I have seen wonderful examples of creativity in people who have a lot of cognitive impairment.”

He referred to one of his patients with epilepsy who is “spectacularly good” at painting with watercolors, even though she has significant cognitive impairment.

The new analysis is part of the MONEAD study, a prospective, observational multicenter study examining pregnancy outcomes for both mother and child. It included pregnant women who were enrolled at under 20 weeks’ gestational age.

The women with epilepsy in the study were primarily on monotherapy (73%), and of these, 82% were on lamotrigine or levetiracetam. About 22% were on polytherapy, of which 42% were on dual therapy with lamotrigine and levetiracetam.
 

Fluency, originality

Researchers assessed the children of these women at age 4½ years using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural (TTCT-F). This is a standardized assessment of creative thinking with index scores measuring such things as fluency, originality, abstractness, and elaboration.

Dr. Meador noted the research team used a shorter version of the test battery “so as to not wear out the families and kids.”

During the test, children were given lines of different shapes and asked to draw a picture using these lines. Dr. Meador pointed out the drawings ranged from quite basic to more intricate.

One child cleverly turned a few squiggly lines into a car. “I can look at this and say this kid’s going to do very well,” said Dr. Meador.

Investigators compared scores between 241 children of women with epilepsy (WWE) and 65 children of healthy women (HW). They adjusted for the mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, gestation age at enrollment, post-birth average anxiety score, and the child’s ethnicity and sex.

Investigators found the mean TTCT-F scores did not differ significantly between the two groups: adjusted least squares mean of 89.5 (95% confidence interval, 86.7-92.3) for children of WWE, compared with adjusted least square mean of 92.0 (95% CI, 86.4-97.6) for children of HW.
 

Balancing act

The researchers haven’t looked at a dose effect in this current study, but Dr. Meador said it’s always “a balancing act” between giving enough of the drug to keep mothers from seizing, which affect both the mother and fetus, and giving as low a dose as possible to protect the fetus.

In addition, as medication levels change during pregnancy, he said he recommends that drug levels are monitored monthly so that medication can be adjusted as necessary.

Looking at what factors might predict creativity scores, researchers found children did less well creatively if their mother didn’t have a college degree (estimate –9.5; 95% CI, –17.9 to –1.2; P = .025).

“It looks like being in a home where the mother has had more education is going to have an impact on the kid’s thinking and creativity,” said Dr. Meador.

These new findings are consistent with a lack of differences in other cognitive abilities that Dr. Meador and his team found when the children were younger.

“At age 3, we did not find an overall difference in cognitive and verbal abilities and intelligence between the children of mothers with epilepsy and those of healthy women,” he said.

The researchers aim to assess cognitive and behavioral outcomes in these children when they are 6 years old.
 

Helpful information

Commenting on the findings, Stéphane Auvin, MD, PhD, chair of the department of pediatric neurology at the University of Paris, who co-moderated a platform session featuring the research, said the study “is an interesting measure of the impact of being exposed to antiseizure medications.”

Creativity is “complex,” he said. “It’s not only cognition; it could be things like behavior and impulsivity.”

The new information is “very helpful.” Focusing on something broader than just IQ “gives you a better picture of what’s going on.”

The study received funding from NIH, NINDS, and NICH. Dr. Meador has received grants from NIH/NINDS, NIH/NICHD, Veterans Administration, and Eisai. He has been a consultant for Epilepsy Consortium, Novartis, Supernus, Upsher Smith Labs, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Auvin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – There is no negative impact of in utero exposure to antiseizure medications on children’s creativity, new research shows.

The results of this study, along with other research, suggest the risk for cognitive problems “is fairly low” overall for children of women with epilepsy taking lamotrigine or levetiracetam, study investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD, professor, department of neurology & neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“This is another encouraging piece that’s showing these new drugs are safe with regard to cognition.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
 

Capturing creativity

Fetal exposure to antiseizure medications can produce adverse neurodevelopmental effects. These are typically assessed using measures such as general intelligence, verbal/nonverbal abilities, or additional educational needs.

However, these measures don’t capture creativity, which “is related to intelligence but not completely,” said Dr. Meador. “I have seen wonderful examples of creativity in people who have a lot of cognitive impairment.”

He referred to one of his patients with epilepsy who is “spectacularly good” at painting with watercolors, even though she has significant cognitive impairment.

The new analysis is part of the MONEAD study, a prospective, observational multicenter study examining pregnancy outcomes for both mother and child. It included pregnant women who were enrolled at under 20 weeks’ gestational age.

The women with epilepsy in the study were primarily on monotherapy (73%), and of these, 82% were on lamotrigine or levetiracetam. About 22% were on polytherapy, of which 42% were on dual therapy with lamotrigine and levetiracetam.
 

Fluency, originality

Researchers assessed the children of these women at age 4½ years using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural (TTCT-F). This is a standardized assessment of creative thinking with index scores measuring such things as fluency, originality, abstractness, and elaboration.

Dr. Meador noted the research team used a shorter version of the test battery “so as to not wear out the families and kids.”

During the test, children were given lines of different shapes and asked to draw a picture using these lines. Dr. Meador pointed out the drawings ranged from quite basic to more intricate.

One child cleverly turned a few squiggly lines into a car. “I can look at this and say this kid’s going to do very well,” said Dr. Meador.

Investigators compared scores between 241 children of women with epilepsy (WWE) and 65 children of healthy women (HW). They adjusted for the mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, gestation age at enrollment, post-birth average anxiety score, and the child’s ethnicity and sex.

Investigators found the mean TTCT-F scores did not differ significantly between the two groups: adjusted least squares mean of 89.5 (95% confidence interval, 86.7-92.3) for children of WWE, compared with adjusted least square mean of 92.0 (95% CI, 86.4-97.6) for children of HW.
 

Balancing act

The researchers haven’t looked at a dose effect in this current study, but Dr. Meador said it’s always “a balancing act” between giving enough of the drug to keep mothers from seizing, which affect both the mother and fetus, and giving as low a dose as possible to protect the fetus.

In addition, as medication levels change during pregnancy, he said he recommends that drug levels are monitored monthly so that medication can be adjusted as necessary.

Looking at what factors might predict creativity scores, researchers found children did less well creatively if their mother didn’t have a college degree (estimate –9.5; 95% CI, –17.9 to –1.2; P = .025).

“It looks like being in a home where the mother has had more education is going to have an impact on the kid’s thinking and creativity,” said Dr. Meador.

These new findings are consistent with a lack of differences in other cognitive abilities that Dr. Meador and his team found when the children were younger.

“At age 3, we did not find an overall difference in cognitive and verbal abilities and intelligence between the children of mothers with epilepsy and those of healthy women,” he said.

The researchers aim to assess cognitive and behavioral outcomes in these children when they are 6 years old.
 

Helpful information

Commenting on the findings, Stéphane Auvin, MD, PhD, chair of the department of pediatric neurology at the University of Paris, who co-moderated a platform session featuring the research, said the study “is an interesting measure of the impact of being exposed to antiseizure medications.”

Creativity is “complex,” he said. “It’s not only cognition; it could be things like behavior and impulsivity.”

The new information is “very helpful.” Focusing on something broader than just IQ “gives you a better picture of what’s going on.”

The study received funding from NIH, NINDS, and NICH. Dr. Meador has received grants from NIH/NINDS, NIH/NICHD, Veterans Administration, and Eisai. He has been a consultant for Epilepsy Consortium, Novartis, Supernus, Upsher Smith Labs, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Auvin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – There is no negative impact of in utero exposure to antiseizure medications on children’s creativity, new research shows.

The results of this study, along with other research, suggest the risk for cognitive problems “is fairly low” overall for children of women with epilepsy taking lamotrigine or levetiracetam, study investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD, professor, department of neurology & neurological sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“This is another encouraging piece that’s showing these new drugs are safe with regard to cognition.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
 

Capturing creativity

Fetal exposure to antiseizure medications can produce adverse neurodevelopmental effects. These are typically assessed using measures such as general intelligence, verbal/nonverbal abilities, or additional educational needs.

However, these measures don’t capture creativity, which “is related to intelligence but not completely,” said Dr. Meador. “I have seen wonderful examples of creativity in people who have a lot of cognitive impairment.”

He referred to one of his patients with epilepsy who is “spectacularly good” at painting with watercolors, even though she has significant cognitive impairment.

The new analysis is part of the MONEAD study, a prospective, observational multicenter study examining pregnancy outcomes for both mother and child. It included pregnant women who were enrolled at under 20 weeks’ gestational age.

The women with epilepsy in the study were primarily on monotherapy (73%), and of these, 82% were on lamotrigine or levetiracetam. About 22% were on polytherapy, of which 42% were on dual therapy with lamotrigine and levetiracetam.
 

Fluency, originality

Researchers assessed the children of these women at age 4½ years using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural (TTCT-F). This is a standardized assessment of creative thinking with index scores measuring such things as fluency, originality, abstractness, and elaboration.

Dr. Meador noted the research team used a shorter version of the test battery “so as to not wear out the families and kids.”

During the test, children were given lines of different shapes and asked to draw a picture using these lines. Dr. Meador pointed out the drawings ranged from quite basic to more intricate.

One child cleverly turned a few squiggly lines into a car. “I can look at this and say this kid’s going to do very well,” said Dr. Meador.

Investigators compared scores between 241 children of women with epilepsy (WWE) and 65 children of healthy women (HW). They adjusted for the mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, gestation age at enrollment, post-birth average anxiety score, and the child’s ethnicity and sex.

Investigators found the mean TTCT-F scores did not differ significantly between the two groups: adjusted least squares mean of 89.5 (95% confidence interval, 86.7-92.3) for children of WWE, compared with adjusted least square mean of 92.0 (95% CI, 86.4-97.6) for children of HW.
 

Balancing act

The researchers haven’t looked at a dose effect in this current study, but Dr. Meador said it’s always “a balancing act” between giving enough of the drug to keep mothers from seizing, which affect both the mother and fetus, and giving as low a dose as possible to protect the fetus.

In addition, as medication levels change during pregnancy, he said he recommends that drug levels are monitored monthly so that medication can be adjusted as necessary.

Looking at what factors might predict creativity scores, researchers found children did less well creatively if their mother didn’t have a college degree (estimate –9.5; 95% CI, –17.9 to –1.2; P = .025).

“It looks like being in a home where the mother has had more education is going to have an impact on the kid’s thinking and creativity,” said Dr. Meador.

These new findings are consistent with a lack of differences in other cognitive abilities that Dr. Meador and his team found when the children were younger.

“At age 3, we did not find an overall difference in cognitive and verbal abilities and intelligence between the children of mothers with epilepsy and those of healthy women,” he said.

The researchers aim to assess cognitive and behavioral outcomes in these children when they are 6 years old.
 

Helpful information

Commenting on the findings, Stéphane Auvin, MD, PhD, chair of the department of pediatric neurology at the University of Paris, who co-moderated a platform session featuring the research, said the study “is an interesting measure of the impact of being exposed to antiseizure medications.”

Creativity is “complex,” he said. “It’s not only cognition; it could be things like behavior and impulsivity.”

The new information is “very helpful.” Focusing on something broader than just IQ “gives you a better picture of what’s going on.”

The study received funding from NIH, NINDS, and NICH. Dr. Meador has received grants from NIH/NINDS, NIH/NICHD, Veterans Administration, and Eisai. He has been a consultant for Epilepsy Consortium, Novartis, Supernus, Upsher Smith Labs, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Auvin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The precise cause of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains a mystery. A novel new hypothesis suggests that IBS could result from the body’s inability to manage gravity.

Gravity may be the “unifying factor in multiple seemingly disparate and mutually incompatible theories of IBS,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization. Dr. Spiegel’s gravity hypothesis of IBS is described in an article published in the December issue of American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A human being’s relationship to gravity is not unlike the relationship of a fish to water, he explained.

“We live our entire life in it, are shaped by it, yet hardly notice its ever-present influence on our body. Every fiber of our body is affected by gravity every day, including our gastrointestinal tract,” said Dr. Spiegel.

The abdominal contents are like a sack of heavy potatoes that we’re destined to carry around for our entire lives. To meet this demand, our body evolved to support the abdominal load with a set of mechanisms that hoist the viscera against gravity in an upright posture, Dr. Spiegel explained.

A failure of these mechanisms could lead to a host of problems, including motility problems or bacterial overgrowth in the gut and symptoms of IBS.

Dr. Spiegel’s gravity hypothesis, however, goes beyond the gastrointestinal tract.

“Our nervous system has evolved its own ways of managing gravity and how gut feelings arise when our nervous system detects gravity challenges, like getting ‘butterflies’ when falling on a roller coaster or in a turbulent airplane,” Dr. Spiegel said.

“Even our neuropsychological orientation to gravity is found in our language, like when people talk about feeling down in the dumps, feeling low, [or say they] can’t get out of bed. These are directional metaphors that we use that refer to the fact that there is something about getting pulled down that’s obviously negative,” he noted.
 

‘A big ask’

Dr. Spiegel said his gravity theory of IBS draws from “extensive literature to build a hypothesis that IBS may result from ineffective anatomical, physiological, and neuropsychological gravity-management systems designed to optimize GI form and function, protect body integrity, and maximize survival in a gravity-bound world.”

He acknowledged that it’s “a big ask” to get people to consider a unifying theory of anything. “But when we dig down deep, it’s not terribly controversial to me to suggest that our health has something to do with gravity. How could it not?” he said.

Dr. Spiegel also thinks this line of thinking has clinical implications.

“While we can’t change gravity, we can change our relationship to gravity in different ways,” he said.

“For starters, we can bolster our body to manage gravity better, through losing weight, exercise, and strengthening the anti-gravity extensor muscles along the back, which supports the spine, which is the chassis that holds up the whole body and includes maintaining the shape of the abdominal cavity,” Dr. Spiegel said.

The reason physical therapy and exercise are effective for IBS could be because these interventions strengthen the GI support systems, he said.
 

Testable theory

Before Dr. Spiegel “got up the courage” to submit his paper, he sent it to leading IBS researchers in the United States to get their honest opinion, he said.

“To my surprise, they wrote back and said this makes sense. And a few said this could have implications for other diseases,” he said in an interview.

Some of his patients with IBS have told him how the paper resonates and the specific ways they have noticed the impact of gravity and related air pressure on their IBS symptoms.

Some have reported that their symptoms get better when they scuba dive but worsen when they get out of the ocean; others said they feel much better up in the mountains versus at sea level; another said doing a headstand during yoga eases their GI symptoms.

“These may just be anecdotes, but they’re really striking,” Dr. Spiegel said.

His theory is not meant to replace any of the many existing theories of IBS, Dr. Spiegel emphasized. Rather, it’s an attempt to pull together the different theories under a single, potentially unifying explanation.

His paper includes a list of research projects that might help explore the gravity theory of IBS.

“It may be that none of this ends up being true, or bits and pieces of it are kind of true,” Dr. Spiegel said.
 

A research challenge

Dr. Spiegel has given researchers an “intriguing and interesting thought experiment and kind of a challenge to go out there and determine whether or not this hypothesis may actually be true,” Millie Long, MD, co–editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology, said in a podcast.

Dr. Long, a gastroenterologist and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, encouraged listeners to “dig deep into this hypothesis.”

The gravity hypothesis is provocative, “but the best thing about it is that it is testable,” Shelly Lu, MD, director of the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a news release issued by the medical center.

“If proved correct, it is a major paradigm shift in the way we think about IBS and possibly treatment as well,” said Dr. Lu.

Also weighing in, Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist with the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., noted that “our understanding of the etiopathophysiology of IBS has evolved over the past 50 years.”

“Once thought to be a psychiatric disorder (‘nervous colitis’) or a disorder simply of gut spasms (‘spastic colitis’), we now understand that symptoms of IBS develop for a multitude of reasons, including alterations in the gut microbiome, changes in gut sensation and motility, and modulation of the brain-gut axis, to name just a few,” Dr. Lacy said in an interview.

“Dr. Spiegel’s intriguing manuscript opens the door for us to think about IBS in a completely different way,” said Dr. Lacy.

“His novel hypothesis is a superb challenge to researchers and clinicians who can directly test his theory with a number of intriguing experiments. The results of these experiments may completely change the treatment paradigm for IBS patients,” Dr. Lacy added.

This research had no financial support. Dr. Spiegel and Dr. Lacy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The precise cause of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains a mystery. A novel new hypothesis suggests that IBS could result from the body’s inability to manage gravity.

Gravity may be the “unifying factor in multiple seemingly disparate and mutually incompatible theories of IBS,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization. Dr. Spiegel’s gravity hypothesis of IBS is described in an article published in the December issue of American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A human being’s relationship to gravity is not unlike the relationship of a fish to water, he explained.

“We live our entire life in it, are shaped by it, yet hardly notice its ever-present influence on our body. Every fiber of our body is affected by gravity every day, including our gastrointestinal tract,” said Dr. Spiegel.

The abdominal contents are like a sack of heavy potatoes that we’re destined to carry around for our entire lives. To meet this demand, our body evolved to support the abdominal load with a set of mechanisms that hoist the viscera against gravity in an upright posture, Dr. Spiegel explained.

A failure of these mechanisms could lead to a host of problems, including motility problems or bacterial overgrowth in the gut and symptoms of IBS.

Dr. Spiegel’s gravity hypothesis, however, goes beyond the gastrointestinal tract.

“Our nervous system has evolved its own ways of managing gravity and how gut feelings arise when our nervous system detects gravity challenges, like getting ‘butterflies’ when falling on a roller coaster or in a turbulent airplane,” Dr. Spiegel said.

“Even our neuropsychological orientation to gravity is found in our language, like when people talk about feeling down in the dumps, feeling low, [or say they] can’t get out of bed. These are directional metaphors that we use that refer to the fact that there is something about getting pulled down that’s obviously negative,” he noted.
 

‘A big ask’

Dr. Spiegel said his gravity theory of IBS draws from “extensive literature to build a hypothesis that IBS may result from ineffective anatomical, physiological, and neuropsychological gravity-management systems designed to optimize GI form and function, protect body integrity, and maximize survival in a gravity-bound world.”

He acknowledged that it’s “a big ask” to get people to consider a unifying theory of anything. “But when we dig down deep, it’s not terribly controversial to me to suggest that our health has something to do with gravity. How could it not?” he said.

Dr. Spiegel also thinks this line of thinking has clinical implications.

“While we can’t change gravity, we can change our relationship to gravity in different ways,” he said.

“For starters, we can bolster our body to manage gravity better, through losing weight, exercise, and strengthening the anti-gravity extensor muscles along the back, which supports the spine, which is the chassis that holds up the whole body and includes maintaining the shape of the abdominal cavity,” Dr. Spiegel said.

The reason physical therapy and exercise are effective for IBS could be because these interventions strengthen the GI support systems, he said.
 

Testable theory

Before Dr. Spiegel “got up the courage” to submit his paper, he sent it to leading IBS researchers in the United States to get their honest opinion, he said.

“To my surprise, they wrote back and said this makes sense. And a few said this could have implications for other diseases,” he said in an interview.

Some of his patients with IBS have told him how the paper resonates and the specific ways they have noticed the impact of gravity and related air pressure on their IBS symptoms.

Some have reported that their symptoms get better when they scuba dive but worsen when they get out of the ocean; others said they feel much better up in the mountains versus at sea level; another said doing a headstand during yoga eases their GI symptoms.

“These may just be anecdotes, but they’re really striking,” Dr. Spiegel said.

His theory is not meant to replace any of the many existing theories of IBS, Dr. Spiegel emphasized. Rather, it’s an attempt to pull together the different theories under a single, potentially unifying explanation.

His paper includes a list of research projects that might help explore the gravity theory of IBS.

“It may be that none of this ends up being true, or bits and pieces of it are kind of true,” Dr. Spiegel said.
 

A research challenge

Dr. Spiegel has given researchers an “intriguing and interesting thought experiment and kind of a challenge to go out there and determine whether or not this hypothesis may actually be true,” Millie Long, MD, co–editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology, said in a podcast.

Dr. Long, a gastroenterologist and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, encouraged listeners to “dig deep into this hypothesis.”

The gravity hypothesis is provocative, “but the best thing about it is that it is testable,” Shelly Lu, MD, director of the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a news release issued by the medical center.

“If proved correct, it is a major paradigm shift in the way we think about IBS and possibly treatment as well,” said Dr. Lu.

Also weighing in, Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist with the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., noted that “our understanding of the etiopathophysiology of IBS has evolved over the past 50 years.”

“Once thought to be a psychiatric disorder (‘nervous colitis’) or a disorder simply of gut spasms (‘spastic colitis’), we now understand that symptoms of IBS develop for a multitude of reasons, including alterations in the gut microbiome, changes in gut sensation and motility, and modulation of the brain-gut axis, to name just a few,” Dr. Lacy said in an interview.

“Dr. Spiegel’s intriguing manuscript opens the door for us to think about IBS in a completely different way,” said Dr. Lacy.

“His novel hypothesis is a superb challenge to researchers and clinicians who can directly test his theory with a number of intriguing experiments. The results of these experiments may completely change the treatment paradigm for IBS patients,” Dr. Lacy added.

This research had no financial support. Dr. Spiegel and Dr. Lacy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The precise cause of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains a mystery. A novel new hypothesis suggests that IBS could result from the body’s inability to manage gravity.

Gravity may be the “unifying factor in multiple seemingly disparate and mutually incompatible theories of IBS,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization. Dr. Spiegel’s gravity hypothesis of IBS is described in an article published in the December issue of American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A human being’s relationship to gravity is not unlike the relationship of a fish to water, he explained.

“We live our entire life in it, are shaped by it, yet hardly notice its ever-present influence on our body. Every fiber of our body is affected by gravity every day, including our gastrointestinal tract,” said Dr. Spiegel.

The abdominal contents are like a sack of heavy potatoes that we’re destined to carry around for our entire lives. To meet this demand, our body evolved to support the abdominal load with a set of mechanisms that hoist the viscera against gravity in an upright posture, Dr. Spiegel explained.

A failure of these mechanisms could lead to a host of problems, including motility problems or bacterial overgrowth in the gut and symptoms of IBS.

Dr. Spiegel’s gravity hypothesis, however, goes beyond the gastrointestinal tract.

“Our nervous system has evolved its own ways of managing gravity and how gut feelings arise when our nervous system detects gravity challenges, like getting ‘butterflies’ when falling on a roller coaster or in a turbulent airplane,” Dr. Spiegel said.

“Even our neuropsychological orientation to gravity is found in our language, like when people talk about feeling down in the dumps, feeling low, [or say they] can’t get out of bed. These are directional metaphors that we use that refer to the fact that there is something about getting pulled down that’s obviously negative,” he noted.
 

‘A big ask’

Dr. Spiegel said his gravity theory of IBS draws from “extensive literature to build a hypothesis that IBS may result from ineffective anatomical, physiological, and neuropsychological gravity-management systems designed to optimize GI form and function, protect body integrity, and maximize survival in a gravity-bound world.”

He acknowledged that it’s “a big ask” to get people to consider a unifying theory of anything. “But when we dig down deep, it’s not terribly controversial to me to suggest that our health has something to do with gravity. How could it not?” he said.

Dr. Spiegel also thinks this line of thinking has clinical implications.

“While we can’t change gravity, we can change our relationship to gravity in different ways,” he said.

“For starters, we can bolster our body to manage gravity better, through losing weight, exercise, and strengthening the anti-gravity extensor muscles along the back, which supports the spine, which is the chassis that holds up the whole body and includes maintaining the shape of the abdominal cavity,” Dr. Spiegel said.

The reason physical therapy and exercise are effective for IBS could be because these interventions strengthen the GI support systems, he said.
 

Testable theory

Before Dr. Spiegel “got up the courage” to submit his paper, he sent it to leading IBS researchers in the United States to get their honest opinion, he said.

“To my surprise, they wrote back and said this makes sense. And a few said this could have implications for other diseases,” he said in an interview.

Some of his patients with IBS have told him how the paper resonates and the specific ways they have noticed the impact of gravity and related air pressure on their IBS symptoms.

Some have reported that their symptoms get better when they scuba dive but worsen when they get out of the ocean; others said they feel much better up in the mountains versus at sea level; another said doing a headstand during yoga eases their GI symptoms.

“These may just be anecdotes, but they’re really striking,” Dr. Spiegel said.

His theory is not meant to replace any of the many existing theories of IBS, Dr. Spiegel emphasized. Rather, it’s an attempt to pull together the different theories under a single, potentially unifying explanation.

His paper includes a list of research projects that might help explore the gravity theory of IBS.

“It may be that none of this ends up being true, or bits and pieces of it are kind of true,” Dr. Spiegel said.
 

A research challenge

Dr. Spiegel has given researchers an “intriguing and interesting thought experiment and kind of a challenge to go out there and determine whether or not this hypothesis may actually be true,” Millie Long, MD, co–editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology, said in a podcast.

Dr. Long, a gastroenterologist and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, encouraged listeners to “dig deep into this hypothesis.”

The gravity hypothesis is provocative, “but the best thing about it is that it is testable,” Shelly Lu, MD, director of the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a news release issued by the medical center.

“If proved correct, it is a major paradigm shift in the way we think about IBS and possibly treatment as well,” said Dr. Lu.

Also weighing in, Brian Lacy, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist with the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., noted that “our understanding of the etiopathophysiology of IBS has evolved over the past 50 years.”

“Once thought to be a psychiatric disorder (‘nervous colitis’) or a disorder simply of gut spasms (‘spastic colitis’), we now understand that symptoms of IBS develop for a multitude of reasons, including alterations in the gut microbiome, changes in gut sensation and motility, and modulation of the brain-gut axis, to name just a few,” Dr. Lacy said in an interview.

“Dr. Spiegel’s intriguing manuscript opens the door for us to think about IBS in a completely different way,” said Dr. Lacy.

“His novel hypothesis is a superb challenge to researchers and clinicians who can directly test his theory with a number of intriguing experiments. The results of these experiments may completely change the treatment paradigm for IBS patients,” Dr. Lacy added.

This research had no financial support. Dr. Spiegel and Dr. Lacy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sunscreens marketed to individuals with skin of color are generally more expensive than products broadly marketed to consumers, and more than 40% contain a UV blocker that may create a white cast.

Ridofranz / iStock / Getty Images

Those are among the findings from a study by Michelle Xiong, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, of the department of dermatology at Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“There is increasing awareness of the negative effects of ultraviolet (UV) light in individuals with skin of color (SOC), especially in regards to pigmentation disorders induced and/or exacerbated by UV exposure,” the authors wrote. “As a result, there has been a surge in sunscreens marketed to this population. We aimed to characterize cost, marketing claims, and potential allergenic ingredients in sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC.”

Between December 2021 and October 2022, the researchers used the following search terms on Google: “sunscreen” plus “skin of 36 color,” “dark skin,” “brown skin,” “LatinX skin,” and/or “Black skin.” They extracted price, marketing claims, and ingredients from manufacturers’ websites and used 90 allergens contained in the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2020 Core series to identify potential allergens. Next, they combined cross-reactors/synonyms into allergen categories based on ACDS Contact Allergen Management Plan (CAMP) cross-reactor classification. If multiple ingredients in a sunscreen were represented by a single allergen category, it was counted only once. A similar approach was utilized for marketing categories.

A total of 12 sunscreens were included in the analysis: Absolute Joi, Black Girl Sunscreen, Black Girl Sunscreen Make It Matte, Bolden SPF Brightening Moisturizer, Eleven on the Defense Unrivaled Sun Serum, Kinlo Golden Rays Sunscreen, Live Tinted Hueguard 3-in-1 Mineral Sunscreen, Mele Dew The Most Sheer Moisturizer SPF30 Broad Spectrum Sunscreen, Mele No Shade Sunscreen Oil, Specific Beauty Active Radiance Day Moi, Unsun Mineral Sunscreen, and Urban Skin Rx Complexion Protection. Their average cost was $19.30 per ounce (range, $6.33-$50.00) and common marketing claims for these products were “no white cast” (91.7%), being free of an ingredient (83.3%), and “moisturizing” (75%).

Of the 12 sunscreens, 7 (58.3%) contained a chemical sunscreen agent, 5 (41.7%) contained a physical UV blocker, and all contained at least one allergen. The average number of allergens per product was 4.7, most commonly fragrance/botanicals (83.3%), tocopherol (83.3%), sodium benzoates/derivatives (58.3%), and sorbitan sesquiolate/derivatives (58.3%).

“Average cost of sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC was $19.30/oz, much higher than the median price of $3.32/oz reported in a separate study of 65 popular sunscreens,” the study authors wrote. “As many of the sunscreens in our study were sold by smaller businesses, higher prices may be due to higher production costs or a perceived smaller market.”

The authors expressed surprise that five sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC contained a physical UV blocker which may create a white cast. They contacted the manufacturers of these five sunscreens and confirmed that three used micronized formulations. “While ingested/inhaled nanoparticles of titanium dioxide may cause tissue effects, most studies of topical products show excellent safety,” they wrote.

They also noted that the average of 4.7 allergens per product observed in the analysis was similar to the average of 4.9 seen in a separate study of 52 popular sunscreens. “However, that study only included 34 allergens while this study evaluated 90 allergens,” the authors wrote. “Consumers and providers should be aware sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC may cause allergic contact dermatitis,” they commented.

“It is interesting to see how costly these products are now compared to store bought and general commercially available sunscreens several years ago,” said Lawrence J. Green, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, to me that is not surprising as products marketed and targeted to specific populations are often priced at a premium. It wasn’t clear to me how many of these specialized online SOC sunscreens are tinted. I wish the authors had compared the cost of tinted sunscreens in general to nontinted sunscreens because tinted ones are more useful for SOC, because when rubbed in, they can readily match SOC and can also offer protection in the visible light spectrum.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures; the study had no funding source. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

Sunscreens marketed to individuals with skin of color are generally more expensive than products broadly marketed to consumers, and more than 40% contain a UV blocker that may create a white cast.

Ridofranz / iStock / Getty Images

Those are among the findings from a study by Michelle Xiong, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, of the department of dermatology at Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“There is increasing awareness of the negative effects of ultraviolet (UV) light in individuals with skin of color (SOC), especially in regards to pigmentation disorders induced and/or exacerbated by UV exposure,” the authors wrote. “As a result, there has been a surge in sunscreens marketed to this population. We aimed to characterize cost, marketing claims, and potential allergenic ingredients in sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC.”

Between December 2021 and October 2022, the researchers used the following search terms on Google: “sunscreen” plus “skin of 36 color,” “dark skin,” “brown skin,” “LatinX skin,” and/or “Black skin.” They extracted price, marketing claims, and ingredients from manufacturers’ websites and used 90 allergens contained in the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2020 Core series to identify potential allergens. Next, they combined cross-reactors/synonyms into allergen categories based on ACDS Contact Allergen Management Plan (CAMP) cross-reactor classification. If multiple ingredients in a sunscreen were represented by a single allergen category, it was counted only once. A similar approach was utilized for marketing categories.

A total of 12 sunscreens were included in the analysis: Absolute Joi, Black Girl Sunscreen, Black Girl Sunscreen Make It Matte, Bolden SPF Brightening Moisturizer, Eleven on the Defense Unrivaled Sun Serum, Kinlo Golden Rays Sunscreen, Live Tinted Hueguard 3-in-1 Mineral Sunscreen, Mele Dew The Most Sheer Moisturizer SPF30 Broad Spectrum Sunscreen, Mele No Shade Sunscreen Oil, Specific Beauty Active Radiance Day Moi, Unsun Mineral Sunscreen, and Urban Skin Rx Complexion Protection. Their average cost was $19.30 per ounce (range, $6.33-$50.00) and common marketing claims for these products were “no white cast” (91.7%), being free of an ingredient (83.3%), and “moisturizing” (75%).

Of the 12 sunscreens, 7 (58.3%) contained a chemical sunscreen agent, 5 (41.7%) contained a physical UV blocker, and all contained at least one allergen. The average number of allergens per product was 4.7, most commonly fragrance/botanicals (83.3%), tocopherol (83.3%), sodium benzoates/derivatives (58.3%), and sorbitan sesquiolate/derivatives (58.3%).

“Average cost of sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC was $19.30/oz, much higher than the median price of $3.32/oz reported in a separate study of 65 popular sunscreens,” the study authors wrote. “As many of the sunscreens in our study were sold by smaller businesses, higher prices may be due to higher production costs or a perceived smaller market.”

The authors expressed surprise that five sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC contained a physical UV blocker which may create a white cast. They contacted the manufacturers of these five sunscreens and confirmed that three used micronized formulations. “While ingested/inhaled nanoparticles of titanium dioxide may cause tissue effects, most studies of topical products show excellent safety,” they wrote.

They also noted that the average of 4.7 allergens per product observed in the analysis was similar to the average of 4.9 seen in a separate study of 52 popular sunscreens. “However, that study only included 34 allergens while this study evaluated 90 allergens,” the authors wrote. “Consumers and providers should be aware sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC may cause allergic contact dermatitis,” they commented.

“It is interesting to see how costly these products are now compared to store bought and general commercially available sunscreens several years ago,” said Lawrence J. Green, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, to me that is not surprising as products marketed and targeted to specific populations are often priced at a premium. It wasn’t clear to me how many of these specialized online SOC sunscreens are tinted. I wish the authors had compared the cost of tinted sunscreens in general to nontinted sunscreens because tinted ones are more useful for SOC, because when rubbed in, they can readily match SOC and can also offer protection in the visible light spectrum.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures; the study had no funding source. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

Sunscreens marketed to individuals with skin of color are generally more expensive than products broadly marketed to consumers, and more than 40% contain a UV blocker that may create a white cast.

Ridofranz / iStock / Getty Images

Those are among the findings from a study by Michelle Xiong, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, of the department of dermatology at Park Nicollet/Health Partners Health Services, Minneapolis, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“There is increasing awareness of the negative effects of ultraviolet (UV) light in individuals with skin of color (SOC), especially in regards to pigmentation disorders induced and/or exacerbated by UV exposure,” the authors wrote. “As a result, there has been a surge in sunscreens marketed to this population. We aimed to characterize cost, marketing claims, and potential allergenic ingredients in sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC.”

Between December 2021 and October 2022, the researchers used the following search terms on Google: “sunscreen” plus “skin of 36 color,” “dark skin,” “brown skin,” “LatinX skin,” and/or “Black skin.” They extracted price, marketing claims, and ingredients from manufacturers’ websites and used 90 allergens contained in the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2020 Core series to identify potential allergens. Next, they combined cross-reactors/synonyms into allergen categories based on ACDS Contact Allergen Management Plan (CAMP) cross-reactor classification. If multiple ingredients in a sunscreen were represented by a single allergen category, it was counted only once. A similar approach was utilized for marketing categories.

A total of 12 sunscreens were included in the analysis: Absolute Joi, Black Girl Sunscreen, Black Girl Sunscreen Make It Matte, Bolden SPF Brightening Moisturizer, Eleven on the Defense Unrivaled Sun Serum, Kinlo Golden Rays Sunscreen, Live Tinted Hueguard 3-in-1 Mineral Sunscreen, Mele Dew The Most Sheer Moisturizer SPF30 Broad Spectrum Sunscreen, Mele No Shade Sunscreen Oil, Specific Beauty Active Radiance Day Moi, Unsun Mineral Sunscreen, and Urban Skin Rx Complexion Protection. Their average cost was $19.30 per ounce (range, $6.33-$50.00) and common marketing claims for these products were “no white cast” (91.7%), being free of an ingredient (83.3%), and “moisturizing” (75%).

Of the 12 sunscreens, 7 (58.3%) contained a chemical sunscreen agent, 5 (41.7%) contained a physical UV blocker, and all contained at least one allergen. The average number of allergens per product was 4.7, most commonly fragrance/botanicals (83.3%), tocopherol (83.3%), sodium benzoates/derivatives (58.3%), and sorbitan sesquiolate/derivatives (58.3%).

“Average cost of sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC was $19.30/oz, much higher than the median price of $3.32/oz reported in a separate study of 65 popular sunscreens,” the study authors wrote. “As many of the sunscreens in our study were sold by smaller businesses, higher prices may be due to higher production costs or a perceived smaller market.”

The authors expressed surprise that five sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC contained a physical UV blocker which may create a white cast. They contacted the manufacturers of these five sunscreens and confirmed that three used micronized formulations. “While ingested/inhaled nanoparticles of titanium dioxide may cause tissue effects, most studies of topical products show excellent safety,” they wrote.

They also noted that the average of 4.7 allergens per product observed in the analysis was similar to the average of 4.9 seen in a separate study of 52 popular sunscreens. “However, that study only included 34 allergens while this study evaluated 90 allergens,” the authors wrote. “Consumers and providers should be aware sunscreens marketed to individuals with SOC may cause allergic contact dermatitis,” they commented.

“It is interesting to see how costly these products are now compared to store bought and general commercially available sunscreens several years ago,” said Lawrence J. Green, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, to me that is not surprising as products marketed and targeted to specific populations are often priced at a premium. It wasn’t clear to me how many of these specialized online SOC sunscreens are tinted. I wish the authors had compared the cost of tinted sunscreens in general to nontinted sunscreens because tinted ones are more useful for SOC, because when rubbed in, they can readily match SOC and can also offer protection in the visible light spectrum.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures; the study had no funding source. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

The first time I considered telehealth as a viable option for care delivery was in February 2020. I had just heard that one of my patients had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to Evergreen Health, a hospital our practice covered just outside of Seattle. The news was jarring. Suddenly, it became crystal clear that patient access to care and the economic survival of our business would require another approach. Seemingly overnight, we built a telehealth program and began seeing patients virtually from the comfort and safety of home.

We certainly weren’t alone. From January to March 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a 154% increase in telehealth visits.¹ Even as the postpandemic era settles in, the use of telehealth today is 38 times greater than the pre-COVID baseline, creating a market valued at $250 billion per year.² What value might gastroenterologists gain from the use of telehealth going forward? Data are emerging that virtual care can reduce expensive and unnecessary emergency room visits, help effectively manage chronic disease, address disparities in care, and increase access to specialty care.³ For today’s overburdened GI practices, telehealth can improve patient access to care, alleviate the clinician shortage with work-from-home options for practitioners, and present innovative methods of increasing revenue streams – all while improving quality of care.
 

As GI demand outpaces supply, it’s time to consider alternative channels of care

The prevalence of gastrointestinal illness, the size of the market, and the growing difficulty in gaining access to care makes it natural to consider whether virtual care may benefit patients and GI practices alike. Approximately 70 million Americans, or 1 in 5, live with chronic GI symptoms.⁴ On an annual basis, more than 50 million primary care visits and 15 million ER visits in the United States have a primary diagnostic code for GI disease.⁵ Annual expenditures to address GI conditions, valued at $136 billion, outpace those of other high-cost conditions such as heart disease or mental health.⁶ And with the recent addition of 21 million patients between 45 and 49 years of age who now require colon cancer screening, plus the expected postpandemic increase in GI illness, those numbers are likely to grow.⁷

Compounding matters is a shortage of clinicians. Between early physician retirements and a limited number of GI fellowships, gastroenterology was recently identified by a Merritt Hawkins survey as the “most in-demand” specialty.⁸ Patients are already waiting months, and even up to a year in some parts of the country, to see a gastroenterologist. GI physicians, likewise, are running ragged trying to keep up and are burning out in the process.
 

The case for virtual GI care

Until the pandemic, many of us would not have seriously considered a significant role for virtual care in GI. When necessity demanded it, however, we used this channel effectively with both patients and providers reporting high rates of satisfaction with telehealth for GI clinic visits.⁹

In a recent published study with a sizable cohort of GI patients across a wide spectrum of conditions, only 17% required a physical exam following a telehealth visit. Over 50% said they were very likely or likely to continue using telehealth in the future. Interestingly, it was not only a young or tech-savvy population that ranked telehealth highly. In fact, Net Promoter Scores (a proven measure of customer experience) were consistently high for employed patients aged 60 or younger.¹⁰

Recent research also has demonstrated that telehealth visits meet quality standards and do so efficiently. A Mayo Clinic study demonstrated that telehealth visits in GI were delivered with a similar level of quality based on diagnostic concordance,¹¹ and a recent study by Tang et al. found that 98% of visits for routine GI issues were completed within 20 minutes.¹²

Finally, establishing a virtual channel allows a clinic to increase its staffing radius by using geographically dispersed GI providers, including appropriately licensed physicians or advanced practice providers who may reside in other states. The use of remote providers opens up the possibility for “time zone arbitrage” to allow for more flexible staffing that’s similar to urgent care with wraparound and weekend hours – all without adding office space or overhead.
 

Financial implications

Given the long tail of demand in GI, increasing capacity will increase revenue. Telehealth increases capacity by allowing for the efficient use of resources and expanding the reach of practices in engaging potential providers.

The majority of telehealth visits are reimbursable. Since 1995, 40 states and the District of Columbia have enacted mandatory telehealth coverage laws, and 20 states require that telehealth visits be paid on par with in-person visits.¹³ With the pandemic Medicare waivers, parity was extended through government programs and is expected by many insiders to continue in some form going forward. By an overwhelming bipartisan majority, the House of Representatives recently passed the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act, which would extend most temporary telemedicine policies through 2024. This legislation would affect only Medicare reimbursement, but changes in Medicare policy often influence the policies of commercial payers.¹⁴

While reimbursement for clinic visits is important, the larger financial implication for extending clinics virtually is in the endoscopy suite. Most revenue (70%-80%) in community GI practices is generated from endoscopic services and related ancillary streams. For an endoscopist, spending time in the clinic is effectively a loss leader. Adding capacity with a virtual clinic and geographically dispersed providers can open up GI physicians to spend more time in the endoscopy suite, thereby generating additional revenue.

Given the rapid consolidation of the GI space, income repair post private equity transaction is top of mind for both established physicians and young physicians entering the labor market. Having a virtual ancillary differentiates practices and may prove useful for recruitment. Increasing access by using remote providers during evenings and weekends may “unclog the pipes,” improve the patient and provider experience, and increase revenue.
 

Overcoming obstacles

Creating a telehealth platform – particularly one that crosses state lines – requires an understanding of a complex and evolving regulatory environment. Licensing is one example. When telehealth is used, it is considered to be rendered at the location of the patient. A provider typically has to be licensed in the state where the patient is located at the time of the clinical encounter. So, if providers cross jurisdictional boundaries to provide care, multiple state licenses may be required.

In addition, medical malpractice and cyber insurance for telemedicine providers are niche products. And as with the use of any technology, risks of a data breach or other unauthorized disclosure of protected health information make it vital to ensure data are fully encrypted, networks are secure, and all safeguards are followed according to the Health Information and Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Perhaps most challenging are payers, both commercial and governmental. The location of a distant site provider can affect network participation for some but not all payers. Understanding payer reimbursement policies is time-intensive, and building relationships within these organizations is crucial in today’s rapidly changing environment.
 

The ultimate aim: Better patient outcomes

Of course, the main goal is to take care of patients well and in a timely fashion. Better access will lead to an improved patient experience and a greater emphasis on the important cognitive aspects of GI care. Moreover, efficient use of physician time will also improve clinician satisfaction while increasing revenue and downstream value. Most importantly, increased access via a virtual channel may positively impact patient outcomes. For instance, data show that distance from an endoscopy center is negatively associated with the stage of colon cancer diagnosis.¹⁵ Providing a virtual channel to reach these distant patients will likely increase the opportunity for high-impact procedures like colonoscopy.

Change can be hard, but it will come

The old saying is that change comes slowly, then all at once. Access is a chronic pain point for GI practices that has now reached a critical level.

The GI market is enormous and rapidly evolving; it will continue to attract disruptive interest and several early-stage digital first GI companies have entered the ecosystem. There is a risk for disintermediation as well as opportunities for collaboration. The next few years will be interesting.

As we transition to a postpandemic environment, telehealth can continue to improve patient access and present new revenue streams for GI practices – all while improving quality of care. Seeing around the corner likely means expanding the reach of your clinic and offering multiple channels of care. There is likely a significant opportunity for those who choose to adapt.
 

Dr. Arjal is cofounder, chief medical officer, and president of Telebelly Health and is a board-certified gastroenterologist who previously served as vice president of Puget Sound Gastroenterology and a vice president of clinical affairs for GastroHealth. He currently serves on the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Practice Management and Economics Committee. He has no conflicts. He is on LinkedIn and Twitter (@RussArjalMD).

References

1. Koonin LM et al. Trends in the use of telehealth during the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic – United States, January-March 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020. Oct 30;69(43):1595-9.

2. “Telehealth: A quarter-trillion-dollar post-COVID-19 reality?” McKinsey & Company, July 9, 2021.

3. The telehealth era is just beginning, Robert Pearl and Brian Wayling, Harvard Business Review, May-June, 2022.

4. Peery et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019. Jan;156(1):254-72.

5. See id.

6. See id.

7. Sieh, K. Post-COVID-19 functional gastrointestinal disorders: Prepare for a GI aftershock. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 March;37(3):413-4.

8. Newitt, P. Gastroenterology’s biggest threats. Becker’s, GI & Endoscopy, 2021 Oct 8, and Physician Compensation Report, 2022. Physicians Thrive (projecting a shortage of over 1,600 Gastroenterologists by 2025).

9. Dobrusin et al. Gastroenterologists and patients report high satisfaction rates with Telehealth services during the novel coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;8(11):2393-7.

10. Dobrusin et al. Patients with gastrointestinal conditions consider telehealth equivalent to in-person care. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct 4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.09.035.

11. Demaerschalk et al. Assessment of clinician diagnostic concordance with video telemedicine in the integrated multispecialty practice at Mayo Clinic during the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic from March to June, 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Sep;5(9):e2229958.

12. Tang et al. A model for the pandemic and beyond: Telemedicine for all gastroenterology referrals reduces unnecessary clinic visits. J Telemed Telecare. 2022 Sep 28(8):577-82.

13. Dills A. Policy brief: Telehealth payment parity laws at the state level. Mercatus Center, George Mason University.

14. H.R.4040 – Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2021. Congress.gov.

15. Brand et al. Association of distance, region, and insurance with advanced colon cancer at initial diagnosis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Sep 1;5(9):e2229954.

The first time I considered telehealth as a viable option for care delivery was in February 2020. I had just heard that one of my patients had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to Evergreen Health, a hospital our practice covered just outside of Seattle. The news was jarring. Suddenly, it became crystal clear that patient access to care and the economic survival of our business would require another approach. Seemingly overnight, we built a telehealth program and began seeing patients virtually from the comfort and safety of home.

We certainly weren’t alone. From January to March 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a 154% increase in telehealth visits.¹ Even as the postpandemic era settles in, the use of telehealth today is 38 times greater than the pre-COVID baseline, creating a market valued at $250 billion per year.² What value might gastroenterologists gain from the use of telehealth going forward? Data are emerging that virtual care can reduce expensive and unnecessary emergency room visits, help effectively manage chronic disease, address disparities in care, and increase access to specialty care.³ For today’s overburdened GI practices, telehealth can improve patient access to care, alleviate the clinician shortage with work-from-home options for practitioners, and present innovative methods of increasing revenue streams – all while improving quality of care.
 

As GI demand outpaces supply, it’s time to consider alternative channels of care

The prevalence of gastrointestinal illness, the size of the market, and the growing difficulty in gaining access to care makes it natural to consider whether virtual care may benefit patients and GI practices alike. Approximately 70 million Americans, or 1 in 5, live with chronic GI symptoms.⁴ On an annual basis, more than 50 million primary care visits and 15 million ER visits in the United States have a primary diagnostic code for GI disease.⁵ Annual expenditures to address GI conditions, valued at $136 billion, outpace those of other high-cost conditions such as heart disease or mental health.⁶ And with the recent addition of 21 million patients between 45 and 49 years of age who now require colon cancer screening, plus the expected postpandemic increase in GI illness, those numbers are likely to grow.⁷

Compounding matters is a shortage of clinicians. Between early physician retirements and a limited number of GI fellowships, gastroenterology was recently identified by a Merritt Hawkins survey as the “most in-demand” specialty.⁸ Patients are already waiting months, and even up to a year in some parts of the country, to see a gastroenterologist. GI physicians, likewise, are running ragged trying to keep up and are burning out in the process.
 

The case for virtual GI care

Until the pandemic, many of us would not have seriously considered a significant role for virtual care in GI. When necessity demanded it, however, we used this channel effectively with both patients and providers reporting high rates of satisfaction with telehealth for GI clinic visits.⁹

In a recent published study with a sizable cohort of GI patients across a wide spectrum of conditions, only 17% required a physical exam following a telehealth visit. Over 50% said they were very likely or likely to continue using telehealth in the future. Interestingly, it was not only a young or tech-savvy population that ranked telehealth highly. In fact, Net Promoter Scores (a proven measure of customer experience) were consistently high for employed patients aged 60 or younger.¹⁰

Recent research also has demonstrated that telehealth visits meet quality standards and do so efficiently. A Mayo Clinic study demonstrated that telehealth visits in GI were delivered with a similar level of quality based on diagnostic concordance,¹¹ and a recent study by Tang et al. found that 98% of visits for routine GI issues were completed within 20 minutes.¹²

Finally, establishing a virtual channel allows a clinic to increase its staffing radius by using geographically dispersed GI providers, including appropriately licensed physicians or advanced practice providers who may reside in other states. The use of remote providers opens up the possibility for “time zone arbitrage” to allow for more flexible staffing that’s similar to urgent care with wraparound and weekend hours – all without adding office space or overhead.
 

Financial implications

Given the long tail of demand in GI, increasing capacity will increase revenue. Telehealth increases capacity by allowing for the efficient use of resources and expanding the reach of practices in engaging potential providers.

The majority of telehealth visits are reimbursable. Since 1995, 40 states and the District of Columbia have enacted mandatory telehealth coverage laws, and 20 states require that telehealth visits be paid on par with in-person visits.¹³ With the pandemic Medicare waivers, parity was extended through government programs and is expected by many insiders to continue in some form going forward. By an overwhelming bipartisan majority, the House of Representatives recently passed the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act, which would extend most temporary telemedicine policies through 2024. This legislation would affect only Medicare reimbursement, but changes in Medicare policy often influence the policies of commercial payers.¹⁴

While reimbursement for clinic visits is important, the larger financial implication for extending clinics virtually is in the endoscopy suite. Most revenue (70%-80%) in community GI practices is generated from endoscopic services and related ancillary streams. For an endoscopist, spending time in the clinic is effectively a loss leader. Adding capacity with a virtual clinic and geographically dispersed providers can open up GI physicians to spend more time in the endoscopy suite, thereby generating additional revenue.

Given the rapid consolidation of the GI space, income repair post private equity transaction is top of mind for both established physicians and young physicians entering the labor market. Having a virtual ancillary differentiates practices and may prove useful for recruitment. Increasing access by using remote providers during evenings and weekends may “unclog the pipes,” improve the patient and provider experience, and increase revenue.
 

Overcoming obstacles

Creating a telehealth platform – particularly one that crosses state lines – requires an understanding of a complex and evolving regulatory environment. Licensing is one example. When telehealth is used, it is considered to be rendered at the location of the patient. A provider typically has to be licensed in the state where the patient is located at the time of the clinical encounter. So, if providers cross jurisdictional boundaries to provide care, multiple state licenses may be required.

In addition, medical malpractice and cyber insurance for telemedicine providers are niche products. And as with the use of any technology, risks of a data breach or other unauthorized disclosure of protected health information make it vital to ensure data are fully encrypted, networks are secure, and all safeguards are followed according to the Health Information and Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Perhaps most challenging are payers, both commercial and governmental. The location of a distant site provider can affect network participation for some but not all payers. Understanding payer reimbursement policies is time-intensive, and building relationships within these organizations is crucial in today’s rapidly changing environment.
 

The ultimate aim: Better patient outcomes

Of course, the main goal is to take care of patients well and in a timely fashion. Better access will lead to an improved patient experience and a greater emphasis on the important cognitive aspects of GI care. Moreover, efficient use of physician time will also improve clinician satisfaction while increasing revenue and downstream value. Most importantly, increased access via a virtual channel may positively impact patient outcomes. For instance, data show that distance from an endoscopy center is negatively associated with the stage of colon cancer diagnosis.¹⁵ Providing a virtual channel to reach these distant patients will likely increase the opportunity for high-impact procedures like colonoscopy.

Change can be hard, but it will come

The old saying is that change comes slowly, then all at once. Access is a chronic pain point for GI practices that has now reached a critical level.

The GI market is enormous and rapidly evolving; it will continue to attract disruptive interest and several early-stage digital first GI companies have entered the ecosystem. There is a risk for disintermediation as well as opportunities for collaboration. The next few years will be interesting.

As we transition to a postpandemic environment, telehealth can continue to improve patient access and present new revenue streams for GI practices – all while improving quality of care. Seeing around the corner likely means expanding the reach of your clinic and offering multiple channels of care. There is likely a significant opportunity for those who choose to adapt.
 

Dr. Arjal is cofounder, chief medical officer, and president of Telebelly Health and is a board-certified gastroenterologist who previously served as vice president of Puget Sound Gastroenterology and a vice president of clinical affairs for GastroHealth. He currently serves on the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Practice Management and Economics Committee. He has no conflicts. He is on LinkedIn and Twitter (@RussArjalMD).

References

1. Koonin LM et al. Trends in the use of telehealth during the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic – United States, January-March 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020. Oct 30;69(43):1595-9.

2. “Telehealth: A quarter-trillion-dollar post-COVID-19 reality?” McKinsey & Company, July 9, 2021.

3. The telehealth era is just beginning, Robert Pearl and Brian Wayling, Harvard Business Review, May-June, 2022.

4. Peery et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019. Jan;156(1):254-72.

5. See id.

6. See id.

7. Sieh, K. Post-COVID-19 functional gastrointestinal disorders: Prepare for a GI aftershock. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 March;37(3):413-4.

8. Newitt, P. Gastroenterology’s biggest threats. Becker’s, GI & Endoscopy, 2021 Oct 8, and Physician Compensation Report, 2022. Physicians Thrive (projecting a shortage of over 1,600 Gastroenterologists by 2025).

9. Dobrusin et al. Gastroenterologists and patients report high satisfaction rates with Telehealth services during the novel coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;8(11):2393-7.

10. Dobrusin et al. Patients with gastrointestinal conditions consider telehealth equivalent to in-person care. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct 4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.09.035.

11. Demaerschalk et al. Assessment of clinician diagnostic concordance with video telemedicine in the integrated multispecialty practice at Mayo Clinic during the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic from March to June, 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Sep;5(9):e2229958.

12. Tang et al. A model for the pandemic and beyond: Telemedicine for all gastroenterology referrals reduces unnecessary clinic visits. J Telemed Telecare. 2022 Sep 28(8):577-82.

13. Dills A. Policy brief: Telehealth payment parity laws at the state level. Mercatus Center, George Mason University.

14. H.R.4040 – Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2021. Congress.gov.

15. Brand et al. Association of distance, region, and insurance with advanced colon cancer at initial diagnosis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Sep 1;5(9):e2229954.

The first time I considered telehealth as a viable option for care delivery was in February 2020. I had just heard that one of my patients had been diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to Evergreen Health, a hospital our practice covered just outside of Seattle. The news was jarring. Suddenly, it became crystal clear that patient access to care and the economic survival of our business would require another approach. Seemingly overnight, we built a telehealth program and began seeing patients virtually from the comfort and safety of home.

We certainly weren’t alone. From January to March 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a 154% increase in telehealth visits.¹ Even as the postpandemic era settles in, the use of telehealth today is 38 times greater than the pre-COVID baseline, creating a market valued at $250 billion per year.² What value might gastroenterologists gain from the use of telehealth going forward? Data are emerging that virtual care can reduce expensive and unnecessary emergency room visits, help effectively manage chronic disease, address disparities in care, and increase access to specialty care.³ For today’s overburdened GI practices, telehealth can improve patient access to care, alleviate the clinician shortage with work-from-home options for practitioners, and present innovative methods of increasing revenue streams – all while improving quality of care.
 

As GI demand outpaces supply, it’s time to consider alternative channels of care

The prevalence of gastrointestinal illness, the size of the market, and the growing difficulty in gaining access to care makes it natural to consider whether virtual care may benefit patients and GI practices alike. Approximately 70 million Americans, or 1 in 5, live with chronic GI symptoms.⁴ On an annual basis, more than 50 million primary care visits and 15 million ER visits in the United States have a primary diagnostic code for GI disease.⁵ Annual expenditures to address GI conditions, valued at $136 billion, outpace those of other high-cost conditions such as heart disease or mental health.⁶ And with the recent addition of 21 million patients between 45 and 49 years of age who now require colon cancer screening, plus the expected postpandemic increase in GI illness, those numbers are likely to grow.⁷

Compounding matters is a shortage of clinicians. Between early physician retirements and a limited number of GI fellowships, gastroenterology was recently identified by a Merritt Hawkins survey as the “most in-demand” specialty.⁸ Patients are already waiting months, and even up to a year in some parts of the country, to see a gastroenterologist. GI physicians, likewise, are running ragged trying to keep up and are burning out in the process.
 

The case for virtual GI care

Until the pandemic, many of us would not have seriously considered a significant role for virtual care in GI. When necessity demanded it, however, we used this channel effectively with both patients and providers reporting high rates of satisfaction with telehealth for GI clinic visits.⁹

In a recent published study with a sizable cohort of GI patients across a wide spectrum of conditions, only 17% required a physical exam following a telehealth visit. Over 50% said they were very likely or likely to continue using telehealth in the future. Interestingly, it was not only a young or tech-savvy population that ranked telehealth highly. In fact, Net Promoter Scores (a proven measure of customer experience) were consistently high for employed patients aged 60 or younger.¹⁰

Recent research also has demonstrated that telehealth visits meet quality standards and do so efficiently. A Mayo Clinic study demonstrated that telehealth visits in GI were delivered with a similar level of quality based on diagnostic concordance,¹¹ and a recent study by Tang et al. found that 98% of visits for routine GI issues were completed within 20 minutes.¹²

Finally, establishing a virtual channel allows a clinic to increase its staffing radius by using geographically dispersed GI providers, including appropriately licensed physicians or advanced practice providers who may reside in other states. The use of remote providers opens up the possibility for “time zone arbitrage” to allow for more flexible staffing that’s similar to urgent care with wraparound and weekend hours – all without adding office space or overhead.
 

Financial implications

Given the long tail of demand in GI, increasing capacity will increase revenue. Telehealth increases capacity by allowing for the efficient use of resources and expanding the reach of practices in engaging potential providers.

The majority of telehealth visits are reimbursable. Since 1995, 40 states and the District of Columbia have enacted mandatory telehealth coverage laws, and 20 states require that telehealth visits be paid on par with in-person visits.¹³ With the pandemic Medicare waivers, parity was extended through government programs and is expected by many insiders to continue in some form going forward. By an overwhelming bipartisan majority, the House of Representatives recently passed the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act, which would extend most temporary telemedicine policies through 2024. This legislation would affect only Medicare reimbursement, but changes in Medicare policy often influence the policies of commercial payers.¹⁴

While reimbursement for clinic visits is important, the larger financial implication for extending clinics virtually is in the endoscopy suite. Most revenue (70%-80%) in community GI practices is generated from endoscopic services and related ancillary streams. For an endoscopist, spending time in the clinic is effectively a loss leader. Adding capacity with a virtual clinic and geographically dispersed providers can open up GI physicians to spend more time in the endoscopy suite, thereby generating additional revenue.

Given the rapid consolidation of the GI space, income repair post private equity transaction is top of mind for both established physicians and young physicians entering the labor market. Having a virtual ancillary differentiates practices and may prove useful for recruitment. Increasing access by using remote providers during evenings and weekends may “unclog the pipes,” improve the patient and provider experience, and increase revenue.
 

Overcoming obstacles

Creating a telehealth platform – particularly one that crosses state lines – requires an understanding of a complex and evolving regulatory environment. Licensing is one example. When telehealth is used, it is considered to be rendered at the location of the patient. A provider typically has to be licensed in the state where the patient is located at the time of the clinical encounter. So, if providers cross jurisdictional boundaries to provide care, multiple state licenses may be required.

In addition, medical malpractice and cyber insurance for telemedicine providers are niche products. And as with the use of any technology, risks of a data breach or other unauthorized disclosure of protected health information make it vital to ensure data are fully encrypted, networks are secure, and all safeguards are followed according to the Health Information and Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Perhaps most challenging are payers, both commercial and governmental. The location of a distant site provider can affect network participation for some but not all payers. Understanding payer reimbursement policies is time-intensive, and building relationships within these organizations is crucial in today’s rapidly changing environment.
 

The ultimate aim: Better patient outcomes

Of course, the main goal is to take care of patients well and in a timely fashion. Better access will lead to an improved patient experience and a greater emphasis on the important cognitive aspects of GI care. Moreover, efficient use of physician time will also improve clinician satisfaction while increasing revenue and downstream value. Most importantly, increased access via a virtual channel may positively impact patient outcomes. For instance, data show that distance from an endoscopy center is negatively associated with the stage of colon cancer diagnosis.¹⁵ Providing a virtual channel to reach these distant patients will likely increase the opportunity for high-impact procedures like colonoscopy.

Change can be hard, but it will come

The old saying is that change comes slowly, then all at once. Access is a chronic pain point for GI practices that has now reached a critical level.

The GI market is enormous and rapidly evolving; it will continue to attract disruptive interest and several early-stage digital first GI companies have entered the ecosystem. There is a risk for disintermediation as well as opportunities for collaboration. The next few years will be interesting.

As we transition to a postpandemic environment, telehealth can continue to improve patient access and present new revenue streams for GI practices – all while improving quality of care. Seeing around the corner likely means expanding the reach of your clinic and offering multiple channels of care. There is likely a significant opportunity for those who choose to adapt.
 

Dr. Arjal is cofounder, chief medical officer, and president of Telebelly Health and is a board-certified gastroenterologist who previously served as vice president of Puget Sound Gastroenterology and a vice president of clinical affairs for GastroHealth. He currently serves on the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Practice Management and Economics Committee. He has no conflicts. He is on LinkedIn and Twitter (@RussArjalMD).

References

1. Koonin LM et al. Trends in the use of telehealth during the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic – United States, January-March 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020. Oct 30;69(43):1595-9.

2. “Telehealth: A quarter-trillion-dollar post-COVID-19 reality?” McKinsey & Company, July 9, 2021.

3. The telehealth era is just beginning, Robert Pearl and Brian Wayling, Harvard Business Review, May-June, 2022.

4. Peery et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019. Jan;156(1):254-72.

5. See id.

6. See id.

7. Sieh, K. Post-COVID-19 functional gastrointestinal disorders: Prepare for a GI aftershock. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 March;37(3):413-4.

8. Newitt, P. Gastroenterology’s biggest threats. Becker’s, GI & Endoscopy, 2021 Oct 8, and Physician Compensation Report, 2022. Physicians Thrive (projecting a shortage of over 1,600 Gastroenterologists by 2025).

9. Dobrusin et al. Gastroenterologists and patients report high satisfaction rates with Telehealth services during the novel coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;8(11):2393-7.

10. Dobrusin et al. Patients with gastrointestinal conditions consider telehealth equivalent to in-person care. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct 4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.09.035.

11. Demaerschalk et al. Assessment of clinician diagnostic concordance with video telemedicine in the integrated multispecialty practice at Mayo Clinic during the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic from March to June, 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Sep;5(9):e2229958.

12. Tang et al. A model for the pandemic and beyond: Telemedicine for all gastroenterology referrals reduces unnecessary clinic visits. J Telemed Telecare. 2022 Sep 28(8):577-82.

13. Dills A. Policy brief: Telehealth payment parity laws at the state level. Mercatus Center, George Mason University.

14. H.R.4040 – Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2021. Congress.gov.

15. Brand et al. Association of distance, region, and insurance with advanced colon cancer at initial diagnosis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Sep 1;5(9):e2229954.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.

One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.

You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.

I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But I do want to tell you about a paper that, unlike so many that came before, lays out the argument for a potential COVID preventive so thoroughly and so rigorously, that it has convinced me that this little drug, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) – you may know it as Actigall, used for an uncommon form of liver disease – may actually be useful to prevent COVID infection.

How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.

All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.

Courtesy Innovative Genomics

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy Nature

Courtesy Nature

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

The most comprehensive safety analysis of tralokinumab to date shows nothing unexpected in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated for up to a year, according to a review published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

These findings underscore the mechanistic elegance of interleukin (IL)-13 inhibition and highlight potential advantages of flexible dosing, according to the study’s lead author, Eric Simpson, MD, MCR. Overall, the pooled analysis of safety data from five phase 2 and 3 trials shows that “blockade of a single cytokine provides excellent short- and long-term safety, which is useful for a severe chronic disease,” said Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Most patients with AD require years of treatment. “So for clinicians to confidently report to patients the low rates of serious adverse events (AEs) and lack of immune suppression side-effect profile is very encouraging for both the provider and patient,” Dr. Simpson said, noting there were no new signals or concerning short-term AEs.

Tralokinumab (Adbry), an IL-13 antagonist administered subcutaneously, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults in December 2021.
 

Minor differences vs. placebo

In the pooled analysis involving 1,605 patients treated for 16 weeks with tralokinumab and 680 who received placebo, frequency of any AE was 65.7% and 67.2%, respectively. Severe AEs occurred in 4.6% and 6.3% of patients, respectively.

The most common AE overall was AD, which occurred less often in tralokinumab-treated patients (15.4%) than those on placebo (26.2%). Other common AEs that occurred more frequently with tralokinumab included viral upper respiratory tract infections (15.7% vs. 12.2%), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI, 5.6% vs. 4.8%), conjunctivitis (5.4% vs. 1.9%), and injection-site reactions (3.5% vs. 0.3%).

AEs that occurred less often with tralokinumab than placebo included skin infections (3.7% vs. 9.2%, respectively) and infected dermatitis (1.6% vs. 6.4%).

Regarding safety areas of special interest, eye disorders classified as conjunctivitis, keratoconjunctivitis, or keratitis occurred more commonly with tralokinumab (7.9%) than placebo (3.4%). Most eye disorders were mild or moderate and resolved during the study. During maintenance treatment up to 52 weeks, AE rates mirrored those in the initial treatment period and did not increase with treatment duration.

In fact, Dr. Simpson said, the low rate of AEs that are known to accompany type 2 blockade, such as conjunctivitis, do not increase but rather appear to drop with longer-term use. The fact that skin infections were reduced vs. placebo and decreased over time suggests that long-term IL-13 blockade with tralokinumab positively impacts skin infections, a well-known comorbidity in uncontrolled AD, he added.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study, said, “These findings provide additional data supporting the safety and tolerability of tralokinumab and support my personal real-world experience with tralokinumab as a safe and effective biologic therapy for patients with moderate to severe AD.”

Dr. Chovatiya is assistant professor, director of the Center for Eczema and Itch, and medical director of clinical trials at Northwestern University in Chicago.
 

Four-week dosing

Consistent with ECZTRA 3, the rates of URTIs and conjunctivitis were lower with maintenance dosing 300 mg every 4 weeks, consideration of which is approved for responders weighing less than 220 pounds, vs. 300 mg every 2 weeks. Specifically, 6.7% of patients on every 4-week dosing schedule experienced URTIs, vs. 9.4% on the every 2-week dosing schedule and 7% of those on the every 2-week dosing schedule plus optional topical corticosteroids. Corresponding figures for conjunctivitis were 3%, 5%, and 5.6%, respectively.

“Four-week dosing is a possibility in your patients with a good clinical response at 16 weeks,” Dr. Simpson said. Advantages include improved convenience for patients, he added, and this analysis shows that dosing every 4 weeks may improve tolerability, with a lower rate of conjunctivitis.

Although it is difficult to directly compare review data to other studies, said Dr. Chovatiya, findings also suggest that tralokinumab may be associated with reduced infections and conjunctivitis compared with other advanced AD therapies. Head-to-head trials and real-world studies are needed to better understand comparative safety, he added.

Some patients will lose a degree of response with the 4-week dosing schedule, Dr. Simpson said. In ECZTRA 1 and 2, 55.9% of patients who achieved investigator global assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1 after 16 weeks of dosing every 2 weeks maintained this response level through week 52, vs. 42.4% of responders who switched from dosing every 2 weeks to every 4 weeks after week 16. But according to data that Dr. Simpson recently presented, 95% of patients switched to monthly dosing who relapsed and returned to dosing every 2 weeks regained their original response level within approximately 4 weeks.

In his personal practice, Dr. Simpson has prescribed tralokinumab for patients with AD for up to a year. However, he and fellow investigators have been following much larger populations for more than 2 years and are planning additional publications. “Safety data will continue to accrue” said Dr. Simpson, “but I don’t expect any surprises.”

The clinical trials were sponsored by MedImmune (phase 2b) and LEO Pharma ( ECZTRA phase 3 trials), which also sponsored the review. Dr. Simpson reports grants and personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya has been an advisory board member, consultant, investigator, and speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies including LEO Pharma.

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

The most comprehensive safety analysis of tralokinumab to date shows nothing unexpected in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated for up to a year, according to a review published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

These findings underscore the mechanistic elegance of interleukin (IL)-13 inhibition and highlight potential advantages of flexible dosing, according to the study’s lead author, Eric Simpson, MD, MCR. Overall, the pooled analysis of safety data from five phase 2 and 3 trials shows that “blockade of a single cytokine provides excellent short- and long-term safety, which is useful for a severe chronic disease,” said Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Most patients with AD require years of treatment. “So for clinicians to confidently report to patients the low rates of serious adverse events (AEs) and lack of immune suppression side-effect profile is very encouraging for both the provider and patient,” Dr. Simpson said, noting there were no new signals or concerning short-term AEs.

Tralokinumab (Adbry), an IL-13 antagonist administered subcutaneously, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults in December 2021.
 

Minor differences vs. placebo

In the pooled analysis involving 1,605 patients treated for 16 weeks with tralokinumab and 680 who received placebo, frequency of any AE was 65.7% and 67.2%, respectively. Severe AEs occurred in 4.6% and 6.3% of patients, respectively.

The most common AE overall was AD, which occurred less often in tralokinumab-treated patients (15.4%) than those on placebo (26.2%). Other common AEs that occurred more frequently with tralokinumab included viral upper respiratory tract infections (15.7% vs. 12.2%), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI, 5.6% vs. 4.8%), conjunctivitis (5.4% vs. 1.9%), and injection-site reactions (3.5% vs. 0.3%).

AEs that occurred less often with tralokinumab than placebo included skin infections (3.7% vs. 9.2%, respectively) and infected dermatitis (1.6% vs. 6.4%).

Regarding safety areas of special interest, eye disorders classified as conjunctivitis, keratoconjunctivitis, or keratitis occurred more commonly with tralokinumab (7.9%) than placebo (3.4%). Most eye disorders were mild or moderate and resolved during the study. During maintenance treatment up to 52 weeks, AE rates mirrored those in the initial treatment period and did not increase with treatment duration.

In fact, Dr. Simpson said, the low rate of AEs that are known to accompany type 2 blockade, such as conjunctivitis, do not increase but rather appear to drop with longer-term use. The fact that skin infections were reduced vs. placebo and decreased over time suggests that long-term IL-13 blockade with tralokinumab positively impacts skin infections, a well-known comorbidity in uncontrolled AD, he added.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study, said, “These findings provide additional data supporting the safety and tolerability of tralokinumab and support my personal real-world experience with tralokinumab as a safe and effective biologic therapy for patients with moderate to severe AD.”

Dr. Chovatiya is assistant professor, director of the Center for Eczema and Itch, and medical director of clinical trials at Northwestern University in Chicago.
 

Four-week dosing

Consistent with ECZTRA 3, the rates of URTIs and conjunctivitis were lower with maintenance dosing 300 mg every 4 weeks, consideration of which is approved for responders weighing less than 220 pounds, vs. 300 mg every 2 weeks. Specifically, 6.7% of patients on every 4-week dosing schedule experienced URTIs, vs. 9.4% on the every 2-week dosing schedule and 7% of those on the every 2-week dosing schedule plus optional topical corticosteroids. Corresponding figures for conjunctivitis were 3%, 5%, and 5.6%, respectively.

“Four-week dosing is a possibility in your patients with a good clinical response at 16 weeks,” Dr. Simpson said. Advantages include improved convenience for patients, he added, and this analysis shows that dosing every 4 weeks may improve tolerability, with a lower rate of conjunctivitis.

Although it is difficult to directly compare review data to other studies, said Dr. Chovatiya, findings also suggest that tralokinumab may be associated with reduced infections and conjunctivitis compared with other advanced AD therapies. Head-to-head trials and real-world studies are needed to better understand comparative safety, he added.

Some patients will lose a degree of response with the 4-week dosing schedule, Dr. Simpson said. In ECZTRA 1 and 2, 55.9% of patients who achieved investigator global assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1 after 16 weeks of dosing every 2 weeks maintained this response level through week 52, vs. 42.4% of responders who switched from dosing every 2 weeks to every 4 weeks after week 16. But according to data that Dr. Simpson recently presented, 95% of patients switched to monthly dosing who relapsed and returned to dosing every 2 weeks regained their original response level within approximately 4 weeks.

In his personal practice, Dr. Simpson has prescribed tralokinumab for patients with AD for up to a year. However, he and fellow investigators have been following much larger populations for more than 2 years and are planning additional publications. “Safety data will continue to accrue” said Dr. Simpson, “but I don’t expect any surprises.”

The clinical trials were sponsored by MedImmune (phase 2b) and LEO Pharma ( ECZTRA phase 3 trials), which also sponsored the review. Dr. Simpson reports grants and personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya has been an advisory board member, consultant, investigator, and speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies including LEO Pharma.

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

The most comprehensive safety analysis of tralokinumab to date shows nothing unexpected in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated for up to a year, according to a review published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

These findings underscore the mechanistic elegance of interleukin (IL)-13 inhibition and highlight potential advantages of flexible dosing, according to the study’s lead author, Eric Simpson, MD, MCR. Overall, the pooled analysis of safety data from five phase 2 and 3 trials shows that “blockade of a single cytokine provides excellent short- and long-term safety, which is useful for a severe chronic disease,” said Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Most patients with AD require years of treatment. “So for clinicians to confidently report to patients the low rates of serious adverse events (AEs) and lack of immune suppression side-effect profile is very encouraging for both the provider and patient,” Dr. Simpson said, noting there were no new signals or concerning short-term AEs.

Tralokinumab (Adbry), an IL-13 antagonist administered subcutaneously, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults in December 2021.
 

Minor differences vs. placebo

In the pooled analysis involving 1,605 patients treated for 16 weeks with tralokinumab and 680 who received placebo, frequency of any AE was 65.7% and 67.2%, respectively. Severe AEs occurred in 4.6% and 6.3% of patients, respectively.

The most common AE overall was AD, which occurred less often in tralokinumab-treated patients (15.4%) than those on placebo (26.2%). Other common AEs that occurred more frequently with tralokinumab included viral upper respiratory tract infections (15.7% vs. 12.2%), upper respiratory tract infections (URTI, 5.6% vs. 4.8%), conjunctivitis (5.4% vs. 1.9%), and injection-site reactions (3.5% vs. 0.3%).

AEs that occurred less often with tralokinumab than placebo included skin infections (3.7% vs. 9.2%, respectively) and infected dermatitis (1.6% vs. 6.4%).

Regarding safety areas of special interest, eye disorders classified as conjunctivitis, keratoconjunctivitis, or keratitis occurred more commonly with tralokinumab (7.9%) than placebo (3.4%). Most eye disorders were mild or moderate and resolved during the study. During maintenance treatment up to 52 weeks, AE rates mirrored those in the initial treatment period and did not increase with treatment duration.

In fact, Dr. Simpson said, the low rate of AEs that are known to accompany type 2 blockade, such as conjunctivitis, do not increase but rather appear to drop with longer-term use. The fact that skin infections were reduced vs. placebo and decreased over time suggests that long-term IL-13 blockade with tralokinumab positively impacts skin infections, a well-known comorbidity in uncontrolled AD, he added.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study, said, “These findings provide additional data supporting the safety and tolerability of tralokinumab and support my personal real-world experience with tralokinumab as a safe and effective biologic therapy for patients with moderate to severe AD.”

Dr. Chovatiya is assistant professor, director of the Center for Eczema and Itch, and medical director of clinical trials at Northwestern University in Chicago.
 

Four-week dosing

Consistent with ECZTRA 3, the rates of URTIs and conjunctivitis were lower with maintenance dosing 300 mg every 4 weeks, consideration of which is approved for responders weighing less than 220 pounds, vs. 300 mg every 2 weeks. Specifically, 6.7% of patients on every 4-week dosing schedule experienced URTIs, vs. 9.4% on the every 2-week dosing schedule and 7% of those on the every 2-week dosing schedule plus optional topical corticosteroids. Corresponding figures for conjunctivitis were 3%, 5%, and 5.6%, respectively.

“Four-week dosing is a possibility in your patients with a good clinical response at 16 weeks,” Dr. Simpson said. Advantages include improved convenience for patients, he added, and this analysis shows that dosing every 4 weeks may improve tolerability, with a lower rate of conjunctivitis.

Although it is difficult to directly compare review data to other studies, said Dr. Chovatiya, findings also suggest that tralokinumab may be associated with reduced infections and conjunctivitis compared with other advanced AD therapies. Head-to-head trials and real-world studies are needed to better understand comparative safety, he added.

Some patients will lose a degree of response with the 4-week dosing schedule, Dr. Simpson said. In ECZTRA 1 and 2, 55.9% of patients who achieved investigator global assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1 after 16 weeks of dosing every 2 weeks maintained this response level through week 52, vs. 42.4% of responders who switched from dosing every 2 weeks to every 4 weeks after week 16. But according to data that Dr. Simpson recently presented, 95% of patients switched to monthly dosing who relapsed and returned to dosing every 2 weeks regained their original response level within approximately 4 weeks.

In his personal practice, Dr. Simpson has prescribed tralokinumab for patients with AD for up to a year. However, he and fellow investigators have been following much larger populations for more than 2 years and are planning additional publications. “Safety data will continue to accrue” said Dr. Simpson, “but I don’t expect any surprises.”

The clinical trials were sponsored by MedImmune (phase 2b) and LEO Pharma ( ECZTRA phase 3 trials), which also sponsored the review. Dr. Simpson reports grants and personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya has been an advisory board member, consultant, investigator, and speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies including LEO Pharma.

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

The exploration started in 2004 with a 62-year-old man who presented to an emergency department with acute shortness of breath, tachycardia with chest discomfort, and light-headedness, Amado Alejandro Baez, MD, said in a presentation at the 2022 scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The patient arrived on day 20 after a radical cystoprostatectomy. He had driven 4 hours from another city for a urology follow-up visit. On arrival, he developed respiratory distress symptoms and presented to the emergency department, said Dr. Baez, professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at the Medical College of Georgia/Augusta University and triple-board certified in EMS, emergency medicine, and critical care.

The patient developed a massive pulmonary embolism with acute cor pulmonale (right-sided heart failure). An electrocardiogram showed an S1Q3T3, demonstrating the distinctive nature of right ventricular failure, said Dr. Baez.

Research has demonstrated the differences in physiology between the right and left ventricles, he said.

Dr. Baez highlighted some of the features of right ventricle (RV) failure and how to manage it. Notably, the RV is thinner and less resilient. “RV failure patients may fall off the Starling curve,” in contrast to patients with isolated left ventricle (LV) failure.

RV pressure overload is associated with a range of conditions, such as pericardial disease, pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary arterial hypertension. When combined with RV overload, patients may develop intracardiac shunting or coronary heart disease, Dr. Baez said. Decreased contractility associated with RV failure can result from sepsis, right ventricular myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and arrhythmia.

Dr. Baez cited the 2018 scientific statement from the American Heart Association on the evaluation and management of right-sided heart failure. The authors of the statement noted that the complicated geometry of the right heart makes functional assessment a challenge. They wrote that various hemodynamic and biochemical markers can help guide clinical assessment and therapeutic decision-making.

Increased RV afterload drives multiple factors that can ultimately lead to cardiogenic shock and death, said Dr. Baez. These factors include decreased RV oxygen delivery, decreased RV coronary perfusion, decreased systemic blood pressure, and low carbon monoxide levels. RV afterload also leads to decreased RV contractility, an increase in RV oxygen demand, and tension in the RV wall, and it may contribute to tricuspid valve insufficiency, neurohormonal activation, and RV ischemia.

Treatment strategies involve improving symptoms and stopping disease progression, said Baez. In its scientific statement, the AHA recommends steps for assessing RV and LV function so as to identify RV failure as soon as possible, he said. After excluding pericardial disease, the AHA advises diagnosis and treatment of etiology-specific causes, such as right ventricular MI, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. For arrhythmias, it recommends maintaining sinus rhythm when possible and considering a pacemaker to maintain atrioventricular synchrony and to avoid excessive bradycardia.

In its statement, the AHA also recommends optimizing preload with right arterial pressure/central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, said Dr. Baez. Preload optimization combined with afterload reduction and improved contractility are hallmarks of care for patients with RV failure.

Avoiding systemic hypotension can prevent sequelae, such as myocardial ischemia and further hypotension, he said.

Optimization of fluid status is another key to managing RV failure, said Dr. Baez. Right heart coronary perfusion pressure can be protected by maintaining mean arterial pressure, and consideration should be given to reducing the RV afterload. Other strategies include inotropic medications and rhythm stabilization.

In general, for RV failure patients, “correct hypoxia, hypercarbia, and acidosis and avoid intubation when possible,” he said. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be an option, depending on how many mechanical ventilator settings need to be adjusted.

In a study by Dr. Baez and colleagues published in Critical Care Medicine, the authors presented a Bayesian probability model for plasma lactate and severity of illness in cases of acute pulmonary embolism. “This Bayesian model demonstrated that the combination of shock index and lactate yield superior diagnostic gains than those compare to the sPESI and lactate,” Dr. Baez said.

The care model needs to be specific to the etiology, he added. Volume management in congested pulmonary hypertension involves a “squeeze and diurese” strategy.

According to the Internet Book of Critical Care, for patients with mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 60 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) of 25 mm Hg, renal perfusion pressure of 25 mm Hg, and no urine output, a vasopressor should be added to treatment, Dr. Baez said. In cases in which the MAP 75 mm Hg, the CVP is 25 mm Hg, the renal perfusion pressure is 50 mm Hg, and the patient has good urine output, vasopressors should be continued and fluid should be removed through use of a diuretic. For patients with a MAP of 75 mm Hg, a CVP of 12 mm Hg, and renal perfusion pressure of 63 mm Hg who have good urine output, the diuretic and the vasopressor should be discontinued.

Dr. Baez also reviewed several clinical studies of the utility of acute mechanical circulatory support systems for RV failure.

In two small studies involving a heart pump and a right ventricular assistive device, the 30-day survival rate was approximately 72%-73%. A study of 179 patients involving ECMO showed an in-hospital mortality rate of 38.6%, he said.

Overall, “prompt diagnosis, hemodynamic support, and initiation of specific treatment” are the foundations of managing RV failure, he concluded.

Dr. Baez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The exploration started in 2004 with a 62-year-old man who presented to an emergency department with acute shortness of breath, tachycardia with chest discomfort, and light-headedness, Amado Alejandro Baez, MD, said in a presentation at the 2022 scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The patient arrived on day 20 after a radical cystoprostatectomy. He had driven 4 hours from another city for a urology follow-up visit. On arrival, he developed respiratory distress symptoms and presented to the emergency department, said Dr. Baez, professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at the Medical College of Georgia/Augusta University and triple-board certified in EMS, emergency medicine, and critical care.

The patient developed a massive pulmonary embolism with acute cor pulmonale (right-sided heart failure). An electrocardiogram showed an S1Q3T3, demonstrating the distinctive nature of right ventricular failure, said Dr. Baez.

Research has demonstrated the differences in physiology between the right and left ventricles, he said.

Dr. Baez highlighted some of the features of right ventricle (RV) failure and how to manage it. Notably, the RV is thinner and less resilient. “RV failure patients may fall off the Starling curve,” in contrast to patients with isolated left ventricle (LV) failure.

RV pressure overload is associated with a range of conditions, such as pericardial disease, pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary arterial hypertension. When combined with RV overload, patients may develop intracardiac shunting or coronary heart disease, Dr. Baez said. Decreased contractility associated with RV failure can result from sepsis, right ventricular myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and arrhythmia.

Dr. Baez cited the 2018 scientific statement from the American Heart Association on the evaluation and management of right-sided heart failure. The authors of the statement noted that the complicated geometry of the right heart makes functional assessment a challenge. They wrote that various hemodynamic and biochemical markers can help guide clinical assessment and therapeutic decision-making.

Increased RV afterload drives multiple factors that can ultimately lead to cardiogenic shock and death, said Dr. Baez. These factors include decreased RV oxygen delivery, decreased RV coronary perfusion, decreased systemic blood pressure, and low carbon monoxide levels. RV afterload also leads to decreased RV contractility, an increase in RV oxygen demand, and tension in the RV wall, and it may contribute to tricuspid valve insufficiency, neurohormonal activation, and RV ischemia.

Treatment strategies involve improving symptoms and stopping disease progression, said Baez. In its scientific statement, the AHA recommends steps for assessing RV and LV function so as to identify RV failure as soon as possible, he said. After excluding pericardial disease, the AHA advises diagnosis and treatment of etiology-specific causes, such as right ventricular MI, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. For arrhythmias, it recommends maintaining sinus rhythm when possible and considering a pacemaker to maintain atrioventricular synchrony and to avoid excessive bradycardia.

In its statement, the AHA also recommends optimizing preload with right arterial pressure/central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, said Dr. Baez. Preload optimization combined with afterload reduction and improved contractility are hallmarks of care for patients with RV failure.

Avoiding systemic hypotension can prevent sequelae, such as myocardial ischemia and further hypotension, he said.

Optimization of fluid status is another key to managing RV failure, said Dr. Baez. Right heart coronary perfusion pressure can be protected by maintaining mean arterial pressure, and consideration should be given to reducing the RV afterload. Other strategies include inotropic medications and rhythm stabilization.

In general, for RV failure patients, “correct hypoxia, hypercarbia, and acidosis and avoid intubation when possible,” he said. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be an option, depending on how many mechanical ventilator settings need to be adjusted.

In a study by Dr. Baez and colleagues published in Critical Care Medicine, the authors presented a Bayesian probability model for plasma lactate and severity of illness in cases of acute pulmonary embolism. “This Bayesian model demonstrated that the combination of shock index and lactate yield superior diagnostic gains than those compare to the sPESI and lactate,” Dr. Baez said.

The care model needs to be specific to the etiology, he added. Volume management in congested pulmonary hypertension involves a “squeeze and diurese” strategy.

According to the Internet Book of Critical Care, for patients with mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 60 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) of 25 mm Hg, renal perfusion pressure of 25 mm Hg, and no urine output, a vasopressor should be added to treatment, Dr. Baez said. In cases in which the MAP 75 mm Hg, the CVP is 25 mm Hg, the renal perfusion pressure is 50 mm Hg, and the patient has good urine output, vasopressors should be continued and fluid should be removed through use of a diuretic. For patients with a MAP of 75 mm Hg, a CVP of 12 mm Hg, and renal perfusion pressure of 63 mm Hg who have good urine output, the diuretic and the vasopressor should be discontinued.

Dr. Baez also reviewed several clinical studies of the utility of acute mechanical circulatory support systems for RV failure.

In two small studies involving a heart pump and a right ventricular assistive device, the 30-day survival rate was approximately 72%-73%. A study of 179 patients involving ECMO showed an in-hospital mortality rate of 38.6%, he said.

Overall, “prompt diagnosis, hemodynamic support, and initiation of specific treatment” are the foundations of managing RV failure, he concluded.

Dr. Baez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The exploration started in 2004 with a 62-year-old man who presented to an emergency department with acute shortness of breath, tachycardia with chest discomfort, and light-headedness, Amado Alejandro Baez, MD, said in a presentation at the 2022 scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The patient arrived on day 20 after a radical cystoprostatectomy. He had driven 4 hours from another city for a urology follow-up visit. On arrival, he developed respiratory distress symptoms and presented to the emergency department, said Dr. Baez, professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at the Medical College of Georgia/Augusta University and triple-board certified in EMS, emergency medicine, and critical care.

The patient developed a massive pulmonary embolism with acute cor pulmonale (right-sided heart failure). An electrocardiogram showed an S1Q3T3, demonstrating the distinctive nature of right ventricular failure, said Dr. Baez.

Research has demonstrated the differences in physiology between the right and left ventricles, he said.

Dr. Baez highlighted some of the features of right ventricle (RV) failure and how to manage it. Notably, the RV is thinner and less resilient. “RV failure patients may fall off the Starling curve,” in contrast to patients with isolated left ventricle (LV) failure.

RV pressure overload is associated with a range of conditions, such as pericardial disease, pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary arterial hypertension. When combined with RV overload, patients may develop intracardiac shunting or coronary heart disease, Dr. Baez said. Decreased contractility associated with RV failure can result from sepsis, right ventricular myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and arrhythmia.

Dr. Baez cited the 2018 scientific statement from the American Heart Association on the evaluation and management of right-sided heart failure. The authors of the statement noted that the complicated geometry of the right heart makes functional assessment a challenge. They wrote that various hemodynamic and biochemical markers can help guide clinical assessment and therapeutic decision-making.

Increased RV afterload drives multiple factors that can ultimately lead to cardiogenic shock and death, said Dr. Baez. These factors include decreased RV oxygen delivery, decreased RV coronary perfusion, decreased systemic blood pressure, and low carbon monoxide levels. RV afterload also leads to decreased RV contractility, an increase in RV oxygen demand, and tension in the RV wall, and it may contribute to tricuspid valve insufficiency, neurohormonal activation, and RV ischemia.

Treatment strategies involve improving symptoms and stopping disease progression, said Baez. In its scientific statement, the AHA recommends steps for assessing RV and LV function so as to identify RV failure as soon as possible, he said. After excluding pericardial disease, the AHA advises diagnosis and treatment of etiology-specific causes, such as right ventricular MI, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. For arrhythmias, it recommends maintaining sinus rhythm when possible and considering a pacemaker to maintain atrioventricular synchrony and to avoid excessive bradycardia.

In its statement, the AHA also recommends optimizing preload with right arterial pressure/central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, said Dr. Baez. Preload optimization combined with afterload reduction and improved contractility are hallmarks of care for patients with RV failure.

Avoiding systemic hypotension can prevent sequelae, such as myocardial ischemia and further hypotension, he said.

Optimization of fluid status is another key to managing RV failure, said Dr. Baez. Right heart coronary perfusion pressure can be protected by maintaining mean arterial pressure, and consideration should be given to reducing the RV afterload. Other strategies include inotropic medications and rhythm stabilization.

In general, for RV failure patients, “correct hypoxia, hypercarbia, and acidosis and avoid intubation when possible,” he said. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be an option, depending on how many mechanical ventilator settings need to be adjusted.

In a study by Dr. Baez and colleagues published in Critical Care Medicine, the authors presented a Bayesian probability model for plasma lactate and severity of illness in cases of acute pulmonary embolism. “This Bayesian model demonstrated that the combination of shock index and lactate yield superior diagnostic gains than those compare to the sPESI and lactate,” Dr. Baez said.

The care model needs to be specific to the etiology, he added. Volume management in congested pulmonary hypertension involves a “squeeze and diurese” strategy.

According to the Internet Book of Critical Care, for patients with mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 60 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) of 25 mm Hg, renal perfusion pressure of 25 mm Hg, and no urine output, a vasopressor should be added to treatment, Dr. Baez said. In cases in which the MAP 75 mm Hg, the CVP is 25 mm Hg, the renal perfusion pressure is 50 mm Hg, and the patient has good urine output, vasopressors should be continued and fluid should be removed through use of a diuretic. For patients with a MAP of 75 mm Hg, a CVP of 12 mm Hg, and renal perfusion pressure of 63 mm Hg who have good urine output, the diuretic and the vasopressor should be discontinued.

Dr. Baez also reviewed several clinical studies of the utility of acute mechanical circulatory support systems for RV failure.

In two small studies involving a heart pump and a right ventricular assistive device, the 30-day survival rate was approximately 72%-73%. A study of 179 patients involving ECMO showed an in-hospital mortality rate of 38.6%, he said.

Overall, “prompt diagnosis, hemodynamic support, and initiation of specific treatment” are the foundations of managing RV failure, he concluded.

Dr. Baez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A genetic postmortem analysis of the brains of patients with schizophrenia suggests dysfunction of dopamine receptors in the caudate nucleus may cause the disorder.

Investigators identified a mechanism on the dopamine receptor, known as the autoreceptor, which regulates how much dopamine is released from the presynaptic neuron. Impairment of this autoreceptor leads to poorly controlled dopamine release and excessive dopamine flow.

The researchers found decreased expression of this autoreceptor accounts for the genetic evidence of schizophrenia risk, and, using a suite of statistical routines, they showed that this relationship is probably causative.

“Our research confirms the scientific hypothesis that too much dopamine plays a likely causative role in psychosis and precisely how this is based on genetic factors,” study investigator Daniel Weinberger, MD, director and CEO of the Lieber Institute for Brain Development, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Drugs that treat psychosis symptoms by simply blocking dopamine receptors have harsh side effects. ... Theoretically, scientists could now develop therapies that target these malfunctioning autoreceptors to treat this devastating condition with fewer side effects,” he said.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

‘Privileged spot’

“Large international genetic studies known as genomewide association studies have identified hundreds of regions of the human genome housing potential risk genes for schizophrenia,” Dr. Weinberger said.

“However, these regions are still poorly resolved in terms of specific genes, and treatments and diagnostic techniques are far from what they should be.” Moreover, “treatments for schizophrenia address the symptoms of psychosis but not the cause,” he said.

“For more than 70 years, neuroscientists have suspected that dopamine plays a key role in schizophrenia, but what kind of role, exactly, has remained a mystery,” Dr. Weinberger noted. “It occupied a privileged spot in the principal hypothesis about schizophrenia for over 60 years – the so-called ‘dopamine hypothesis.’ ”

Antipsychotic drugs that reduce dopamine “are the principal medical treatments but they cause serious side effects, including an inability to experience pleasure and joy – a sad reality for patients and their families,” he continued.

The current study “set out to understand how dopamine acts in schizophrenia” using “analysis of the genetic and transcriptional landscape” of the postmortem caudate nucleus from 443 donors (245 neurotypical, 154 with schizophrenia, and 44 with bipolar disorder).

Brain samples were from individuals of diverse ancestry (210 were of African ancestry and 2,233 were of European ancestry).
 

New treatment target?

The researchers performed an analysis of transancestry expression quantitative trait loci, genetic variants that explain variations in gene expression levels, which express in the caudate, annotating “hundreds of caudate-specific cis-eQTLs.”

Then they integrated this analysis with gene expression that emerged from the latest genomewide association study and transcriptome-wide association study, identifying hundreds of genes that “showed a potential causal association with schizophrenia risk in the caudate nucleus,” including a specific isoform of the dopamine D2 receptor, which is upregulated in the caudate nucleus of those with schizophrenia.

“If autoreceptors don’t function properly the flow of dopamine in the brain is poorly controlled and too much dopamine flows for too long,” said Dr. Weinberger.

In particular, they observed “extensive differential gene expression” for schizophrenia in 2,701 genes in those with schizophrenia, compared with those without: glial cell–derived neurotrophic factor antisense RNA was a top-up gene and tyrosine hydroxylase, which is a rate-limiting enzyme in dopamine synthesis, was a down-regulated gene. Dopamine receptors DRD2 and DRD3 were differentially expressed.

Having done this, they looked at the effects of antipsychotic medications that target D2 regions on gene expression in the caudate by testing for differences between individuals with schizophrenia who were taking antipsychotics at the time of death, those not taking antipsychotics at the time of death (n = 104 and 49, respectively), and neurotypical individuals (n = 239).

There were 2,692 differentially expressed genes between individuals taking antipsychotics versus neurotypical individuals (false discovery rate < 0.05). By contrast, there were only 665 differentially expressed genes (FDR < .05) between those not taking antipsychotics and neurotypical individuals.

“We found that antipsychotic medication has an extensive influence on caudate gene expression,” the investigators noted.

They then developed a new approach to “infer gene networks from expression data.” This method is based on deep neural networks, obtaining a “low-dimensional representation of each gene’s expression across individuals.” The representation is then used to build a “gene neighborhood graph and assign genes to modules.”

This method identified “several modules enriched for genes associated with schizophrenia risk.” The expression representations captured in this approach placed genes in “biologically meaningful neighborhoods, which can provide insight into potential interactions if these genes are targeted for therapeutic intervention,” the authors summarized.

“Now that our new research has identified the specific mechanism by which dopamine plays a causative role in schizophrenia, we hope we have opened the door for more targeted drugs or diagnostic tests that could make life better for patients and their families,” Dr. Weinberger said.
 

No causal link?

Commenting on the study, Rifaat El-Mallakh, MD, director of the mood disorders research program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Louisville (Ky.), called it an “excellent study performed by an excellent research group” that “fills an important lacuna in our research database.”

However, Dr. El-Mallakh, who was not involved in the research, disagreed that the findings show causality. “The data that can be gleaned from this study is limited and the design has significant limitations. As with all genetic studies, this is an association study. It tells us nothing about the cause-effect relationship between the genes and the illness.

“We do not know why genes are associated with the illness. Genetic overrepresentation can have multiple causes, and more so when the data is a convenience sample. As noted by the authors, much of what they observed was probably related to medication effect. I don’t think this study specifically tells us anything clinically,” he added.

The study was supported by the LIBD, the BrainSeq Consortium, an National Institutes of Health fellowship to two of the authors, and a NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation to one of the authors. Dr. Weinberger has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. El-Mallakh declared no specific financial relationships relevant to the study but has reported being a speaker for several companies that manufacture antipsychotics.

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

A genetic postmortem analysis of the brains of patients with schizophrenia suggests dysfunction of dopamine receptors in the caudate nucleus may cause the disorder.

Investigators identified a mechanism on the dopamine receptor, known as the autoreceptor, which regulates how much dopamine is released from the presynaptic neuron. Impairment of this autoreceptor leads to poorly controlled dopamine release and excessive dopamine flow.

The researchers found decreased expression of this autoreceptor accounts for the genetic evidence of schizophrenia risk, and, using a suite of statistical routines, they showed that this relationship is probably causative.

“Our research confirms the scientific hypothesis that too much dopamine plays a likely causative role in psychosis and precisely how this is based on genetic factors,” study investigator Daniel Weinberger, MD, director and CEO of the Lieber Institute for Brain Development, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Drugs that treat psychosis symptoms by simply blocking dopamine receptors have harsh side effects. ... Theoretically, scientists could now develop therapies that target these malfunctioning autoreceptors to treat this devastating condition with fewer side effects,” he said.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

‘Privileged spot’

“Large international genetic studies known as genomewide association studies have identified hundreds of regions of the human genome housing potential risk genes for schizophrenia,” Dr. Weinberger said.

“However, these regions are still poorly resolved in terms of specific genes, and treatments and diagnostic techniques are far from what they should be.” Moreover, “treatments for schizophrenia address the symptoms of psychosis but not the cause,” he said.

“For more than 70 years, neuroscientists have suspected that dopamine plays a key role in schizophrenia, but what kind of role, exactly, has remained a mystery,” Dr. Weinberger noted. “It occupied a privileged spot in the principal hypothesis about schizophrenia for over 60 years – the so-called ‘dopamine hypothesis.’ ”

Antipsychotic drugs that reduce dopamine “are the principal medical treatments but they cause serious side effects, including an inability to experience pleasure and joy – a sad reality for patients and their families,” he continued.

The current study “set out to understand how dopamine acts in schizophrenia” using “analysis of the genetic and transcriptional landscape” of the postmortem caudate nucleus from 443 donors (245 neurotypical, 154 with schizophrenia, and 44 with bipolar disorder).

Brain samples were from individuals of diverse ancestry (210 were of African ancestry and 2,233 were of European ancestry).
 

New treatment target?

The researchers performed an analysis of transancestry expression quantitative trait loci, genetic variants that explain variations in gene expression levels, which express in the caudate, annotating “hundreds of caudate-specific cis-eQTLs.”

Then they integrated this analysis with gene expression that emerged from the latest genomewide association study and transcriptome-wide association study, identifying hundreds of genes that “showed a potential causal association with schizophrenia risk in the caudate nucleus,” including a specific isoform of the dopamine D2 receptor, which is upregulated in the caudate nucleus of those with schizophrenia.

“If autoreceptors don’t function properly the flow of dopamine in the brain is poorly controlled and too much dopamine flows for too long,” said Dr. Weinberger.

In particular, they observed “extensive differential gene expression” for schizophrenia in 2,701 genes in those with schizophrenia, compared with those without: glial cell–derived neurotrophic factor antisense RNA was a top-up gene and tyrosine hydroxylase, which is a rate-limiting enzyme in dopamine synthesis, was a down-regulated gene. Dopamine receptors DRD2 and DRD3 were differentially expressed.

Having done this, they looked at the effects of antipsychotic medications that target D2 regions on gene expression in the caudate by testing for differences between individuals with schizophrenia who were taking antipsychotics at the time of death, those not taking antipsychotics at the time of death (n = 104 and 49, respectively), and neurotypical individuals (n = 239).

There were 2,692 differentially expressed genes between individuals taking antipsychotics versus neurotypical individuals (false discovery rate < 0.05). By contrast, there were only 665 differentially expressed genes (FDR < .05) between those not taking antipsychotics and neurotypical individuals.

“We found that antipsychotic medication has an extensive influence on caudate gene expression,” the investigators noted.

They then developed a new approach to “infer gene networks from expression data.” This method is based on deep neural networks, obtaining a “low-dimensional representation of each gene’s expression across individuals.” The representation is then used to build a “gene neighborhood graph and assign genes to modules.”

This method identified “several modules enriched for genes associated with schizophrenia risk.” The expression representations captured in this approach placed genes in “biologically meaningful neighborhoods, which can provide insight into potential interactions if these genes are targeted for therapeutic intervention,” the authors summarized.

“Now that our new research has identified the specific mechanism by which dopamine plays a causative role in schizophrenia, we hope we have opened the door for more targeted drugs or diagnostic tests that could make life better for patients and their families,” Dr. Weinberger said.
 

No causal link?

Commenting on the study, Rifaat El-Mallakh, MD, director of the mood disorders research program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Louisville (Ky.), called it an “excellent study performed by an excellent research group” that “fills an important lacuna in our research database.”

However, Dr. El-Mallakh, who was not involved in the research, disagreed that the findings show causality. “The data that can be gleaned from this study is limited and the design has significant limitations. As with all genetic studies, this is an association study. It tells us nothing about the cause-effect relationship between the genes and the illness.

“We do not know why genes are associated with the illness. Genetic overrepresentation can have multiple causes, and more so when the data is a convenience sample. As noted by the authors, much of what they observed was probably related to medication effect. I don’t think this study specifically tells us anything clinically,” he added.

The study was supported by the LIBD, the BrainSeq Consortium, an National Institutes of Health fellowship to two of the authors, and a NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation to one of the authors. Dr. Weinberger has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. El-Mallakh declared no specific financial relationships relevant to the study but has reported being a speaker for several companies that manufacture antipsychotics.

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

A genetic postmortem analysis of the brains of patients with schizophrenia suggests dysfunction of dopamine receptors in the caudate nucleus may cause the disorder.

Investigators identified a mechanism on the dopamine receptor, known as the autoreceptor, which regulates how much dopamine is released from the presynaptic neuron. Impairment of this autoreceptor leads to poorly controlled dopamine release and excessive dopamine flow.

The researchers found decreased expression of this autoreceptor accounts for the genetic evidence of schizophrenia risk, and, using a suite of statistical routines, they showed that this relationship is probably causative.

“Our research confirms the scientific hypothesis that too much dopamine plays a likely causative role in psychosis and precisely how this is based on genetic factors,” study investigator Daniel Weinberger, MD, director and CEO of the Lieber Institute for Brain Development, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Drugs that treat psychosis symptoms by simply blocking dopamine receptors have harsh side effects. ... Theoretically, scientists could now develop therapies that target these malfunctioning autoreceptors to treat this devastating condition with fewer side effects,” he said.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

‘Privileged spot’

“Large international genetic studies known as genomewide association studies have identified hundreds of regions of the human genome housing potential risk genes for schizophrenia,” Dr. Weinberger said.

“However, these regions are still poorly resolved in terms of specific genes, and treatments and diagnostic techniques are far from what they should be.” Moreover, “treatments for schizophrenia address the symptoms of psychosis but not the cause,” he said.

“For more than 70 years, neuroscientists have suspected that dopamine plays a key role in schizophrenia, but what kind of role, exactly, has remained a mystery,” Dr. Weinberger noted. “It occupied a privileged spot in the principal hypothesis about schizophrenia for over 60 years – the so-called ‘dopamine hypothesis.’ ”

Antipsychotic drugs that reduce dopamine “are the principal medical treatments but they cause serious side effects, including an inability to experience pleasure and joy – a sad reality for patients and their families,” he continued.

The current study “set out to understand how dopamine acts in schizophrenia” using “analysis of the genetic and transcriptional landscape” of the postmortem caudate nucleus from 443 donors (245 neurotypical, 154 with schizophrenia, and 44 with bipolar disorder).

Brain samples were from individuals of diverse ancestry (210 were of African ancestry and 2,233 were of European ancestry).
 

New treatment target?

The researchers performed an analysis of transancestry expression quantitative trait loci, genetic variants that explain variations in gene expression levels, which express in the caudate, annotating “hundreds of caudate-specific cis-eQTLs.”

Then they integrated this analysis with gene expression that emerged from the latest genomewide association study and transcriptome-wide association study, identifying hundreds of genes that “showed a potential causal association with schizophrenia risk in the caudate nucleus,” including a specific isoform of the dopamine D2 receptor, which is upregulated in the caudate nucleus of those with schizophrenia.

“If autoreceptors don’t function properly the flow of dopamine in the brain is poorly controlled and too much dopamine flows for too long,” said Dr. Weinberger.

In particular, they observed “extensive differential gene expression” for schizophrenia in 2,701 genes in those with schizophrenia, compared with those without: glial cell–derived neurotrophic factor antisense RNA was a top-up gene and tyrosine hydroxylase, which is a rate-limiting enzyme in dopamine synthesis, was a down-regulated gene. Dopamine receptors DRD2 and DRD3 were differentially expressed.

Having done this, they looked at the effects of antipsychotic medications that target D2 regions on gene expression in the caudate by testing for differences between individuals with schizophrenia who were taking antipsychotics at the time of death, those not taking antipsychotics at the time of death (n = 104 and 49, respectively), and neurotypical individuals (n = 239).

There were 2,692 differentially expressed genes between individuals taking antipsychotics versus neurotypical individuals (false discovery rate < 0.05). By contrast, there were only 665 differentially expressed genes (FDR < .05) between those not taking antipsychotics and neurotypical individuals.

“We found that antipsychotic medication has an extensive influence on caudate gene expression,” the investigators noted.

They then developed a new approach to “infer gene networks from expression data.” This method is based on deep neural networks, obtaining a “low-dimensional representation of each gene’s expression across individuals.” The representation is then used to build a “gene neighborhood graph and assign genes to modules.”

This method identified “several modules enriched for genes associated with schizophrenia risk.” The expression representations captured in this approach placed genes in “biologically meaningful neighborhoods, which can provide insight into potential interactions if these genes are targeted for therapeutic intervention,” the authors summarized.

“Now that our new research has identified the specific mechanism by which dopamine plays a causative role in schizophrenia, we hope we have opened the door for more targeted drugs or diagnostic tests that could make life better for patients and their families,” Dr. Weinberger said.
 

No causal link?

Commenting on the study, Rifaat El-Mallakh, MD, director of the mood disorders research program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Louisville (Ky.), called it an “excellent study performed by an excellent research group” that “fills an important lacuna in our research database.”

However, Dr. El-Mallakh, who was not involved in the research, disagreed that the findings show causality. “The data that can be gleaned from this study is limited and the design has significant limitations. As with all genetic studies, this is an association study. It tells us nothing about the cause-effect relationship between the genes and the illness.

“We do not know why genes are associated with the illness. Genetic overrepresentation can have multiple causes, and more so when the data is a convenience sample. As noted by the authors, much of what they observed was probably related to medication effect. I don’t think this study specifically tells us anything clinically,” he added.

The study was supported by the LIBD, the BrainSeq Consortium, an National Institutes of Health fellowship to two of the authors, and a NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation to one of the authors. Dr. Weinberger has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. El-Mallakh declared no specific financial relationships relevant to the study but has reported being a speaker for several companies that manufacture antipsychotics.

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

LAS VEGAS – Effective management of alopecia areata starts with confirmation of the correct diagnosis and assessment of disease severity, Brett King, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

“Some patients don’t have alopecia, but they have been managed for it,” he said. “Whenever there is an ounce of doubt, take a biopsy,” he advised.

Syldavia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Assessing disease severity in patients with alopecia areata (AA) is especially important as new therapies become available, said Dr. King, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. The Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) Score has been available since 2004, and remains a useful tool to estimate percent hair loss. The SALT Score divides the scalp into four sections: 18% each for the right and left sides, 40% for the top of the head, and 24% for the back of the head, said Dr. King. However, the SALT Score can be enhanced or modified based on a holistic approach to disease severity that categorizes alopecia as mild (scalp hair loss of 20% or less), moderate (scalp hair loss of 21 to 49%), or severe (scalp hair loss of 50% or more).

For example, if a patient’s hair loss based on SALT Score is mild or moderate, increase the severity by 1 level (from mild to moderate, or moderate to severe) if any of the following conditions apply: Noticeable eyebrow or eyelash involvement, inadequate treatment response after 6 months, diffuse positive hair pull test consistent with rapid progression of AA, or a negative impact on psychosocial functioning because of AA, he said.
 

Treatment advances

Understanding of the pathogenesis of AA has been slow to evolve, Dr. King noted. “We haven’t been able to shake this concept that people are causing the disease by being depressed,” as noted in the literature from the 1950s.

In 2014, breakthrough research changed the game by identifying the roles of interferon gamma and interleukin 15, Dr. King said. Since then, more research has been conducted on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for AA. Dr. King was a coinvestigator on a 2014 case report in which a patient with psoriasis and alopecia universalis experienced regrowth of most of his body hair after 8 months of daily oral tofacitinib, a JAK inhibitor.

However, despite the dramatic results in some patients, “tofacitinib doesn’t always work,” said Dr. King. In his experience, patients for whom tofacitinib didn’t work were those with complete or nearly complete scalp hair loss for more than 10 years.

Approval of baricitinib

Dr. King’s recent work supported the approval in June 2022 of oral baricitinib, a JAK inhibitor, for AA. He reviewed data from his late-breaker abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2022, where he reported that almost 40% of adults with AA treated with 4 mg of baricitinib daily had significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks.

Two other oral JAK inhibitors in the pipeline for AA are deuruxolitinib and ritlecitinib, which significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving SALT scores of 20 or less, compared with patients on placebo in early clinical trials. Data on both were presented at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

So far, topical JAK inhibitors have not shown success in hair regrowth for AA patients, said Dr. King. Phase 2 studies of both ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and delgocitinib ointment were ineffective for AA.
 

Emerging role for oral minoxidil

Oral minoxidil has had a recent resurgence as an adjunct therapy to the new JAK inhibitors. A study published in 1987 found that, with oral minoxidil monotherapy, a cosmetic response was seen in 18% of patients with AA, Dr. King said.

In a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. King and colleagues noted that dose escalation is sometimes needed for effective treatment of AA with tofacitinib. They examined the effect of adding oral minoxidil to tofacitinib in patients with severe AA as a way to increase efficacy without increasing tofacitinib dosage. They reviewed data from 12 patients ages 18-51 years who were prescribed 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, plus 2.5 mg oral minoxidil daily for women and 2.5 mg of minoxidil twice daily for men; women received a lower dose to minimize the side effect of hypertrichosis.

After 6 months, 67% (eight patients) achieved at least 75% hair regrowth; of those eight patients, seven (58% of the total) had hair regrowth on a twice-daily dose of 5 mg tofacitinib with no need for dose escalation, Dr. King said.

More research is needed, but oral minoxidil may be a useful adjunct treatment for some patients with AA, he added.

During a question and answer session, Dr. King was asked to elaborate on the mechanism of minoxidil in combination with JAK inhibitors. “The truth is that I just don’t know” why the combination works for some patients. However, the majority of patients who succeed with this combination regrow hair by 4 months. “There is something special about that combination.”

Dr. King disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for AbbVie, AltruBio, Almirall, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bioniz, Bristol Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Horizon, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Otsuka, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Twi Biotechnology, Viela Bio, and Visterra; serving as a speaker or as a member of the speakers bureau for Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme; and receiving research funding from Concert Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Effective management of alopecia areata starts with confirmation of the correct diagnosis and assessment of disease severity, Brett King, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

“Some patients don’t have alopecia, but they have been managed for it,” he said. “Whenever there is an ounce of doubt, take a biopsy,” he advised.

Syldavia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Assessing disease severity in patients with alopecia areata (AA) is especially important as new therapies become available, said Dr. King, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. The Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) Score has been available since 2004, and remains a useful tool to estimate percent hair loss. The SALT Score divides the scalp into four sections: 18% each for the right and left sides, 40% for the top of the head, and 24% for the back of the head, said Dr. King. However, the SALT Score can be enhanced or modified based on a holistic approach to disease severity that categorizes alopecia as mild (scalp hair loss of 20% or less), moderate (scalp hair loss of 21 to 49%), or severe (scalp hair loss of 50% or more).

For example, if a patient’s hair loss based on SALT Score is mild or moderate, increase the severity by 1 level (from mild to moderate, or moderate to severe) if any of the following conditions apply: Noticeable eyebrow or eyelash involvement, inadequate treatment response after 6 months, diffuse positive hair pull test consistent with rapid progression of AA, or a negative impact on psychosocial functioning because of AA, he said.
 

Treatment advances

Understanding of the pathogenesis of AA has been slow to evolve, Dr. King noted. “We haven’t been able to shake this concept that people are causing the disease by being depressed,” as noted in the literature from the 1950s.

In 2014, breakthrough research changed the game by identifying the roles of interferon gamma and interleukin 15, Dr. King said. Since then, more research has been conducted on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for AA. Dr. King was a coinvestigator on a 2014 case report in which a patient with psoriasis and alopecia universalis experienced regrowth of most of his body hair after 8 months of daily oral tofacitinib, a JAK inhibitor.

However, despite the dramatic results in some patients, “tofacitinib doesn’t always work,” said Dr. King. In his experience, patients for whom tofacitinib didn’t work were those with complete or nearly complete scalp hair loss for more than 10 years.

Approval of baricitinib

Dr. King’s recent work supported the approval in June 2022 of oral baricitinib, a JAK inhibitor, for AA. He reviewed data from his late-breaker abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2022, where he reported that almost 40% of adults with AA treated with 4 mg of baricitinib daily had significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks.

Two other oral JAK inhibitors in the pipeline for AA are deuruxolitinib and ritlecitinib, which significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving SALT scores of 20 or less, compared with patients on placebo in early clinical trials. Data on both were presented at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

So far, topical JAK inhibitors have not shown success in hair regrowth for AA patients, said Dr. King. Phase 2 studies of both ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and delgocitinib ointment were ineffective for AA.
 

Emerging role for oral minoxidil

Oral minoxidil has had a recent resurgence as an adjunct therapy to the new JAK inhibitors. A study published in 1987 found that, with oral minoxidil monotherapy, a cosmetic response was seen in 18% of patients with AA, Dr. King said.

In a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. King and colleagues noted that dose escalation is sometimes needed for effective treatment of AA with tofacitinib. They examined the effect of adding oral minoxidil to tofacitinib in patients with severe AA as a way to increase efficacy without increasing tofacitinib dosage. They reviewed data from 12 patients ages 18-51 years who were prescribed 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, plus 2.5 mg oral minoxidil daily for women and 2.5 mg of minoxidil twice daily for men; women received a lower dose to minimize the side effect of hypertrichosis.

After 6 months, 67% (eight patients) achieved at least 75% hair regrowth; of those eight patients, seven (58% of the total) had hair regrowth on a twice-daily dose of 5 mg tofacitinib with no need for dose escalation, Dr. King said.

More research is needed, but oral minoxidil may be a useful adjunct treatment for some patients with AA, he added.

During a question and answer session, Dr. King was asked to elaborate on the mechanism of minoxidil in combination with JAK inhibitors. “The truth is that I just don’t know” why the combination works for some patients. However, the majority of patients who succeed with this combination regrow hair by 4 months. “There is something special about that combination.”

Dr. King disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for AbbVie, AltruBio, Almirall, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bioniz, Bristol Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Horizon, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Otsuka, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Twi Biotechnology, Viela Bio, and Visterra; serving as a speaker or as a member of the speakers bureau for Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme; and receiving research funding from Concert Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Effective management of alopecia areata starts with confirmation of the correct diagnosis and assessment of disease severity, Brett King, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

“Some patients don’t have alopecia, but they have been managed for it,” he said. “Whenever there is an ounce of doubt, take a biopsy,” he advised.

Syldavia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Assessing disease severity in patients with alopecia areata (AA) is especially important as new therapies become available, said Dr. King, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. The Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) Score has been available since 2004, and remains a useful tool to estimate percent hair loss. The SALT Score divides the scalp into four sections: 18% each for the right and left sides, 40% for the top of the head, and 24% for the back of the head, said Dr. King. However, the SALT Score can be enhanced or modified based on a holistic approach to disease severity that categorizes alopecia as mild (scalp hair loss of 20% or less), moderate (scalp hair loss of 21 to 49%), or severe (scalp hair loss of 50% or more).

For example, if a patient’s hair loss based on SALT Score is mild or moderate, increase the severity by 1 level (from mild to moderate, or moderate to severe) if any of the following conditions apply: Noticeable eyebrow or eyelash involvement, inadequate treatment response after 6 months, diffuse positive hair pull test consistent with rapid progression of AA, or a negative impact on psychosocial functioning because of AA, he said.
 

Treatment advances

Understanding of the pathogenesis of AA has been slow to evolve, Dr. King noted. “We haven’t been able to shake this concept that people are causing the disease by being depressed,” as noted in the literature from the 1950s.

In 2014, breakthrough research changed the game by identifying the roles of interferon gamma and interleukin 15, Dr. King said. Since then, more research has been conducted on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for AA. Dr. King was a coinvestigator on a 2014 case report in which a patient with psoriasis and alopecia universalis experienced regrowth of most of his body hair after 8 months of daily oral tofacitinib, a JAK inhibitor.

However, despite the dramatic results in some patients, “tofacitinib doesn’t always work,” said Dr. King. In his experience, patients for whom tofacitinib didn’t work were those with complete or nearly complete scalp hair loss for more than 10 years.

Approval of baricitinib

Dr. King’s recent work supported the approval in June 2022 of oral baricitinib, a JAK inhibitor, for AA. He reviewed data from his late-breaker abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2022, where he reported that almost 40% of adults with AA treated with 4 mg of baricitinib daily had significant hair regrowth over 52 weeks.

Two other oral JAK inhibitors in the pipeline for AA are deuruxolitinib and ritlecitinib, which significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving SALT scores of 20 or less, compared with patients on placebo in early clinical trials. Data on both were presented at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

So far, topical JAK inhibitors have not shown success in hair regrowth for AA patients, said Dr. King. Phase 2 studies of both ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and delgocitinib ointment were ineffective for AA.
 

Emerging role for oral minoxidil

Oral minoxidil has had a recent resurgence as an adjunct therapy to the new JAK inhibitors. A study published in 1987 found that, with oral minoxidil monotherapy, a cosmetic response was seen in 18% of patients with AA, Dr. King said.

In a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. King and colleagues noted that dose escalation is sometimes needed for effective treatment of AA with tofacitinib. They examined the effect of adding oral minoxidil to tofacitinib in patients with severe AA as a way to increase efficacy without increasing tofacitinib dosage. They reviewed data from 12 patients ages 18-51 years who were prescribed 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, plus 2.5 mg oral minoxidil daily for women and 2.5 mg of minoxidil twice daily for men; women received a lower dose to minimize the side effect of hypertrichosis.

After 6 months, 67% (eight patients) achieved at least 75% hair regrowth; of those eight patients, seven (58% of the total) had hair regrowth on a twice-daily dose of 5 mg tofacitinib with no need for dose escalation, Dr. King said.

More research is needed, but oral minoxidil may be a useful adjunct treatment for some patients with AA, he added.

During a question and answer session, Dr. King was asked to elaborate on the mechanism of minoxidil in combination with JAK inhibitors. “The truth is that I just don’t know” why the combination works for some patients. However, the majority of patients who succeed with this combination regrow hair by 4 months. “There is something special about that combination.”

Dr. King disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for AbbVie, AltruBio, Almirall, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bioniz, Bristol Myers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Horizon, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Otsuka, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Twi Biotechnology, Viela Bio, and Visterra; serving as a speaker or as a member of the speakers bureau for Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme; and receiving research funding from Concert Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.