A 5-minute bout of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription heart drugs was associated with favorable perceptions of both medication use and pharmaceutical companies, but did not seem to negate intentions to use lifestyle interventions, a survey study shows.

Participants who watched ads for various prescription heart drugs, with or without price disclosure, were more likely to report positive perceptions of drug companies and intentions to take actions such as switching medications.

AlShadsky/Fotolia.com

The ads did not seem to affect intentions to eat healthfully and exercise.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.
 

DTCA ‘unlikely to have an adverse effect’

“Increasing prevalence of DTCA may promote an overreliance on medication over healthy lifestyle choices to manage chronic conditions,” coauthor Yashaswini Singh, MPA, a PhD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization. “Thus, we hypothesized that DTCA exposure would reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in preventive health behaviors.”

“However,” she said, “our results did not support this hypothesis, suggesting that exposure to DTCA for heart disease medication is unlikely to have an adverse effect on individuals’ intentions to engage in diet and exercise.”

That said, she added, “DTCA of prescription drugs can contribute to rising drug costs due to overprescribing of both inappropriate and brand-name drugs over cheaper generic alternatives. While we do not examine this mechanism in our paper, this remains an important question for future research.”

For the study, the team recruited 2,874 individuals (mean age, 53.8 years; 54% men; 83% White) from a U.S. nationally representative sample of people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, the Ipsos Public Affairs KnowledgePanel.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three interventions: DTCA for heart disease medications, DTCA for heart disease medications with price disclosure, or nonpharmaceutical advertising (control). Each group watched five 1-minute videos for a total of 5 minutes of advertising exposure.

One group viewed ads for four heart disease medications – two ads for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) and one each for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer), evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), and ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca); the second group saw the same ads, but with prices spliced in; and controls watched videos for nondrug products, such as consumer electronics.

Participants then completed a questionnaire to measure medication- and lifestyle-related intentions, as well as health-related beliefs and perceptions. Using a scale of 1 (highly unlikely) to 5 (highly likely), they rated the likelihood of their switching medication, asking a physician or insurer about a medication, searching for the drug online, or taking it as directed. The same scale was used to rate the likelihood of their being more physically active or eating more healthfully.

On a scale of 1 (always disagree) to 5 (always agree), they also related their perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers as being competent, innovative, and trustworthy.

To measure the magnitude of DTCA associations, the researchers calculated marginal effects (MEs) of treatment – that is, the difference in probability of an outcome between the treatment and control arms.

They found a positive association between DTCA and medication-related behavioral intentions, including intention to switch medication (ME, 0.004; P = .002) and engage in information-seeking behaviors (ME, 0.02; P = .01).

There was no evidence suggesting that pharmaceutical DTCA discouraged use of nonpharmacologic lifestyle interventions to help manage heart disease. DTCA also was positively associated with consumers’ favorable perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers (competence: ME, 0.03; P = .01; innovative: ME, 0.03; P = .008).

No differential associations were seen for price disclosures in DTCA.
 

Questions remain

The authors acknowledged that the study focused on short-term behavioral intentions and that “future research should focus on the long-term effects of advertising in a real-world randomized setting.”

Ms. Singh said additional questions, some of which her team is investigating, include “understanding the interaction between government policies [such as] drug pricing reforms and firms’ advertising decisions; understanding whether observed changes in individuals’ health beliefs translate into actual changes to information-seeking behavior and health care utilization; and whether the demographic, political, and social characteristics of individuals shape their behavioral responses to advertising.”

Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview that the findings don’t surprise her. “The caveat is that this study was an online survey, so it only captured the beliefs and intentions, but not patient demand for the product and use of the product.”

“I do believe DTCA can create positive intentions towards the product ... and could make people more receptive to interventions,” she said. However, the information must be presented in a balanced way.

In addition, she noted, “price is still important. I think people take pricing into account when deciding to proceed with an intervention. If the price is ‘right’ or a little lower than expected, then they will likely consider the product. But if the price is significantly lower, then they may not trust that it is a good product. Generic drugs are an example. Even though they are approved and far cheaper than brand names, patients are often skeptical to take them.”

The study was funded with a grant from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois Affordability Cures Consortium. Ms. Singh and coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 5-minute bout of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription heart drugs was associated with favorable perceptions of both medication use and pharmaceutical companies, but did not seem to negate intentions to use lifestyle interventions, a survey study shows.

Participants who watched ads for various prescription heart drugs, with or without price disclosure, were more likely to report positive perceptions of drug companies and intentions to take actions such as switching medications.

AlShadsky/Fotolia.com

The ads did not seem to affect intentions to eat healthfully and exercise.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.
 

DTCA ‘unlikely to have an adverse effect’

“Increasing prevalence of DTCA may promote an overreliance on medication over healthy lifestyle choices to manage chronic conditions,” coauthor Yashaswini Singh, MPA, a PhD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization. “Thus, we hypothesized that DTCA exposure would reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in preventive health behaviors.”

“However,” she said, “our results did not support this hypothesis, suggesting that exposure to DTCA for heart disease medication is unlikely to have an adverse effect on individuals’ intentions to engage in diet and exercise.”

That said, she added, “DTCA of prescription drugs can contribute to rising drug costs due to overprescribing of both inappropriate and brand-name drugs over cheaper generic alternatives. While we do not examine this mechanism in our paper, this remains an important question for future research.”

For the study, the team recruited 2,874 individuals (mean age, 53.8 years; 54% men; 83% White) from a U.S. nationally representative sample of people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, the Ipsos Public Affairs KnowledgePanel.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three interventions: DTCA for heart disease medications, DTCA for heart disease medications with price disclosure, or nonpharmaceutical advertising (control). Each group watched five 1-minute videos for a total of 5 minutes of advertising exposure.

One group viewed ads for four heart disease medications – two ads for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) and one each for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer), evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), and ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca); the second group saw the same ads, but with prices spliced in; and controls watched videos for nondrug products, such as consumer electronics.

Participants then completed a questionnaire to measure medication- and lifestyle-related intentions, as well as health-related beliefs and perceptions. Using a scale of 1 (highly unlikely) to 5 (highly likely), they rated the likelihood of their switching medication, asking a physician or insurer about a medication, searching for the drug online, or taking it as directed. The same scale was used to rate the likelihood of their being more physically active or eating more healthfully.

On a scale of 1 (always disagree) to 5 (always agree), they also related their perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers as being competent, innovative, and trustworthy.

To measure the magnitude of DTCA associations, the researchers calculated marginal effects (MEs) of treatment – that is, the difference in probability of an outcome between the treatment and control arms.

They found a positive association between DTCA and medication-related behavioral intentions, including intention to switch medication (ME, 0.004; P = .002) and engage in information-seeking behaviors (ME, 0.02; P = .01).

There was no evidence suggesting that pharmaceutical DTCA discouraged use of nonpharmacologic lifestyle interventions to help manage heart disease. DTCA also was positively associated with consumers’ favorable perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers (competence: ME, 0.03; P = .01; innovative: ME, 0.03; P = .008).

No differential associations were seen for price disclosures in DTCA.
 

Questions remain

The authors acknowledged that the study focused on short-term behavioral intentions and that “future research should focus on the long-term effects of advertising in a real-world randomized setting.”

Ms. Singh said additional questions, some of which her team is investigating, include “understanding the interaction between government policies [such as] drug pricing reforms and firms’ advertising decisions; understanding whether observed changes in individuals’ health beliefs translate into actual changes to information-seeking behavior and health care utilization; and whether the demographic, political, and social characteristics of individuals shape their behavioral responses to advertising.”

Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview that the findings don’t surprise her. “The caveat is that this study was an online survey, so it only captured the beliefs and intentions, but not patient demand for the product and use of the product.”

“I do believe DTCA can create positive intentions towards the product ... and could make people more receptive to interventions,” she said. However, the information must be presented in a balanced way.

In addition, she noted, “price is still important. I think people take pricing into account when deciding to proceed with an intervention. If the price is ‘right’ or a little lower than expected, then they will likely consider the product. But if the price is significantly lower, then they may not trust that it is a good product. Generic drugs are an example. Even though they are approved and far cheaper than brand names, patients are often skeptical to take them.”

The study was funded with a grant from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois Affordability Cures Consortium. Ms. Singh and coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 5-minute bout of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription heart drugs was associated with favorable perceptions of both medication use and pharmaceutical companies, but did not seem to negate intentions to use lifestyle interventions, a survey study shows.

Participants who watched ads for various prescription heart drugs, with or without price disclosure, were more likely to report positive perceptions of drug companies and intentions to take actions such as switching medications.

AlShadsky/Fotolia.com

The ads did not seem to affect intentions to eat healthfully and exercise.

The study was published online in JAMA Health Forum.
 

DTCA ‘unlikely to have an adverse effect’

“Increasing prevalence of DTCA may promote an overreliance on medication over healthy lifestyle choices to manage chronic conditions,” coauthor Yashaswini Singh, MPA, a PhD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization. “Thus, we hypothesized that DTCA exposure would reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in preventive health behaviors.”

“However,” she said, “our results did not support this hypothesis, suggesting that exposure to DTCA for heart disease medication is unlikely to have an adverse effect on individuals’ intentions to engage in diet and exercise.”

That said, she added, “DTCA of prescription drugs can contribute to rising drug costs due to overprescribing of both inappropriate and brand-name drugs over cheaper generic alternatives. While we do not examine this mechanism in our paper, this remains an important question for future research.”

For the study, the team recruited 2,874 individuals (mean age, 53.8 years; 54% men; 83% White) from a U.S. nationally representative sample of people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, the Ipsos Public Affairs KnowledgePanel.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three interventions: DTCA for heart disease medications, DTCA for heart disease medications with price disclosure, or nonpharmaceutical advertising (control). Each group watched five 1-minute videos for a total of 5 minutes of advertising exposure.

One group viewed ads for four heart disease medications – two ads for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) and one each for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer), evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), and ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca); the second group saw the same ads, but with prices spliced in; and controls watched videos for nondrug products, such as consumer electronics.

Participants then completed a questionnaire to measure medication- and lifestyle-related intentions, as well as health-related beliefs and perceptions. Using a scale of 1 (highly unlikely) to 5 (highly likely), they rated the likelihood of their switching medication, asking a physician or insurer about a medication, searching for the drug online, or taking it as directed. The same scale was used to rate the likelihood of their being more physically active or eating more healthfully.

On a scale of 1 (always disagree) to 5 (always agree), they also related their perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers as being competent, innovative, and trustworthy.

To measure the magnitude of DTCA associations, the researchers calculated marginal effects (MEs) of treatment – that is, the difference in probability of an outcome between the treatment and control arms.

They found a positive association between DTCA and medication-related behavioral intentions, including intention to switch medication (ME, 0.004; P = .002) and engage in information-seeking behaviors (ME, 0.02; P = .01).

There was no evidence suggesting that pharmaceutical DTCA discouraged use of nonpharmacologic lifestyle interventions to help manage heart disease. DTCA also was positively associated with consumers’ favorable perceptions of pharmaceutical manufacturers (competence: ME, 0.03; P = .01; innovative: ME, 0.03; P = .008).

No differential associations were seen for price disclosures in DTCA.
 

Questions remain

The authors acknowledged that the study focused on short-term behavioral intentions and that “future research should focus on the long-term effects of advertising in a real-world randomized setting.”

Ms. Singh said additional questions, some of which her team is investigating, include “understanding the interaction between government policies [such as] drug pricing reforms and firms’ advertising decisions; understanding whether observed changes in individuals’ health beliefs translate into actual changes to information-seeking behavior and health care utilization; and whether the demographic, political, and social characteristics of individuals shape their behavioral responses to advertising.”

Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview that the findings don’t surprise her. “The caveat is that this study was an online survey, so it only captured the beliefs and intentions, but not patient demand for the product and use of the product.”

“I do believe DTCA can create positive intentions towards the product ... and could make people more receptive to interventions,” she said. However, the information must be presented in a balanced way.

In addition, she noted, “price is still important. I think people take pricing into account when deciding to proceed with an intervention. If the price is ‘right’ or a little lower than expected, then they will likely consider the product. But if the price is significantly lower, then they may not trust that it is a good product. Generic drugs are an example. Even though they are approved and far cheaper than brand names, patients are often skeptical to take them.”

The study was funded with a grant from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois Affordability Cures Consortium. Ms. Singh and coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research discounts the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) have no effect on the human body.

Researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

The study was published online in the journal Cell.


 

Gut reaction?

Several years ago, a team led by Eran Elinav, MD, PhD, an immunologist and microbiome researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, observed that these sweeteners affect the microbiome of mice in ways that could affect glycemic responses.

They have now confirmed this observation in a randomized controlled trial with 120 healthy adults.

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

Weighing the evidence

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.

Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston University, Birmingham, England, notes that the study does not show a link between all NNS and higher blood glucose levels in the long term (only after a glucose tolerance test).

“It did suggest, though, that some individuals who do not normally consume sweeteners may not tolerate glucose as well after consuming six sachets of either saccharin or sucralose mixed with glucose per day,” Dr. Mellor says.

Kim Barrett, PhD, distinguished professor of physiology and membrane biology, University of California, Davis, concurs, saying “this well-designed study indicates the potential for NNS to have adverse effects in at least some individuals.”

The study also does not provide any information about how people who normally consume sweeteners or people with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes respond to NNS.

“Therefore, for some people, it is likely to be a better option and more sustainable approach to use sweeteners as a ‘stepping stone’ allowing them to reduce the amount of added sugar in foods and drinks, to reduce their sugar intake and still enjoy what they eat and drink, on the way to reducing both added sugar and sweeteners in their diet,” Dr. Mellor suggests.

Kevin McConway, PhD, with the Open University, Milton Keynes, England, said it’s “important to understand that the research is not saying that these sweeteners are worse for us, in heath terms, than sugar.

“But exactly what the health consequences of all this, if any, might be is a subject for future research,” Dr. McConway added.

Kathy Redfern, PhD, lecturer in human nutrition, University of Plymouth (England) agrees.

“We still have a lot to learn about the human microbiome, and although this study suggests two of the sweeteners tested in this study (sucralose and saccharin) significantly affected glucose tolerance, these deviations were small,” she says.

The International Sweeteners Association also weighs in, saying, “No conclusions about the effects of low/no calorie sweeteners on glucose control or overall health can be extrapolated from this study for the general population or for people who typically consume sweeteners, including people living with diabetes.”

They add “a recent review of the literature concluded that there is clear evidence that changes in the diet unrelated to low/no calorie sweeteners consumption are likely the major determinants of change in gut microbiota.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Redfern says the results “warrant further investigation to assess how small changes in glucose tolerance in response to NNS consumption may influence longer-term glucose tolerance and risk for metabolic complications, such as type 2 diabetes.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Elinav is a scientific founder of DayTwo and BiomX, a paid consultant to Hello Inside and Aposense, and a member of the scientific advisory board of Cell. Dr. Mellor has provided consultancy to the International Sweetener Agency and has worked on projects funded by the Food Standards Agency that investigated the health effects of aspartame. Dr. Barrett, Dr. McConway, and Dr. Redfern report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 8/29/22.

New research discounts the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) have no effect on the human body.

Researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

The study was published online in the journal Cell.


 

Gut reaction?

Several years ago, a team led by Eran Elinav, MD, PhD, an immunologist and microbiome researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, observed that these sweeteners affect the microbiome of mice in ways that could affect glycemic responses.

They have now confirmed this observation in a randomized controlled trial with 120 healthy adults.

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

Weighing the evidence

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.

Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston University, Birmingham, England, notes that the study does not show a link between all NNS and higher blood glucose levels in the long term (only after a glucose tolerance test).

“It did suggest, though, that some individuals who do not normally consume sweeteners may not tolerate glucose as well after consuming six sachets of either saccharin or sucralose mixed with glucose per day,” Dr. Mellor says.

Kim Barrett, PhD, distinguished professor of physiology and membrane biology, University of California, Davis, concurs, saying “this well-designed study indicates the potential for NNS to have adverse effects in at least some individuals.”

The study also does not provide any information about how people who normally consume sweeteners or people with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes respond to NNS.

“Therefore, for some people, it is likely to be a better option and more sustainable approach to use sweeteners as a ‘stepping stone’ allowing them to reduce the amount of added sugar in foods and drinks, to reduce their sugar intake and still enjoy what they eat and drink, on the way to reducing both added sugar and sweeteners in their diet,” Dr. Mellor suggests.

Kevin McConway, PhD, with the Open University, Milton Keynes, England, said it’s “important to understand that the research is not saying that these sweeteners are worse for us, in heath terms, than sugar.

“But exactly what the health consequences of all this, if any, might be is a subject for future research,” Dr. McConway added.

Kathy Redfern, PhD, lecturer in human nutrition, University of Plymouth (England) agrees.

“We still have a lot to learn about the human microbiome, and although this study suggests two of the sweeteners tested in this study (sucralose and saccharin) significantly affected glucose tolerance, these deviations were small,” she says.

The International Sweeteners Association also weighs in, saying, “No conclusions about the effects of low/no calorie sweeteners on glucose control or overall health can be extrapolated from this study for the general population or for people who typically consume sweeteners, including people living with diabetes.”

They add “a recent review of the literature concluded that there is clear evidence that changes in the diet unrelated to low/no calorie sweeteners consumption are likely the major determinants of change in gut microbiota.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Redfern says the results “warrant further investigation to assess how small changes in glucose tolerance in response to NNS consumption may influence longer-term glucose tolerance and risk for metabolic complications, such as type 2 diabetes.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Elinav is a scientific founder of DayTwo and BiomX, a paid consultant to Hello Inside and Aposense, and a member of the scientific advisory board of Cell. Dr. Mellor has provided consultancy to the International Sweetener Agency and has worked on projects funded by the Food Standards Agency that investigated the health effects of aspartame. Dr. Barrett, Dr. McConway, and Dr. Redfern report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 8/29/22.

New research discounts the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) have no effect on the human body.

Researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

The study was published online in the journal Cell.


 

Gut reaction?

Several years ago, a team led by Eran Elinav, MD, PhD, an immunologist and microbiome researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, observed that these sweeteners affect the microbiome of mice in ways that could affect glycemic responses.

They have now confirmed this observation in a randomized controlled trial with 120 healthy adults.

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

Weighing the evidence

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.

Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston University, Birmingham, England, notes that the study does not show a link between all NNS and higher blood glucose levels in the long term (only after a glucose tolerance test).

“It did suggest, though, that some individuals who do not normally consume sweeteners may not tolerate glucose as well after consuming six sachets of either saccharin or sucralose mixed with glucose per day,” Dr. Mellor says.

Kim Barrett, PhD, distinguished professor of physiology and membrane biology, University of California, Davis, concurs, saying “this well-designed study indicates the potential for NNS to have adverse effects in at least some individuals.”

The study also does not provide any information about how people who normally consume sweeteners or people with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes respond to NNS.

“Therefore, for some people, it is likely to be a better option and more sustainable approach to use sweeteners as a ‘stepping stone’ allowing them to reduce the amount of added sugar in foods and drinks, to reduce their sugar intake and still enjoy what they eat and drink, on the way to reducing both added sugar and sweeteners in their diet,” Dr. Mellor suggests.

Kevin McConway, PhD, with the Open University, Milton Keynes, England, said it’s “important to understand that the research is not saying that these sweeteners are worse for us, in heath terms, than sugar.

“But exactly what the health consequences of all this, if any, might be is a subject for future research,” Dr. McConway added.

Kathy Redfern, PhD, lecturer in human nutrition, University of Plymouth (England) agrees.

“We still have a lot to learn about the human microbiome, and although this study suggests two of the sweeteners tested in this study (sucralose and saccharin) significantly affected glucose tolerance, these deviations were small,” she says.

The International Sweeteners Association also weighs in, saying, “No conclusions about the effects of low/no calorie sweeteners on glucose control or overall health can be extrapolated from this study for the general population or for people who typically consume sweeteners, including people living with diabetes.”

They add “a recent review of the literature concluded that there is clear evidence that changes in the diet unrelated to low/no calorie sweeteners consumption are likely the major determinants of change in gut microbiota.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Redfern says the results “warrant further investigation to assess how small changes in glucose tolerance in response to NNS consumption may influence longer-term glucose tolerance and risk for metabolic complications, such as type 2 diabetes.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Elinav is a scientific founder of DayTwo and BiomX, a paid consultant to Hello Inside and Aposense, and a member of the scientific advisory board of Cell. Dr. Mellor has provided consultancy to the International Sweetener Agency and has worked on projects funded by the Food Standards Agency that investigated the health effects of aspartame. Dr. Barrett, Dr. McConway, and Dr. Redfern report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 8/29/22.

Recently I was reading an article on the histories behind great songs, and one section featured Procol Harem’s “A Whiter Shade of Pale.” It mentioned the verse that incorporated a reference to Chaucer (“As the Miller told his tale”).

This surprised me, as, since I’d first heard the song (1983, in “The Big Chill”) until I read this piece, I thought the line was “As the mirror told its tale.” The idea that it was a misheard Chaucer reference had never occurred to me.

These are called mondegreens. The brain translates the phrase into what it hears, often giving it an entirely different meaning. Manfred Mann’s version of “Blinded by the Light” is absolutely full of them. Even the national anthem isn’t immune (“José can you see by the donzerly light?”)

I’m sure there’s an interesting study idea about the brain and mondegreens, probably involving PET scans, somewhere in there.

The whole thing reminded me of an incident early in residency, I suppose you could call it a medical mondegreen.

During training I never went anywhere without a clipboard and notepad, frantically scribbling tidbits down during rounds, lectures, meetings, whatever. I’d go home and reread them over dinner, trying to commit them to memory.

And somewhere, on rounds early in my first year of training, an attending told me that you can sometimes see a Bell’s palsy cause a mild ipsilateral hemiparesis. This surprised me, but hey, I was the newly minted doctor, there to learn. So I wrote it down, memorized it, and moved on.

Even then, though, it made no sense to me. Of course, I was too afraid to ask other residents about it, for fear they’d think I was an idiot (a point that’s still debatable). And questioning the attending involved seemed unthinkable.

But I wandered through my hospital library (back then, young ones, we used paper textbooks and journals) trying to figure out why a peripheral VII palsy could cause an ipsilateral hemiparesis. It would not let me be.

Nothing.

Finally, one day after a lecture, I asked the attending involved. He had no recollection of having tossed the point out a few months ago, and said there was no reason. This confirmed what I’d already realized – a standard Bell’s palsy couldn’t possibly cause an ipsilateral hemiparesis (I’m not going into the crossed-brainstem syndromes here).

Maybe he’d misspoken and not realized it. Maybe I hadn’t heard him correctly. Maybe a little of both. Hospital hallways are anything but quiet. He also had a pending vacation to the coast which could have distracted him.

Like mondegreens in songs, it was just an error, and looking back on it with 30 years perspective, it’s kind of funny. Fortunately I never sent anyone with a hemiparesis home from the ER thinking they had a Bell’s palsy.

But it makes you realize how flawed human communication can be. By the time I asked the attending about it I’d realized it couldn’t possibly be right. It still leaves me wondering about how much we think we heard correctly but we didn’t – and that we don’t notice.

Sometimes you may think your ears are open, but they might just as well be closed if you don’t hear correctly. In medicine the consequences of such can be a lot worse than screwing up on karaoke night.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Recently I was reading an article on the histories behind great songs, and one section featured Procol Harem’s “A Whiter Shade of Pale.” It mentioned the verse that incorporated a reference to Chaucer (“As the Miller told his tale”).

This surprised me, as, since I’d first heard the song (1983, in “The Big Chill”) until I read this piece, I thought the line was “As the mirror told its tale.” The idea that it was a misheard Chaucer reference had never occurred to me.

These are called mondegreens. The brain translates the phrase into what it hears, often giving it an entirely different meaning. Manfred Mann’s version of “Blinded by the Light” is absolutely full of them. Even the national anthem isn’t immune (“José can you see by the donzerly light?”)

I’m sure there’s an interesting study idea about the brain and mondegreens, probably involving PET scans, somewhere in there.

The whole thing reminded me of an incident early in residency, I suppose you could call it a medical mondegreen.

During training I never went anywhere without a clipboard and notepad, frantically scribbling tidbits down during rounds, lectures, meetings, whatever. I’d go home and reread them over dinner, trying to commit them to memory.

And somewhere, on rounds early in my first year of training, an attending told me that you can sometimes see a Bell’s palsy cause a mild ipsilateral hemiparesis. This surprised me, but hey, I was the newly minted doctor, there to learn. So I wrote it down, memorized it, and moved on.

Even then, though, it made no sense to me. Of course, I was too afraid to ask other residents about it, for fear they’d think I was an idiot (a point that’s still debatable). And questioning the attending involved seemed unthinkable.

But I wandered through my hospital library (back then, young ones, we used paper textbooks and journals) trying to figure out why a peripheral VII palsy could cause an ipsilateral hemiparesis. It would not let me be.

Nothing.

Finally, one day after a lecture, I asked the attending involved. He had no recollection of having tossed the point out a few months ago, and said there was no reason. This confirmed what I’d already realized – a standard Bell’s palsy couldn’t possibly cause an ipsilateral hemiparesis (I’m not going into the crossed-brainstem syndromes here).

Maybe he’d misspoken and not realized it. Maybe I hadn’t heard him correctly. Maybe a little of both. Hospital hallways are anything but quiet. He also had a pending vacation to the coast which could have distracted him.

Like mondegreens in songs, it was just an error, and looking back on it with 30 years perspective, it’s kind of funny. Fortunately I never sent anyone with a hemiparesis home from the ER thinking they had a Bell’s palsy.

But it makes you realize how flawed human communication can be. By the time I asked the attending about it I’d realized it couldn’t possibly be right. It still leaves me wondering about how much we think we heard correctly but we didn’t – and that we don’t notice.

Sometimes you may think your ears are open, but they might just as well be closed if you don’t hear correctly. In medicine the consequences of such can be a lot worse than screwing up on karaoke night.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Recently I was reading an article on the histories behind great songs, and one section featured Procol Harem’s “A Whiter Shade of Pale.” It mentioned the verse that incorporated a reference to Chaucer (“As the Miller told his tale”).

This surprised me, as, since I’d first heard the song (1983, in “The Big Chill”) until I read this piece, I thought the line was “As the mirror told its tale.” The idea that it was a misheard Chaucer reference had never occurred to me.

These are called mondegreens. The brain translates the phrase into what it hears, often giving it an entirely different meaning. Manfred Mann’s version of “Blinded by the Light” is absolutely full of them. Even the national anthem isn’t immune (“José can you see by the donzerly light?”)

I’m sure there’s an interesting study idea about the brain and mondegreens, probably involving PET scans, somewhere in there.

The whole thing reminded me of an incident early in residency, I suppose you could call it a medical mondegreen.

During training I never went anywhere without a clipboard and notepad, frantically scribbling tidbits down during rounds, lectures, meetings, whatever. I’d go home and reread them over dinner, trying to commit them to memory.

And somewhere, on rounds early in my first year of training, an attending told me that you can sometimes see a Bell’s palsy cause a mild ipsilateral hemiparesis. This surprised me, but hey, I was the newly minted doctor, there to learn. So I wrote it down, memorized it, and moved on.

Even then, though, it made no sense to me. Of course, I was too afraid to ask other residents about it, for fear they’d think I was an idiot (a point that’s still debatable). And questioning the attending involved seemed unthinkable.

But I wandered through my hospital library (back then, young ones, we used paper textbooks and journals) trying to figure out why a peripheral VII palsy could cause an ipsilateral hemiparesis. It would not let me be.

Nothing.

Finally, one day after a lecture, I asked the attending involved. He had no recollection of having tossed the point out a few months ago, and said there was no reason. This confirmed what I’d already realized – a standard Bell’s palsy couldn’t possibly cause an ipsilateral hemiparesis (I’m not going into the crossed-brainstem syndromes here).

Maybe he’d misspoken and not realized it. Maybe I hadn’t heard him correctly. Maybe a little of both. Hospital hallways are anything but quiet. He also had a pending vacation to the coast which could have distracted him.

Like mondegreens in songs, it was just an error, and looking back on it with 30 years perspective, it’s kind of funny. Fortunately I never sent anyone with a hemiparesis home from the ER thinking they had a Bell’s palsy.

But it makes you realize how flawed human communication can be. By the time I asked the attending about it I’d realized it couldn’t possibly be right. It still leaves me wondering about how much we think we heard correctly but we didn’t – and that we don’t notice.

Sometimes you may think your ears are open, but they might just as well be closed if you don’t hear correctly. In medicine the consequences of such can be a lot worse than screwing up on karaoke night.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, its manufacturer has announced.

Auvelity (Axsome Therapeutics) is a proprietary extended-release oral tablet containing dextromethorphan (45 mg) and bupropion (105 mg).

It is the “first and only rapid-acting oral medicine approved for the treatment of MDD with labeling of statistically significant antidepressant efficacy compared to placebo starting at one week,” the company said in a news release.

“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist-in-chief, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, added in the release. 
 

‘Milestone’ in depression treatment?

Dr. Fava noted that nearly two-thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants fail to respond adequately, and those who do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to 6-8 weeks.

“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at 1 week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition,” he said.

The company noted the drug was studied in a comprehensive clinical program that included more than 1,100 patients with MDD.

The efficacy of the drug was demonstrated in the GEMINI placebo-controlled study – with confirmatory evidence provided by the ASCEND study, which  compared it with bupropion sustained-release tablets.

Axsome said it expects to launch the new oral medication in the fourth quarter of this year. It is not approved for use in children.

The full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, its manufacturer has announced.

Auvelity (Axsome Therapeutics) is a proprietary extended-release oral tablet containing dextromethorphan (45 mg) and bupropion (105 mg).

It is the “first and only rapid-acting oral medicine approved for the treatment of MDD with labeling of statistically significant antidepressant efficacy compared to placebo starting at one week,” the company said in a news release.

“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist-in-chief, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, added in the release. 
 

‘Milestone’ in depression treatment?

Dr. Fava noted that nearly two-thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants fail to respond adequately, and those who do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to 6-8 weeks.

“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at 1 week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition,” he said.

The company noted the drug was studied in a comprehensive clinical program that included more than 1,100 patients with MDD.

The efficacy of the drug was demonstrated in the GEMINI placebo-controlled study – with confirmatory evidence provided by the ASCEND study, which  compared it with bupropion sustained-release tablets.

Axsome said it expects to launch the new oral medication in the fourth quarter of this year. It is not approved for use in children.

The full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, its manufacturer has announced.

Auvelity (Axsome Therapeutics) is a proprietary extended-release oral tablet containing dextromethorphan (45 mg) and bupropion (105 mg).

It is the “first and only rapid-acting oral medicine approved for the treatment of MDD with labeling of statistically significant antidepressant efficacy compared to placebo starting at one week,” the company said in a news release.

“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist-in-chief, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, added in the release. 
 

‘Milestone’ in depression treatment?

Dr. Fava noted that nearly two-thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants fail to respond adequately, and those who do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to 6-8 weeks.

“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at 1 week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition,” he said.

The company noted the drug was studied in a comprehensive clinical program that included more than 1,100 patients with MDD.

The efficacy of the drug was demonstrated in the GEMINI placebo-controlled study – with confirmatory evidence provided by the ASCEND study, which  compared it with bupropion sustained-release tablets.

Axsome said it expects to launch the new oral medication in the fourth quarter of this year. It is not approved for use in children.

The full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.

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

Watching TV may increase your risk of dementia, while using a computer may lower it, new research suggests.

The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.

The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.

They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.

Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
 

More than 140,000 included in study

The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.

The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.

TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).

TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].

Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.

Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).

Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.

These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
 

Physical is still better than sedentary activity

One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”

Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.

“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.

It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.

The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.

“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.

A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.

“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.

The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.

Watching TV may increase your risk of dementia, while using a computer may lower it, new research suggests.

The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.

The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.

They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.

Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
 

More than 140,000 included in study

The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.

The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.

TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).

TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].

Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.

Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).

Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.

These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
 

Physical is still better than sedentary activity

One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”

Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.

“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.

It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.

The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.

“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.

A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.

“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.

The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.

Watching TV may increase your risk of dementia, while using a computer may lower it, new research suggests.

The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.

The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.

They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.

Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
 

More than 140,000 included in study

The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.

The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.

TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).

TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].

Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.

Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).

Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.

These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
 

Physical is still better than sedentary activity

One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”

Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.

“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.

It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.

The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.

“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.

A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.

“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.

The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.

Folic acid supplementation can improve histopathologic aspects of gastric precancerous conditions (GPC), including gastric mucosal atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, according to results of a meta-analysis of relevant research.

The results, say the authors, provide evidence for the potential clinical use of folic acid in the management of GPC.

“We believe doctors can try to use folic acid to halt or reverse progression of gastric precancerous conditions, thereby reducing the incidence rate of gastric cancer,” investigator Jinhao Zeng, PhD, with Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, said in an interview.

Dr. Zeng cautioned, however, that the number of relevant studies “remains relatively inadequate, and the results should be interpreted with caution.”

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, who wasn’t involved in the study, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“Overall, folate supplementation is unlikely to be harmful, but these data should not be used as justification for risk reduction,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

The study was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
 

Examining prevention, treatment effects

The study is believed to be the first meta-analysis to examine the effects of folic acid on prevention and treatment for patients with GPC. The analysis included 13 randomized controlled trials that had a total of 1,252 adults with GPC living in China.

A meta-analysis of five studies showed a statistically significant positive treatment effect of folic acid supplementation on gastric mucosal atrophy (relative risk, 1.61; 95% confidence interval 1.07 – 2.41), Dr. Zeng and colleagues reported.

A meta-analysis of two trials showed a statistically significant effect of folic acid on reversal of intestinal metaplasia (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.32-2.37), they also found.

“Our study indicates that folic acid has a beneficial effect in the treatment of pathological changes of GPC when the dose was maintained at 20-30 mg/d and the duration of treatment was maintained at 3-6 months,” they wrote.

Folic acid supplementation did not appear to be effective for GPC symptom relief.

The authors said that, in a separate analysis, they confirmed that folic acid can inhibit development of gastric mucosal carcinogenesis by affecting the levels of gastrin and pepsinogen.
 

More study needed

Commenting on the study, Judith Kim, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, New York University Langone Health, said prior studies have evaluated whether folic acid supplementation is associated with a lower risk of gastric cancer, but the results have been “mixed and inconclusive.”

“While there have been prior meta-analyses on folic acid and gastric cancer, this study is noteworthy, as it evaluated the impact of folic acid on precancerous lesions, for which there is no current treatment,” Dr. Kim said.

“Currently, there is no recommendation for folic acid supplementation for the treatment or prevention of GPC and gastric cancer,” Dr. Kim said. “There has been interest in folic acid as a chemopreventive agent, given its potential protective role against DNA damage, but randomized control trials have yet to confirm these benefits.”

The analysis by Dr. Zeng and colleagues “supports the need for larger randomized controlled trials to further study this association,” Dr. Kim said.

“Given the study’s small size and limitation to a Chinese population (who have a higher incidence of precancerous lesions and gastric cancer than the general US population), I would caution against folic acid use for the sole purpose of GPC prevention, as there could be negative side effects of supplementation,” she advised.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Project of Sichuan Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Dr. Zeng, Dr. Johnson, and Dr. Kim reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Folic acid supplementation can improve histopathologic aspects of gastric precancerous conditions (GPC), including gastric mucosal atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, according to results of a meta-analysis of relevant research.

The results, say the authors, provide evidence for the potential clinical use of folic acid in the management of GPC.

“We believe doctors can try to use folic acid to halt or reverse progression of gastric precancerous conditions, thereby reducing the incidence rate of gastric cancer,” investigator Jinhao Zeng, PhD, with Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, said in an interview.

Dr. Zeng cautioned, however, that the number of relevant studies “remains relatively inadequate, and the results should be interpreted with caution.”

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, who wasn’t involved in the study, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“Overall, folate supplementation is unlikely to be harmful, but these data should not be used as justification for risk reduction,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

The study was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
 

Examining prevention, treatment effects

The study is believed to be the first meta-analysis to examine the effects of folic acid on prevention and treatment for patients with GPC. The analysis included 13 randomized controlled trials that had a total of 1,252 adults with GPC living in China.

A meta-analysis of five studies showed a statistically significant positive treatment effect of folic acid supplementation on gastric mucosal atrophy (relative risk, 1.61; 95% confidence interval 1.07 – 2.41), Dr. Zeng and colleagues reported.

A meta-analysis of two trials showed a statistically significant effect of folic acid on reversal of intestinal metaplasia (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.32-2.37), they also found.

“Our study indicates that folic acid has a beneficial effect in the treatment of pathological changes of GPC when the dose was maintained at 20-30 mg/d and the duration of treatment was maintained at 3-6 months,” they wrote.

Folic acid supplementation did not appear to be effective for GPC symptom relief.

The authors said that, in a separate analysis, they confirmed that folic acid can inhibit development of gastric mucosal carcinogenesis by affecting the levels of gastrin and pepsinogen.
 

More study needed

Commenting on the study, Judith Kim, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, New York University Langone Health, said prior studies have evaluated whether folic acid supplementation is associated with a lower risk of gastric cancer, but the results have been “mixed and inconclusive.”

“While there have been prior meta-analyses on folic acid and gastric cancer, this study is noteworthy, as it evaluated the impact of folic acid on precancerous lesions, for which there is no current treatment,” Dr. Kim said.

“Currently, there is no recommendation for folic acid supplementation for the treatment or prevention of GPC and gastric cancer,” Dr. Kim said. “There has been interest in folic acid as a chemopreventive agent, given its potential protective role against DNA damage, but randomized control trials have yet to confirm these benefits.”

The analysis by Dr. Zeng and colleagues “supports the need for larger randomized controlled trials to further study this association,” Dr. Kim said.

“Given the study’s small size and limitation to a Chinese population (who have a higher incidence of precancerous lesions and gastric cancer than the general US population), I would caution against folic acid use for the sole purpose of GPC prevention, as there could be negative side effects of supplementation,” she advised.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Project of Sichuan Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Dr. Zeng, Dr. Johnson, and Dr. Kim reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Folic acid supplementation can improve histopathologic aspects of gastric precancerous conditions (GPC), including gastric mucosal atrophy and intestinal metaplasia, according to results of a meta-analysis of relevant research.

The results, say the authors, provide evidence for the potential clinical use of folic acid in the management of GPC.

“We believe doctors can try to use folic acid to halt or reverse progression of gastric precancerous conditions, thereby reducing the incidence rate of gastric cancer,” investigator Jinhao Zeng, PhD, with Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, said in an interview.

Dr. Zeng cautioned, however, that the number of relevant studies “remains relatively inadequate, and the results should be interpreted with caution.”

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, who wasn’t involved in the study, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“Overall, folate supplementation is unlikely to be harmful, but these data should not be used as justification for risk reduction,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview.

The study was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
 

Examining prevention, treatment effects

The study is believed to be the first meta-analysis to examine the effects of folic acid on prevention and treatment for patients with GPC. The analysis included 13 randomized controlled trials that had a total of 1,252 adults with GPC living in China.

A meta-analysis of five studies showed a statistically significant positive treatment effect of folic acid supplementation on gastric mucosal atrophy (relative risk, 1.61; 95% confidence interval 1.07 – 2.41), Dr. Zeng and colleagues reported.

A meta-analysis of two trials showed a statistically significant effect of folic acid on reversal of intestinal metaplasia (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.32-2.37), they also found.

“Our study indicates that folic acid has a beneficial effect in the treatment of pathological changes of GPC when the dose was maintained at 20-30 mg/d and the duration of treatment was maintained at 3-6 months,” they wrote.

Folic acid supplementation did not appear to be effective for GPC symptom relief.

The authors said that, in a separate analysis, they confirmed that folic acid can inhibit development of gastric mucosal carcinogenesis by affecting the levels of gastrin and pepsinogen.
 

More study needed

Commenting on the study, Judith Kim, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, New York University Langone Health, said prior studies have evaluated whether folic acid supplementation is associated with a lower risk of gastric cancer, but the results have been “mixed and inconclusive.”

“While there have been prior meta-analyses on folic acid and gastric cancer, this study is noteworthy, as it evaluated the impact of folic acid on precancerous lesions, for which there is no current treatment,” Dr. Kim said.

“Currently, there is no recommendation for folic acid supplementation for the treatment or prevention of GPC and gastric cancer,” Dr. Kim said. “There has been interest in folic acid as a chemopreventive agent, given its potential protective role against DNA damage, but randomized control trials have yet to confirm these benefits.”

The analysis by Dr. Zeng and colleagues “supports the need for larger randomized controlled trials to further study this association,” Dr. Kim said.

“Given the study’s small size and limitation to a Chinese population (who have a higher incidence of precancerous lesions and gastric cancer than the general US population), I would caution against folic acid use for the sole purpose of GPC prevention, as there could be negative side effects of supplementation,” she advised.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Project of Sichuan Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Dr. Zeng, Dr. Johnson, and Dr. Kim reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The strongest evidence yet to support clinical guidelines that recommend that people at high risk of endocarditis, such as those who’ve had previous episode the disease or who have a prosthetic cardiac valve, should take antibiotics before they have a tooth pulled or other types of oral surgery, comes from a new study that used two methodologies.

But it also pointed out that two-thirds of the time they aren’t getting that type of antibiotic coverage.

RobertoDavid/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The researchers conducted a cohort study of almost 8 million retirees with employer-paid Medicare supplemental prescription benefits and dental benefits, then conducted a case-crossover study of 3,774 people from the cohort who’d been hospitalized with infectious endocarditis (IE) and who had invasive dental procedures. The bottom line is that the study supports the clinical guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology that recommend antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before dental procedures for patients at high-risk of IE.

Likewise, lead author Martin Thornhill, MBBS, BDS, PhD, said in an interview, the findings also suggest that existing guidelines in the United Kingdom, which recommend against AP in these patients, “should be reconsidered.”

Those AHA and ESC guidelines, however,  are “based on no good quality evidence,” said Dr. Thornhill, professor of translational research in dentistry at the University of Sheffield (England) School of Clinical Dentistry. “Other studies have looked at this, but we’ve done the largest study that has shown the clear association between invasive dental procedures and subsequent development of infective endocarditis.”

In the entire cohort of 7.95 million patients, 3,774 had cases of IE that required hospitalization. The study defined highest risk of IE as meeting one of these six criteria: a previous case of IE; a prosthetic cardiac valve or a valve repair that used prosthetic material; cyanotic congenital heart disease; palliative shunts or conduits to treat CHD; or a congenital heart defect that had been fully repaired, either by  surgery or a transcatheter procedure, with prosthetic material or device – the latter within 6 months of the procedure.

Moderate IE risk included patients who had rheumatic heart disease, nonrheumatic valve disease or congenital valve anomalies—including mitral valve prolapse or aortic stenosis—or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

 

Risk classification and poor compliance

Highest-risk patients had significantly higher rates of IE a month after a dental procedure than lower-risk groups:  467.6 cases per 1 million procedures vs. 24.2 for moderate risk and 3.8 for low or unknown risk. A subanalysis found that the odds of IE were significantly increased for two specific dental procedures: extractions, with an odds ratio of 9.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.54-15.88; P < .0001); and other oral surgical procedures, with an OR of 20.18 (95% CI, 11.22-37.74; P < .0001).

The study also found that 32.6% of the high-risk patients undergoing dental procedures got AP. “Clearly that shows a low level of compliance with the guidelines in the U.S.,” Dr. Thornhill said. “That’s something that needs to be addressed.”

The study was unique in that it used both a population cohort study and the case-crossover study. “It didn’t matter which of the two methods we used; we essentially came to the same result, which I think adds further weight to the findings,” Dr. Thornhill said.

This may be the best evidence to support the guidelines that clinicians may get. While the observational nature of this study has its limitations, conducting a randomized clinical trial to further validate the findings would be “logistically impossible,” he said, in that it would require an “absolutely enormous” cohort and coordination between medical and dental databases covering thousands of lives. An RCT would also require not using AP for some patients. “It’s not ethical to keep somebody off of antibiotic prophylaxis when there’s such a high risk of death and severe outcomes,” Dr. Thornhill said.

Ann Bolger, MD, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthor of an editorial comment on the study, said in an interview that this study is noteworthy not only for its dual methodology, but for the quality of the data that matched patients at high risk for IE with prescription and dental records. “The fact that they were able to have those details in enough granularity that they knew whether a dental procedure was likely to meet the criteria for these more invasive exposures really broke it open from my perspective,” she said.

She called the low compliance rate with AHA guidelines “one of the most sobering points of this,” and said it should put clinicians on notice that they must do more to educate and engage with high-risk patients. “The lines of communication here are somewhat fraught; it’s a little bit of a hot potato,” she said. “It’s a really great communications opportunity to get the provider’s attention back on this. You’re a cardiologist; you have to have this conversation when you see your patient with a prosthetic valve or who’s had endocarditis every time they come in. There’s a whole litany, and it takes 3 minutes, but you have to do it.”

The study received funding from Delta Dental of Michigan Research Committee and Renaissance Health Service Corp., and Dr. Thornhill received support from Delta Dental Research and Data Institute for the study. Dr. Bolger participated in the 2007 and 2021 AHA statements on AP to prevent IE.

The strongest evidence yet to support clinical guidelines that recommend that people at high risk of endocarditis, such as those who’ve had previous episode the disease or who have a prosthetic cardiac valve, should take antibiotics before they have a tooth pulled or other types of oral surgery, comes from a new study that used two methodologies.

But it also pointed out that two-thirds of the time they aren’t getting that type of antibiotic coverage.

RobertoDavid/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The researchers conducted a cohort study of almost 8 million retirees with employer-paid Medicare supplemental prescription benefits and dental benefits, then conducted a case-crossover study of 3,774 people from the cohort who’d been hospitalized with infectious endocarditis (IE) and who had invasive dental procedures. The bottom line is that the study supports the clinical guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology that recommend antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before dental procedures for patients at high-risk of IE.

Likewise, lead author Martin Thornhill, MBBS, BDS, PhD, said in an interview, the findings also suggest that existing guidelines in the United Kingdom, which recommend against AP in these patients, “should be reconsidered.”

Those AHA and ESC guidelines, however,  are “based on no good quality evidence,” said Dr. Thornhill, professor of translational research in dentistry at the University of Sheffield (England) School of Clinical Dentistry. “Other studies have looked at this, but we’ve done the largest study that has shown the clear association between invasive dental procedures and subsequent development of infective endocarditis.”

In the entire cohort of 7.95 million patients, 3,774 had cases of IE that required hospitalization. The study defined highest risk of IE as meeting one of these six criteria: a previous case of IE; a prosthetic cardiac valve or a valve repair that used prosthetic material; cyanotic congenital heart disease; palliative shunts or conduits to treat CHD; or a congenital heart defect that had been fully repaired, either by  surgery or a transcatheter procedure, with prosthetic material or device – the latter within 6 months of the procedure.

Moderate IE risk included patients who had rheumatic heart disease, nonrheumatic valve disease or congenital valve anomalies—including mitral valve prolapse or aortic stenosis—or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

 

Risk classification and poor compliance

Highest-risk patients had significantly higher rates of IE a month after a dental procedure than lower-risk groups:  467.6 cases per 1 million procedures vs. 24.2 for moderate risk and 3.8 for low or unknown risk. A subanalysis found that the odds of IE were significantly increased for two specific dental procedures: extractions, with an odds ratio of 9.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.54-15.88; P < .0001); and other oral surgical procedures, with an OR of 20.18 (95% CI, 11.22-37.74; P < .0001).

The study also found that 32.6% of the high-risk patients undergoing dental procedures got AP. “Clearly that shows a low level of compliance with the guidelines in the U.S.,” Dr. Thornhill said. “That’s something that needs to be addressed.”

The study was unique in that it used both a population cohort study and the case-crossover study. “It didn’t matter which of the two methods we used; we essentially came to the same result, which I think adds further weight to the findings,” Dr. Thornhill said.

This may be the best evidence to support the guidelines that clinicians may get. While the observational nature of this study has its limitations, conducting a randomized clinical trial to further validate the findings would be “logistically impossible,” he said, in that it would require an “absolutely enormous” cohort and coordination between medical and dental databases covering thousands of lives. An RCT would also require not using AP for some patients. “It’s not ethical to keep somebody off of antibiotic prophylaxis when there’s such a high risk of death and severe outcomes,” Dr. Thornhill said.

Ann Bolger, MD, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthor of an editorial comment on the study, said in an interview that this study is noteworthy not only for its dual methodology, but for the quality of the data that matched patients at high risk for IE with prescription and dental records. “The fact that they were able to have those details in enough granularity that they knew whether a dental procedure was likely to meet the criteria for these more invasive exposures really broke it open from my perspective,” she said.

She called the low compliance rate with AHA guidelines “one of the most sobering points of this,” and said it should put clinicians on notice that they must do more to educate and engage with high-risk patients. “The lines of communication here are somewhat fraught; it’s a little bit of a hot potato,” she said. “It’s a really great communications opportunity to get the provider’s attention back on this. You’re a cardiologist; you have to have this conversation when you see your patient with a prosthetic valve or who’s had endocarditis every time they come in. There’s a whole litany, and it takes 3 minutes, but you have to do it.”

The study received funding from Delta Dental of Michigan Research Committee and Renaissance Health Service Corp., and Dr. Thornhill received support from Delta Dental Research and Data Institute for the study. Dr. Bolger participated in the 2007 and 2021 AHA statements on AP to prevent IE.

The strongest evidence yet to support clinical guidelines that recommend that people at high risk of endocarditis, such as those who’ve had previous episode the disease or who have a prosthetic cardiac valve, should take antibiotics before they have a tooth pulled or other types of oral surgery, comes from a new study that used two methodologies.

But it also pointed out that two-thirds of the time they aren’t getting that type of antibiotic coverage.

RobertoDavid/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The researchers conducted a cohort study of almost 8 million retirees with employer-paid Medicare supplemental prescription benefits and dental benefits, then conducted a case-crossover study of 3,774 people from the cohort who’d been hospitalized with infectious endocarditis (IE) and who had invasive dental procedures. The bottom line is that the study supports the clinical guidelines from the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology that recommend antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before dental procedures for patients at high-risk of IE.

Likewise, lead author Martin Thornhill, MBBS, BDS, PhD, said in an interview, the findings also suggest that existing guidelines in the United Kingdom, which recommend against AP in these patients, “should be reconsidered.”

Those AHA and ESC guidelines, however,  are “based on no good quality evidence,” said Dr. Thornhill, professor of translational research in dentistry at the University of Sheffield (England) School of Clinical Dentistry. “Other studies have looked at this, but we’ve done the largest study that has shown the clear association between invasive dental procedures and subsequent development of infective endocarditis.”

In the entire cohort of 7.95 million patients, 3,774 had cases of IE that required hospitalization. The study defined highest risk of IE as meeting one of these six criteria: a previous case of IE; a prosthetic cardiac valve or a valve repair that used prosthetic material; cyanotic congenital heart disease; palliative shunts or conduits to treat CHD; or a congenital heart defect that had been fully repaired, either by  surgery or a transcatheter procedure, with prosthetic material or device – the latter within 6 months of the procedure.

Moderate IE risk included patients who had rheumatic heart disease, nonrheumatic valve disease or congenital valve anomalies—including mitral valve prolapse or aortic stenosis—or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

 

Risk classification and poor compliance

Highest-risk patients had significantly higher rates of IE a month after a dental procedure than lower-risk groups:  467.6 cases per 1 million procedures vs. 24.2 for moderate risk and 3.8 for low or unknown risk. A subanalysis found that the odds of IE were significantly increased for two specific dental procedures: extractions, with an odds ratio of 9.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.54-15.88; P < .0001); and other oral surgical procedures, with an OR of 20.18 (95% CI, 11.22-37.74; P < .0001).

The study also found that 32.6% of the high-risk patients undergoing dental procedures got AP. “Clearly that shows a low level of compliance with the guidelines in the U.S.,” Dr. Thornhill said. “That’s something that needs to be addressed.”

The study was unique in that it used both a population cohort study and the case-crossover study. “It didn’t matter which of the two methods we used; we essentially came to the same result, which I think adds further weight to the findings,” Dr. Thornhill said.

This may be the best evidence to support the guidelines that clinicians may get. While the observational nature of this study has its limitations, conducting a randomized clinical trial to further validate the findings would be “logistically impossible,” he said, in that it would require an “absolutely enormous” cohort and coordination between medical and dental databases covering thousands of lives. An RCT would also require not using AP for some patients. “It’s not ethical to keep somebody off of antibiotic prophylaxis when there’s such a high risk of death and severe outcomes,” Dr. Thornhill said.

Ann Bolger, MD, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthor of an editorial comment on the study, said in an interview that this study is noteworthy not only for its dual methodology, but for the quality of the data that matched patients at high risk for IE with prescription and dental records. “The fact that they were able to have those details in enough granularity that they knew whether a dental procedure was likely to meet the criteria for these more invasive exposures really broke it open from my perspective,” she said.

She called the low compliance rate with AHA guidelines “one of the most sobering points of this,” and said it should put clinicians on notice that they must do more to educate and engage with high-risk patients. “The lines of communication here are somewhat fraught; it’s a little bit of a hot potato,” she said. “It’s a really great communications opportunity to get the provider’s attention back on this. You’re a cardiologist; you have to have this conversation when you see your patient with a prosthetic valve or who’s had endocarditis every time they come in. There’s a whole litany, and it takes 3 minutes, but you have to do it.”

The study received funding from Delta Dental of Michigan Research Committee and Renaissance Health Service Corp., and Dr. Thornhill received support from Delta Dental Research and Data Institute for the study. Dr. Bolger participated in the 2007 and 2021 AHA statements on AP to prevent IE.

Health charities called for action to address racial health disparities after population-wide analysis by the UK Health Security Agency found that Black and Asian neonates had a significantly higher risk of early-onset group B streptococcal disease (GBS), compared with White infants.

One support group said more research was now needed to identify the cause of the disparity, and called for pregnant women to be better informed about the disease and what it could mean for them and their baby.

The study, published in Pediatrics, used UKHSA data on laboratory-confirmed infant group B streptococcal (iGBS) disease cases between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2020, and were linked to hospital ethnicity records.

Cases of iGBS were defined as isolation of Streptococcus agalactiae from a normally sterile site at 0-6 days of life for early-onset iGBS and 7-90 days for late-onset disease.
 

Hospital data and parent-reported ethnicity

Researchers found 2,512 iGBS cases in England during the study period, 65.3% were early onset and 34.8% late onset, equivalent to 0.52 and 0.28 cases per 1000 live births respectively.

Researchers were able to link 85.6% of those to ethnicity. Among those 2,149 cases, Black infants had a 48% higher risk, and Asian infants a 40% higher risk of early onset iGBS, compared with White infants. Among those from an Asian background, the risk was 87% higher for Bangladeshi and 38% higher for Pakistani neonates.

Rates of early onset iGBS per 1,000 live births were 0.43 for White infants, 0.63 for Black infants, and 0.60 for those of Asian ethnicity.

In contrast, Indian infants had an early-onset rate of 0.47 per 1,000 live births, which was similar to White infants.

Black infants had 57% higher rates of late-onset iGBS (0.37) than White infants (0.24), the researchers reported.

The study authors highlighted previous research which found higher prevalence of group B streptococcal colonization in mothers from Black and some Asian ethnic groups, but lower prevalence in mothers from the Indian subcontinent. More research was needed to establish causes, the researchers said, including whether higher preterm birth rates in minority ethnic groups led to increased iGBS risk in neonates, or whether maternal group B streptococcal disease led to higher preterm birth rates and subsequent neonatal iGBS.

The researchers concluded: “Understanding the factors underpinning differences in rates of early-onset iGBS within south Asian groups in England may lead to new opportunities for prevention such as prioritized antenatal screening. Strategies to prevent neonatal iGBS must be tailored from high-quality quantitative and qualitative data to reach all women and protect all infants, irrespective of racial or ethnic background.”
 

‘Shocking but not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Edward Morris, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said: “This research is striking reading, and is yet another example of how far we have to go to tackle health inequalities within women’s health care.”

Philip Steer, professor emeritus at Imperial College London, said that the results were “consistent with previous reports of higher GBS carriage and higher maternal and neonatal mortality rates in minority groups” and “emphasize the importance of studying not just whether, but why, these differences exist.” He added: “We need to understand the reasons for the differences before we can design much-needed intervention to eliminate them.”

Jane Plumb, chief executive of Group B Strep Support, called the findings “shocking, but unfortunately not surprising” and said that they offered “another example of racial disparities in maternal and neonatal health.” She said: “We’re calling for all pregnant women and birthing people to be informed about GBS and its risks, so they can make empowered choices for themselves and their baby. It is also critical that trusts sign up to take part in the internationally significant [National Institute for Health and Care Research]–funded GBS3 clinical trial, designed to improve the prevention of GBS infection.”

Baroness Shaista Gohir, chief executive of the Muslim Women’s Network, said: “With significantly higher rates of group B Strep infection in Black and Asian babies, greater efforts must be made to improve awareness among pregnant women within these communities.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Health charities called for action to address racial health disparities after population-wide analysis by the UK Health Security Agency found that Black and Asian neonates had a significantly higher risk of early-onset group B streptococcal disease (GBS), compared with White infants.

One support group said more research was now needed to identify the cause of the disparity, and called for pregnant women to be better informed about the disease and what it could mean for them and their baby.

The study, published in Pediatrics, used UKHSA data on laboratory-confirmed infant group B streptococcal (iGBS) disease cases between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2020, and were linked to hospital ethnicity records.

Cases of iGBS were defined as isolation of Streptococcus agalactiae from a normally sterile site at 0-6 days of life for early-onset iGBS and 7-90 days for late-onset disease.
 

Hospital data and parent-reported ethnicity

Researchers found 2,512 iGBS cases in England during the study period, 65.3% were early onset and 34.8% late onset, equivalent to 0.52 and 0.28 cases per 1000 live births respectively.

Researchers were able to link 85.6% of those to ethnicity. Among those 2,149 cases, Black infants had a 48% higher risk, and Asian infants a 40% higher risk of early onset iGBS, compared with White infants. Among those from an Asian background, the risk was 87% higher for Bangladeshi and 38% higher for Pakistani neonates.

Rates of early onset iGBS per 1,000 live births were 0.43 for White infants, 0.63 for Black infants, and 0.60 for those of Asian ethnicity.

In contrast, Indian infants had an early-onset rate of 0.47 per 1,000 live births, which was similar to White infants.

Black infants had 57% higher rates of late-onset iGBS (0.37) than White infants (0.24), the researchers reported.

The study authors highlighted previous research which found higher prevalence of group B streptococcal colonization in mothers from Black and some Asian ethnic groups, but lower prevalence in mothers from the Indian subcontinent. More research was needed to establish causes, the researchers said, including whether higher preterm birth rates in minority ethnic groups led to increased iGBS risk in neonates, or whether maternal group B streptococcal disease led to higher preterm birth rates and subsequent neonatal iGBS.

The researchers concluded: “Understanding the factors underpinning differences in rates of early-onset iGBS within south Asian groups in England may lead to new opportunities for prevention such as prioritized antenatal screening. Strategies to prevent neonatal iGBS must be tailored from high-quality quantitative and qualitative data to reach all women and protect all infants, irrespective of racial or ethnic background.”
 

‘Shocking but not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Edward Morris, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said: “This research is striking reading, and is yet another example of how far we have to go to tackle health inequalities within women’s health care.”

Philip Steer, professor emeritus at Imperial College London, said that the results were “consistent with previous reports of higher GBS carriage and higher maternal and neonatal mortality rates in minority groups” and “emphasize the importance of studying not just whether, but why, these differences exist.” He added: “We need to understand the reasons for the differences before we can design much-needed intervention to eliminate them.”

Jane Plumb, chief executive of Group B Strep Support, called the findings “shocking, but unfortunately not surprising” and said that they offered “another example of racial disparities in maternal and neonatal health.” She said: “We’re calling for all pregnant women and birthing people to be informed about GBS and its risks, so they can make empowered choices for themselves and their baby. It is also critical that trusts sign up to take part in the internationally significant [National Institute for Health and Care Research]–funded GBS3 clinical trial, designed to improve the prevention of GBS infection.”

Baroness Shaista Gohir, chief executive of the Muslim Women’s Network, said: “With significantly higher rates of group B Strep infection in Black and Asian babies, greater efforts must be made to improve awareness among pregnant women within these communities.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Health charities called for action to address racial health disparities after population-wide analysis by the UK Health Security Agency found that Black and Asian neonates had a significantly higher risk of early-onset group B streptococcal disease (GBS), compared with White infants.

One support group said more research was now needed to identify the cause of the disparity, and called for pregnant women to be better informed about the disease and what it could mean for them and their baby.

The study, published in Pediatrics, used UKHSA data on laboratory-confirmed infant group B streptococcal (iGBS) disease cases between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2020, and were linked to hospital ethnicity records.

Cases of iGBS were defined as isolation of Streptococcus agalactiae from a normally sterile site at 0-6 days of life for early-onset iGBS and 7-90 days for late-onset disease.
 

Hospital data and parent-reported ethnicity

Researchers found 2,512 iGBS cases in England during the study period, 65.3% were early onset and 34.8% late onset, equivalent to 0.52 and 0.28 cases per 1000 live births respectively.

Researchers were able to link 85.6% of those to ethnicity. Among those 2,149 cases, Black infants had a 48% higher risk, and Asian infants a 40% higher risk of early onset iGBS, compared with White infants. Among those from an Asian background, the risk was 87% higher for Bangladeshi and 38% higher for Pakistani neonates.

Rates of early onset iGBS per 1,000 live births were 0.43 for White infants, 0.63 for Black infants, and 0.60 for those of Asian ethnicity.

In contrast, Indian infants had an early-onset rate of 0.47 per 1,000 live births, which was similar to White infants.

Black infants had 57% higher rates of late-onset iGBS (0.37) than White infants (0.24), the researchers reported.

The study authors highlighted previous research which found higher prevalence of group B streptococcal colonization in mothers from Black and some Asian ethnic groups, but lower prevalence in mothers from the Indian subcontinent. More research was needed to establish causes, the researchers said, including whether higher preterm birth rates in minority ethnic groups led to increased iGBS risk in neonates, or whether maternal group B streptococcal disease led to higher preterm birth rates and subsequent neonatal iGBS.

The researchers concluded: “Understanding the factors underpinning differences in rates of early-onset iGBS within south Asian groups in England may lead to new opportunities for prevention such as prioritized antenatal screening. Strategies to prevent neonatal iGBS must be tailored from high-quality quantitative and qualitative data to reach all women and protect all infants, irrespective of racial or ethnic background.”
 

‘Shocking but not surprising’

Commenting on the study, Edward Morris, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said: “This research is striking reading, and is yet another example of how far we have to go to tackle health inequalities within women’s health care.”

Philip Steer, professor emeritus at Imperial College London, said that the results were “consistent with previous reports of higher GBS carriage and higher maternal and neonatal mortality rates in minority groups” and “emphasize the importance of studying not just whether, but why, these differences exist.” He added: “We need to understand the reasons for the differences before we can design much-needed intervention to eliminate them.”

Jane Plumb, chief executive of Group B Strep Support, called the findings “shocking, but unfortunately not surprising” and said that they offered “another example of racial disparities in maternal and neonatal health.” She said: “We’re calling for all pregnant women and birthing people to be informed about GBS and its risks, so they can make empowered choices for themselves and their baby. It is also critical that trusts sign up to take part in the internationally significant [National Institute for Health and Care Research]–funded GBS3 clinical trial, designed to improve the prevention of GBS infection.”

Baroness Shaista Gohir, chief executive of the Muslim Women’s Network, said: “With significantly higher rates of group B Strep infection in Black and Asian babies, greater efforts must be made to improve awareness among pregnant women within these communities.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

On a Monday morning, a group of obstetrics and gynecology residents, dressed in blue scrubs and white coats, gathered in an auditorium at Indiana University, Indianapolis. After the usual updates and announcements, Nicole Scott, MD, the residency program director, addressed the elephant in the room. “Any more abortion care questions?” she asked the trainees.

After a few moments of silence, one resident asked: “How’s Dr. Bernard doing?”

“Bernard is actually in really good spirits – I mean, relatively,” Dr. Scott answered. “She has 24/7 security, has her own lawyer.”

They were talking about Caitlin Bernard, MD, an Indiana ob.gyn. who provides abortions and trains residents at the university hospital. Dr. Bernard was recently caught in a political whirlwind after she spoke about an abortion she provided to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. Dr. Bernard was the target of false accusations made on national television by pundits and political leaders, including Indiana’s attorney general.

The doctors interviewed for this article said that they are not speaking on behalf of their school of medicine but rather about their personal experiences during a tumultuous moment that they worry will affect the way they care for their patients.

The vitriol directed at Dr. Bernard hit home for this group of residents. She has mentored most of them for years. Many of the young doctors were certain they wanted to practice in Indiana after their training. But lately, some have been ambivalent about that prospect.

Beatrice Soderholm, DO, a fourth-year ob.gyn. resident, said watching what Dr. Bernard went through was “scary.” “I think that was part of the point for those who were putting her through that,” Dr. Soderholm said. They were trying “to scare other people out of doing the work that she does.”

In early August, Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, signed a near-total abortion ban into law, making Indiana the first state to adopt new restrictions on abortion access since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June. When the ban takes effect Sept. 15, medical providers who violate the law risk losing their licenses or serving up to six years in prison.

These days, Dr. Scott, the residency program director, uses some meeting time with residents to fill them in on political updates and available mental health services. She also reminds them that legal counsel is on call round the clock to help if they’re ever unsure about the care they should provide a patient.

“Our residents are devastated,” Dr. Scott said, holding back tears. “They signed up to provide comprehensive health care to women, and they are being told that they can’t do that.”

She expects this will “deeply impact” how Indiana hospitals recruit and retain medical professionals.

A 2018 report from the March of Dimes found that 27% of Indiana counties are considered maternity care deserts, with no or limited access to maternal care. The state has one of the nation’s highest maternal mortality rates.

Dr. Scott said new laws restricting abortion will only worsen those statistics.

Dr. Scott shared results from a recent survey of nearly 1,400 residents and fellows across all specialties at IU, nearly 80% of the trainees said they were less likely to stay and practice in Indiana after the abortion ban.

Wendy Tian, MD, a third-year resident, said she is worried about her safety. Dr. Tian grew up and went to medical school in Chicago and chose to do her residency in Indiana because the program has a strong family-planning focus. She was open to practicing in Indiana when she completed her training.

But that’s changed.

“I, for sure, don’t know if I would be able to stay in Indiana post graduation with what’s going on,” Dr. Tian said.

Still, she feels guilty for “giving up” on Indiana’s most vulnerable patients.

Even before Roe fell, Dr. Tian said, the climate in Indiana could be hostile and frustrating for ob.gyns. Indiana, like other states with abortion restrictions, allows nearly all health care providers to opt out of providing care to patients having an abortion.

“We encounter other people who we work with on a daily basis who are opposed to what we do,” Dr. Tian said, adding that she and her colleagues have had to cancel scheduled procedures because the nurses on call were not comfortable assisting during an abortion.

Dr. Scott said the ob.gyn. program at the IU has provided residents with comprehensive training, including on abortion care and family planning. Since miscarriages are managed the same way as first-trimester abortions, she said, the training gives residents lots of hands-on experience. “What termination procedures allow you to do is that kind of repetition and that understanding of the female anatomy and how to manage complications that may happen with miscarriages.”

The ban on abortions dramatically reduces the hands-on opportunities for ob.gyn. residents, and that’s a huge concern, she said.

The program is exploring ways to offer training. One option is to send residents to learn in states without abortion restrictions, but Dr. Scott said that would be a logistical nightmare. “This is not as simple as just showing up to an office and saying: ‘Can I observe?’ This includes getting a medical license for out-of-state trainees. This includes funding for travel and lodging,” Dr. Scott said. “It adds a lot to what we already do to educate future ob.gyns.”

Four in 10 of all ob.gyn. residents in the United States are in states where abortion is banned or likely to be banned, so there could be a surge of residents looking to go out of state to make up for lost training opportunities. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the body that accredits residency programs, proposed modifications to the graduation requirements for ob.gyn. residents to account for the changing landscape.

For some of the Indiana ob.gyn. residents – including Veronica Santana, MD, a first-year resident – these political hurdles are a challenge they’re more than willing to take on. Dr. Santana is Latina, grew up in Seattle, and has been involved in community organizing since she was a teenager. One reason she chose obstetrics and gynecology was because of how the field intersects with social justice. “It’s political. It always has been, and it continues to be,” she said, “And, obviously, especially now.”

After Roe was overturned, Dr. Santana, alongside other residents and mentors, took to the streets of Indianapolis to participate in rallies in support of abortion rights.

Indiana could be the perfect battleground for Dr. Santana’s advocacy and social activism. But lately, she said, she is “very unsure” whether staying in Indiana to practice after residency makes sense, since she wants to provide the entire range of ob.gyn. services.

Dr. Soderholm, who grew up in Minnesota, has felt a strong connection to patients at the county hospital in Indianapolis. She had been certain she wanted to practice in Indiana. But her family in Minnesota – where abortion remains largely protected – has recently questioned why she would stay in a state with such a hostile climate for ob.gyns. “There’s been a lot of hesitation,” she said. But the patients make leaving difficult. “Sorry,” she said, starting to cry.

It’s for those patients that Dr. Soderholm decided she’ll likely stay. Other young doctors may make a different decision.

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

On a Monday morning, a group of obstetrics and gynecology residents, dressed in blue scrubs and white coats, gathered in an auditorium at Indiana University, Indianapolis. After the usual updates and announcements, Nicole Scott, MD, the residency program director, addressed the elephant in the room. “Any more abortion care questions?” she asked the trainees.

After a few moments of silence, one resident asked: “How’s Dr. Bernard doing?”

“Bernard is actually in really good spirits – I mean, relatively,” Dr. Scott answered. “She has 24/7 security, has her own lawyer.”

They were talking about Caitlin Bernard, MD, an Indiana ob.gyn. who provides abortions and trains residents at the university hospital. Dr. Bernard was recently caught in a political whirlwind after she spoke about an abortion she provided to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. Dr. Bernard was the target of false accusations made on national television by pundits and political leaders, including Indiana’s attorney general.

The doctors interviewed for this article said that they are not speaking on behalf of their school of medicine but rather about their personal experiences during a tumultuous moment that they worry will affect the way they care for their patients.

The vitriol directed at Dr. Bernard hit home for this group of residents. She has mentored most of them for years. Many of the young doctors were certain they wanted to practice in Indiana after their training. But lately, some have been ambivalent about that prospect.

Beatrice Soderholm, DO, a fourth-year ob.gyn. resident, said watching what Dr. Bernard went through was “scary.” “I think that was part of the point for those who were putting her through that,” Dr. Soderholm said. They were trying “to scare other people out of doing the work that she does.”

In early August, Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, signed a near-total abortion ban into law, making Indiana the first state to adopt new restrictions on abortion access since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June. When the ban takes effect Sept. 15, medical providers who violate the law risk losing their licenses or serving up to six years in prison.

These days, Dr. Scott, the residency program director, uses some meeting time with residents to fill them in on political updates and available mental health services. She also reminds them that legal counsel is on call round the clock to help if they’re ever unsure about the care they should provide a patient.

“Our residents are devastated,” Dr. Scott said, holding back tears. “They signed up to provide comprehensive health care to women, and they are being told that they can’t do that.”

She expects this will “deeply impact” how Indiana hospitals recruit and retain medical professionals.

A 2018 report from the March of Dimes found that 27% of Indiana counties are considered maternity care deserts, with no or limited access to maternal care. The state has one of the nation’s highest maternal mortality rates.

Dr. Scott said new laws restricting abortion will only worsen those statistics.

Dr. Scott shared results from a recent survey of nearly 1,400 residents and fellows across all specialties at IU, nearly 80% of the trainees said they were less likely to stay and practice in Indiana after the abortion ban.

Wendy Tian, MD, a third-year resident, said she is worried about her safety. Dr. Tian grew up and went to medical school in Chicago and chose to do her residency in Indiana because the program has a strong family-planning focus. She was open to practicing in Indiana when she completed her training.

But that’s changed.

“I, for sure, don’t know if I would be able to stay in Indiana post graduation with what’s going on,” Dr. Tian said.

Still, she feels guilty for “giving up” on Indiana’s most vulnerable patients.

Even before Roe fell, Dr. Tian said, the climate in Indiana could be hostile and frustrating for ob.gyns. Indiana, like other states with abortion restrictions, allows nearly all health care providers to opt out of providing care to patients having an abortion.

“We encounter other people who we work with on a daily basis who are opposed to what we do,” Dr. Tian said, adding that she and her colleagues have had to cancel scheduled procedures because the nurses on call were not comfortable assisting during an abortion.

Dr. Scott said the ob.gyn. program at the IU has provided residents with comprehensive training, including on abortion care and family planning. Since miscarriages are managed the same way as first-trimester abortions, she said, the training gives residents lots of hands-on experience. “What termination procedures allow you to do is that kind of repetition and that understanding of the female anatomy and how to manage complications that may happen with miscarriages.”

The ban on abortions dramatically reduces the hands-on opportunities for ob.gyn. residents, and that’s a huge concern, she said.

The program is exploring ways to offer training. One option is to send residents to learn in states without abortion restrictions, but Dr. Scott said that would be a logistical nightmare. “This is not as simple as just showing up to an office and saying: ‘Can I observe?’ This includes getting a medical license for out-of-state trainees. This includes funding for travel and lodging,” Dr. Scott said. “It adds a lot to what we already do to educate future ob.gyns.”

Four in 10 of all ob.gyn. residents in the United States are in states where abortion is banned or likely to be banned, so there could be a surge of residents looking to go out of state to make up for lost training opportunities. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the body that accredits residency programs, proposed modifications to the graduation requirements for ob.gyn. residents to account for the changing landscape.

For some of the Indiana ob.gyn. residents – including Veronica Santana, MD, a first-year resident – these political hurdles are a challenge they’re more than willing to take on. Dr. Santana is Latina, grew up in Seattle, and has been involved in community organizing since she was a teenager. One reason she chose obstetrics and gynecology was because of how the field intersects with social justice. “It’s political. It always has been, and it continues to be,” she said, “And, obviously, especially now.”

After Roe was overturned, Dr. Santana, alongside other residents and mentors, took to the streets of Indianapolis to participate in rallies in support of abortion rights.

Indiana could be the perfect battleground for Dr. Santana’s advocacy and social activism. But lately, she said, she is “very unsure” whether staying in Indiana to practice after residency makes sense, since she wants to provide the entire range of ob.gyn. services.

Dr. Soderholm, who grew up in Minnesota, has felt a strong connection to patients at the county hospital in Indianapolis. She had been certain she wanted to practice in Indiana. But her family in Minnesota – where abortion remains largely protected – has recently questioned why she would stay in a state with such a hostile climate for ob.gyns. “There’s been a lot of hesitation,” she said. But the patients make leaving difficult. “Sorry,” she said, starting to cry.

It’s for those patients that Dr. Soderholm decided she’ll likely stay. Other young doctors may make a different decision.

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

On a Monday morning, a group of obstetrics and gynecology residents, dressed in blue scrubs and white coats, gathered in an auditorium at Indiana University, Indianapolis. After the usual updates and announcements, Nicole Scott, MD, the residency program director, addressed the elephant in the room. “Any more abortion care questions?” she asked the trainees.

After a few moments of silence, one resident asked: “How’s Dr. Bernard doing?”

“Bernard is actually in really good spirits – I mean, relatively,” Dr. Scott answered. “She has 24/7 security, has her own lawyer.”

They were talking about Caitlin Bernard, MD, an Indiana ob.gyn. who provides abortions and trains residents at the university hospital. Dr. Bernard was recently caught in a political whirlwind after she spoke about an abortion she provided to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. Dr. Bernard was the target of false accusations made on national television by pundits and political leaders, including Indiana’s attorney general.

The doctors interviewed for this article said that they are not speaking on behalf of their school of medicine but rather about their personal experiences during a tumultuous moment that they worry will affect the way they care for their patients.

The vitriol directed at Dr. Bernard hit home for this group of residents. She has mentored most of them for years. Many of the young doctors were certain they wanted to practice in Indiana after their training. But lately, some have been ambivalent about that prospect.

Beatrice Soderholm, DO, a fourth-year ob.gyn. resident, said watching what Dr. Bernard went through was “scary.” “I think that was part of the point for those who were putting her through that,” Dr. Soderholm said. They were trying “to scare other people out of doing the work that she does.”

In early August, Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, signed a near-total abortion ban into law, making Indiana the first state to adopt new restrictions on abortion access since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June. When the ban takes effect Sept. 15, medical providers who violate the law risk losing their licenses or serving up to six years in prison.

These days, Dr. Scott, the residency program director, uses some meeting time with residents to fill them in on political updates and available mental health services. She also reminds them that legal counsel is on call round the clock to help if they’re ever unsure about the care they should provide a patient.

“Our residents are devastated,” Dr. Scott said, holding back tears. “They signed up to provide comprehensive health care to women, and they are being told that they can’t do that.”

She expects this will “deeply impact” how Indiana hospitals recruit and retain medical professionals.

A 2018 report from the March of Dimes found that 27% of Indiana counties are considered maternity care deserts, with no or limited access to maternal care. The state has one of the nation’s highest maternal mortality rates.

Dr. Scott said new laws restricting abortion will only worsen those statistics.

Dr. Scott shared results from a recent survey of nearly 1,400 residents and fellows across all specialties at IU, nearly 80% of the trainees said they were less likely to stay and practice in Indiana after the abortion ban.

Wendy Tian, MD, a third-year resident, said she is worried about her safety. Dr. Tian grew up and went to medical school in Chicago and chose to do her residency in Indiana because the program has a strong family-planning focus. She was open to practicing in Indiana when she completed her training.

But that’s changed.

“I, for sure, don’t know if I would be able to stay in Indiana post graduation with what’s going on,” Dr. Tian said.

Still, she feels guilty for “giving up” on Indiana’s most vulnerable patients.

Even before Roe fell, Dr. Tian said, the climate in Indiana could be hostile and frustrating for ob.gyns. Indiana, like other states with abortion restrictions, allows nearly all health care providers to opt out of providing care to patients having an abortion.

“We encounter other people who we work with on a daily basis who are opposed to what we do,” Dr. Tian said, adding that she and her colleagues have had to cancel scheduled procedures because the nurses on call were not comfortable assisting during an abortion.

Dr. Scott said the ob.gyn. program at the IU has provided residents with comprehensive training, including on abortion care and family planning. Since miscarriages are managed the same way as first-trimester abortions, she said, the training gives residents lots of hands-on experience. “What termination procedures allow you to do is that kind of repetition and that understanding of the female anatomy and how to manage complications that may happen with miscarriages.”

The ban on abortions dramatically reduces the hands-on opportunities for ob.gyn. residents, and that’s a huge concern, she said.

The program is exploring ways to offer training. One option is to send residents to learn in states without abortion restrictions, but Dr. Scott said that would be a logistical nightmare. “This is not as simple as just showing up to an office and saying: ‘Can I observe?’ This includes getting a medical license for out-of-state trainees. This includes funding for travel and lodging,” Dr. Scott said. “It adds a lot to what we already do to educate future ob.gyns.”

Four in 10 of all ob.gyn. residents in the United States are in states where abortion is banned or likely to be banned, so there could be a surge of residents looking to go out of state to make up for lost training opportunities. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the body that accredits residency programs, proposed modifications to the graduation requirements for ob.gyn. residents to account for the changing landscape.

For some of the Indiana ob.gyn. residents – including Veronica Santana, MD, a first-year resident – these political hurdles are a challenge they’re more than willing to take on. Dr. Santana is Latina, grew up in Seattle, and has been involved in community organizing since she was a teenager. One reason she chose obstetrics and gynecology was because of how the field intersects with social justice. “It’s political. It always has been, and it continues to be,” she said, “And, obviously, especially now.”

After Roe was overturned, Dr. Santana, alongside other residents and mentors, took to the streets of Indianapolis to participate in rallies in support of abortion rights.

Indiana could be the perfect battleground for Dr. Santana’s advocacy and social activism. But lately, she said, she is “very unsure” whether staying in Indiana to practice after residency makes sense, since she wants to provide the entire range of ob.gyn. services.

Dr. Soderholm, who grew up in Minnesota, has felt a strong connection to patients at the county hospital in Indianapolis. She had been certain she wanted to practice in Indiana. But her family in Minnesota – where abortion remains largely protected – has recently questioned why she would stay in a state with such a hostile climate for ob.gyns. “There’s been a lot of hesitation,” she said. But the patients make leaving difficult. “Sorry,” she said, starting to cry.

It’s for those patients that Dr. Soderholm decided she’ll likely stay. Other young doctors may make a different decision.

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

Older adults with atrial cardiopathy may have up to 35% higher risk for dementia even before symptoms develop, new research suggests.

“We cautiously suggest that an understanding of this relationship might provide a basis for new interventional strategies to help thwart the development of dementia,” the authors write.

The research, led by Michelle C. Johansen, MD, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Atrial cardiopathy, characterized by abnormal size and function of the left atrium, has been associated with an increased risk of stroke and atrial fibrillation (AFib), and because both stroke and AFib are associated with an increased dementia risk, the authors write, it was important to investigate whether atrial cardiopathy is linked to dementia.

If that’s the case, they reasoned, the next question was whether that link is independent of AFib and stroke, and their new research suggests that it is.

For this analysis, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort analysis of participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who were attending visit 5 (2011-2013). During their fifth, sixth, and seventh clinical visits, the ARIC participants were evaluated for cognitive decline indicating dementia.

They studied a diverse population of 5,078 older adults living in four U.S. communities: Washington County, Md.; Forsyth County, N.C.; the northwestern suburbs of Minneapolis; and Jackson, Miss.

Just more than a third (34%) had atrial cardiopathy (average age, 75 years; 59% female; 21% Black) and 763 participants developed dementia.

Investigators found that atrial cardiopathy was significantly associated with dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.58]).

They considered ARIC participants to have atrial cardiopathy if they had at least one of the following: P-wave terminal force greater than 5,000 mV·ms in ECG lead V1; NTproBNP greater than 250 pg/mL; or left atrial volume index greater than or equal to 34 mL/m² by transthoracic echocardiography.

The risk of dementia was even stronger when the researchers defined cardiopathy by at least two biomarkers instead of one (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.25-1.89]).

The authors point out, however, that this study is observational and cannot make a causal link.

Clifford Kavinsky, MD, PhD, head of the Comprehensive Stroke and Cardiology Clinic at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, told this news organization that much more research would need to be done to show convincingly that atrial cardiopathy causes dementia.

He called the findings “provocative in trying to understand in a general sense how cardiac dysfunction leads to dementia.”

“We all know heart failure leads to dementia, but now we see there may be a relationship with just dysfunction of the upper chambers,” he said.
 

Unresolved questions

But it still not clear is what is mediating the connection, who is at risk, and how the increased risk can be prevented, he said.

He said he also wonders whether the results eliminated all patients with atrial fibrillation, a point the authors acknowledge as well.

Researchers list in the limitations that “asymptomatic AFib or silent cerebral infarction may have been missed by the ARIC adjudication process.”

There is broad understanding that preventing heart disease is important for a wide array of reasons, Dr. Kavinsky noted, and one of the reasons is cognitive deterioration.

He said this study helps identify that “even dysfunction of the upper chambers of the heart contributes to the evolution of dementia.”

The study amplifies the need to shift to prevention with heart disease in general, and more specifically in atrial dysfunction, Dr. Kavinsky said, noting a lot of atrial dysfunction is mediated by underlying hypertension and coronary disease.

Researchers evaluated cognitive decline in all participants with a comprehensive array of neuropsychological tests and interviewed some of the patients.

“A diagnosis of dementia was generated based on testing results by a computer diagnostic algorithm and then decided upon by an expert based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the criteria outlined by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institutes of Health,” they write.

Dr. Johansen reported funding from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Study coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Kavinsky has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults with atrial cardiopathy may have up to 35% higher risk for dementia even before symptoms develop, new research suggests.

“We cautiously suggest that an understanding of this relationship might provide a basis for new interventional strategies to help thwart the development of dementia,” the authors write.

The research, led by Michelle C. Johansen, MD, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Atrial cardiopathy, characterized by abnormal size and function of the left atrium, has been associated with an increased risk of stroke and atrial fibrillation (AFib), and because both stroke and AFib are associated with an increased dementia risk, the authors write, it was important to investigate whether atrial cardiopathy is linked to dementia.

If that’s the case, they reasoned, the next question was whether that link is independent of AFib and stroke, and their new research suggests that it is.

For this analysis, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort analysis of participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who were attending visit 5 (2011-2013). During their fifth, sixth, and seventh clinical visits, the ARIC participants were evaluated for cognitive decline indicating dementia.

They studied a diverse population of 5,078 older adults living in four U.S. communities: Washington County, Md.; Forsyth County, N.C.; the northwestern suburbs of Minneapolis; and Jackson, Miss.

Just more than a third (34%) had atrial cardiopathy (average age, 75 years; 59% female; 21% Black) and 763 participants developed dementia.

Investigators found that atrial cardiopathy was significantly associated with dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.58]).

They considered ARIC participants to have atrial cardiopathy if they had at least one of the following: P-wave terminal force greater than 5,000 mV·ms in ECG lead V1; NTproBNP greater than 250 pg/mL; or left atrial volume index greater than or equal to 34 mL/m² by transthoracic echocardiography.

The risk of dementia was even stronger when the researchers defined cardiopathy by at least two biomarkers instead of one (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.25-1.89]).

The authors point out, however, that this study is observational and cannot make a causal link.

Clifford Kavinsky, MD, PhD, head of the Comprehensive Stroke and Cardiology Clinic at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, told this news organization that much more research would need to be done to show convincingly that atrial cardiopathy causes dementia.

He called the findings “provocative in trying to understand in a general sense how cardiac dysfunction leads to dementia.”

“We all know heart failure leads to dementia, but now we see there may be a relationship with just dysfunction of the upper chambers,” he said.
 

Unresolved questions

But it still not clear is what is mediating the connection, who is at risk, and how the increased risk can be prevented, he said.

He said he also wonders whether the results eliminated all patients with atrial fibrillation, a point the authors acknowledge as well.

Researchers list in the limitations that “asymptomatic AFib or silent cerebral infarction may have been missed by the ARIC adjudication process.”

There is broad understanding that preventing heart disease is important for a wide array of reasons, Dr. Kavinsky noted, and one of the reasons is cognitive deterioration.

He said this study helps identify that “even dysfunction of the upper chambers of the heart contributes to the evolution of dementia.”

The study amplifies the need to shift to prevention with heart disease in general, and more specifically in atrial dysfunction, Dr. Kavinsky said, noting a lot of atrial dysfunction is mediated by underlying hypertension and coronary disease.

Researchers evaluated cognitive decline in all participants with a comprehensive array of neuropsychological tests and interviewed some of the patients.

“A diagnosis of dementia was generated based on testing results by a computer diagnostic algorithm and then decided upon by an expert based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the criteria outlined by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institutes of Health,” they write.

Dr. Johansen reported funding from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Study coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Kavinsky has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults with atrial cardiopathy may have up to 35% higher risk for dementia even before symptoms develop, new research suggests.

“We cautiously suggest that an understanding of this relationship might provide a basis for new interventional strategies to help thwart the development of dementia,” the authors write.

The research, led by Michelle C. Johansen, MD, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Atrial cardiopathy, characterized by abnormal size and function of the left atrium, has been associated with an increased risk of stroke and atrial fibrillation (AFib), and because both stroke and AFib are associated with an increased dementia risk, the authors write, it was important to investigate whether atrial cardiopathy is linked to dementia.

If that’s the case, they reasoned, the next question was whether that link is independent of AFib and stroke, and their new research suggests that it is.

For this analysis, the researchers conducted a prospective cohort analysis of participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who were attending visit 5 (2011-2013). During their fifth, sixth, and seventh clinical visits, the ARIC participants were evaluated for cognitive decline indicating dementia.

They studied a diverse population of 5,078 older adults living in four U.S. communities: Washington County, Md.; Forsyth County, N.C.; the northwestern suburbs of Minneapolis; and Jackson, Miss.

Just more than a third (34%) had atrial cardiopathy (average age, 75 years; 59% female; 21% Black) and 763 participants developed dementia.

Investigators found that atrial cardiopathy was significantly associated with dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35 [95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.58]).

They considered ARIC participants to have atrial cardiopathy if they had at least one of the following: P-wave terminal force greater than 5,000 mV·ms in ECG lead V1; NTproBNP greater than 250 pg/mL; or left atrial volume index greater than or equal to 34 mL/m² by transthoracic echocardiography.

The risk of dementia was even stronger when the researchers defined cardiopathy by at least two biomarkers instead of one (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.25-1.89]).

The authors point out, however, that this study is observational and cannot make a causal link.

Clifford Kavinsky, MD, PhD, head of the Comprehensive Stroke and Cardiology Clinic at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, told this news organization that much more research would need to be done to show convincingly that atrial cardiopathy causes dementia.

He called the findings “provocative in trying to understand in a general sense how cardiac dysfunction leads to dementia.”

“We all know heart failure leads to dementia, but now we see there may be a relationship with just dysfunction of the upper chambers,” he said.
 

Unresolved questions

But it still not clear is what is mediating the connection, who is at risk, and how the increased risk can be prevented, he said.

He said he also wonders whether the results eliminated all patients with atrial fibrillation, a point the authors acknowledge as well.

Researchers list in the limitations that “asymptomatic AFib or silent cerebral infarction may have been missed by the ARIC adjudication process.”

There is broad understanding that preventing heart disease is important for a wide array of reasons, Dr. Kavinsky noted, and one of the reasons is cognitive deterioration.

He said this study helps identify that “even dysfunction of the upper chambers of the heart contributes to the evolution of dementia.”

The study amplifies the need to shift to prevention with heart disease in general, and more specifically in atrial dysfunction, Dr. Kavinsky said, noting a lot of atrial dysfunction is mediated by underlying hypertension and coronary disease.

Researchers evaluated cognitive decline in all participants with a comprehensive array of neuropsychological tests and interviewed some of the patients.

“A diagnosis of dementia was generated based on testing results by a computer diagnostic algorithm and then decided upon by an expert based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the criteria outlined by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institutes of Health,” they write.

Dr. Johansen reported funding from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Study coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Kavinsky has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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