Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) showed a significantly higher risk of contracting COVID-19 infection irrespective of comorbidities and other demographic factors.

Major finding: Patients with vs. without AD were more likely to have a diagnosis of COVID-19 (4.2% vs. 2.8%; P < .001) with AD remaining significantly associated with COVID-19 even after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities (odds ratio 1.29; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a case-control cohort, All of Us, including 11,752 patients with AD who were matched with 47,008 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study did not report any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fan R et al. JAAD Int. 2021 (Dec 27). Doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.12.007.

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) showed a significantly higher risk of contracting COVID-19 infection irrespective of comorbidities and other demographic factors.

Major finding: Patients with vs. without AD were more likely to have a diagnosis of COVID-19 (4.2% vs. 2.8%; P < .001) with AD remaining significantly associated with COVID-19 even after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities (odds ratio 1.29; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a case-control cohort, All of Us, including 11,752 patients with AD who were matched with 47,008 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study did not report any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fan R et al. JAAD Int. 2021 (Dec 27). Doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.12.007.

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) showed a significantly higher risk of contracting COVID-19 infection irrespective of comorbidities and other demographic factors.

Major finding: Patients with vs. without AD were more likely to have a diagnosis of COVID-19 (4.2% vs. 2.8%; P < .001) with AD remaining significantly associated with COVID-19 even after adjusting for demographic factors and comorbidities (odds ratio 1.29; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a case-control cohort, All of Us, including 11,752 patients with AD who were matched with 47,008 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study did not report any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fan R et al. JAAD Int. 2021 (Dec 27). Doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.12.007.

Key clinical point: Some patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who failed to achieve ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 and Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 (IGA 0/1) after initial 16-week treatment with dupilumab seemed to benefit from continued long-term treatment.

Major finding: Among patients with a suboptimal 16-week response to dupilumab, 91% achieved EASI-75 by week 100 with 49% of patients receiving initial dupilumab once weekly and 45% on every 2 weeks achieving IGA 0/1 at week 100.

Study details: Findings are a post hoc analysis of 100-week data from dupilumab open-label extension study including 391 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who received 300 mg dupilumab weekly after showing suboptimal response with weekly or every 2 weeks dosing in the parent study.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Some of the authors declared serving as a consultants, speakers, and investigators or receiving funding and honoraria from various sources. Some of the authors declared being present/former employees or shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals or Sanofi Genzyme.

Source: Armstrong A et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 (Dec 13). Doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00643-4.

Key clinical point: Some patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who failed to achieve ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 and Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 (IGA 0/1) after initial 16-week treatment with dupilumab seemed to benefit from continued long-term treatment.

Major finding: Among patients with a suboptimal 16-week response to dupilumab, 91% achieved EASI-75 by week 100 with 49% of patients receiving initial dupilumab once weekly and 45% on every 2 weeks achieving IGA 0/1 at week 100.

Study details: Findings are a post hoc analysis of 100-week data from dupilumab open-label extension study including 391 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who received 300 mg dupilumab weekly after showing suboptimal response with weekly or every 2 weeks dosing in the parent study.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Some of the authors declared serving as a consultants, speakers, and investigators or receiving funding and honoraria from various sources. Some of the authors declared being present/former employees or shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals or Sanofi Genzyme.

Source: Armstrong A et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 (Dec 13). Doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00643-4.

Key clinical point: Some patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who failed to achieve ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 and Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 (IGA 0/1) after initial 16-week treatment with dupilumab seemed to benefit from continued long-term treatment.

Major finding: Among patients with a suboptimal 16-week response to dupilumab, 91% achieved EASI-75 by week 100 with 49% of patients receiving initial dupilumab once weekly and 45% on every 2 weeks achieving IGA 0/1 at week 100.

Study details: Findings are a post hoc analysis of 100-week data from dupilumab open-label extension study including 391 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who received 300 mg dupilumab weekly after showing suboptimal response with weekly or every 2 weeks dosing in the parent study.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Some of the authors declared serving as a consultants, speakers, and investigators or receiving funding and honoraria from various sources. Some of the authors declared being present/former employees or shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals or Sanofi Genzyme.

Source: Armstrong A et al. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 (Dec 13). Doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00643-4.

Key clinical point: The combination of upadacitinib and topical corticosteroids (TCS) showed a favorable safety profile in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were reported by 56% and 64% of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib and 30 mg upadacitinib, respectively, vs. 42% of patients receiving placebo. Mild/moderate acne was more frequent with 15 mg upadacitinib (13.2%) and 30 mg (19.8%) vs. placebo (5.6%), but did not lead to treatment discontinuation. No new safety risks or deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are a 24-week interim safety analysis of an ongoing phase 3 Rising Up trial including 272 patients with moderate-to-severe AD with an inadequate response to systemic treatment who were randomly assigned to 15 mg upadacitinib, 30 mg upadacitinib, or placebo, all in combination with TCS.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. The authors declared serving as speakers, consultants, and investigators or receiving honoraria, grants, funding, and scholarship from various sources. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of AbbVie.

Source: Katoh N et al. JAAD Int. 2021 (Dec 19). Doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.11.001.

Key clinical point: The combination of upadacitinib and topical corticosteroids (TCS) showed a favorable safety profile in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were reported by 56% and 64% of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib and 30 mg upadacitinib, respectively, vs. 42% of patients receiving placebo. Mild/moderate acne was more frequent with 15 mg upadacitinib (13.2%) and 30 mg (19.8%) vs. placebo (5.6%), but did not lead to treatment discontinuation. No new safety risks or deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are a 24-week interim safety analysis of an ongoing phase 3 Rising Up trial including 272 patients with moderate-to-severe AD with an inadequate response to systemic treatment who were randomly assigned to 15 mg upadacitinib, 30 mg upadacitinib, or placebo, all in combination with TCS.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. The authors declared serving as speakers, consultants, and investigators or receiving honoraria, grants, funding, and scholarship from various sources. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of AbbVie.

Source: Katoh N et al. JAAD Int. 2021 (Dec 19). Doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.11.001.

Key clinical point: The combination of upadacitinib and topical corticosteroids (TCS) showed a favorable safety profile in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were reported by 56% and 64% of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib and 30 mg upadacitinib, respectively, vs. 42% of patients receiving placebo. Mild/moderate acne was more frequent with 15 mg upadacitinib (13.2%) and 30 mg (19.8%) vs. placebo (5.6%), but did not lead to treatment discontinuation. No new safety risks or deaths were reported.

Study details: Findings are a 24-week interim safety analysis of an ongoing phase 3 Rising Up trial including 272 patients with moderate-to-severe AD with an inadequate response to systemic treatment who were randomly assigned to 15 mg upadacitinib, 30 mg upadacitinib, or placebo, all in combination with TCS.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. The authors declared serving as speakers, consultants, and investigators or receiving honoraria, grants, funding, and scholarship from various sources. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of AbbVie.

Source: Katoh N et al. JAAD Int. 2021 (Dec 19). Doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.11.001.

Key clinical point: Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) had higher β-glucocerebrosidase (GBA) activity and glucosyl cholesterol (GlcChol) levels than healthy controls, depicting the role of inflammation in disturbed lipid processing; however, the levels decreased after treatment with topical corticosteroids (TCS).

Major finding: Baseline GBA activity (P < .0001) and GlcChol (P < .01) levels were higher in children with AD vs. healthy controls but decreased after a 6-week TCS therapy (both P < .01). GBA activity and GlcChol levels correlated with the levels of interleukin (IL)-1α and IL-18 (P < .01 for all), and GlcChol levels were associated with disease severity (P < .05).

Study details: The study cohort was derived from a larger study involving 100 children with AD, of which 22 children with AD were matched with 17 healthy controls and 19 children with AD with 9 healthy controls for analyzing GBA activity and GlcChol levels, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Children's Research Centre, Dublin, Ireland. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kezic S et al. Br J Dermatol. 2022 (Jan 7). Doi: 10.1111/bjd.20979.

Key clinical point: Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) had higher β-glucocerebrosidase (GBA) activity and glucosyl cholesterol (GlcChol) levels than healthy controls, depicting the role of inflammation in disturbed lipid processing; however, the levels decreased after treatment with topical corticosteroids (TCS).

Major finding: Baseline GBA activity (P < .0001) and GlcChol (P < .01) levels were higher in children with AD vs. healthy controls but decreased after a 6-week TCS therapy (both P < .01). GBA activity and GlcChol levels correlated with the levels of interleukin (IL)-1α and IL-18 (P < .01 for all), and GlcChol levels were associated with disease severity (P < .05).

Study details: The study cohort was derived from a larger study involving 100 children with AD, of which 22 children with AD were matched with 17 healthy controls and 19 children with AD with 9 healthy controls for analyzing GBA activity and GlcChol levels, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Children's Research Centre, Dublin, Ireland. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kezic S et al. Br J Dermatol. 2022 (Jan 7). Doi: 10.1111/bjd.20979.

Key clinical point: Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) had higher β-glucocerebrosidase (GBA) activity and glucosyl cholesterol (GlcChol) levels than healthy controls, depicting the role of inflammation in disturbed lipid processing; however, the levels decreased after treatment with topical corticosteroids (TCS).

Major finding: Baseline GBA activity (P < .0001) and GlcChol (P < .01) levels were higher in children with AD vs. healthy controls but decreased after a 6-week TCS therapy (both P < .01). GBA activity and GlcChol levels correlated with the levels of interleukin (IL)-1α and IL-18 (P < .01 for all), and GlcChol levels were associated with disease severity (P < .05).

Study details: The study cohort was derived from a larger study involving 100 children with AD, of which 22 children with AD were matched with 17 healthy controls and 19 children with AD with 9 healthy controls for analyzing GBA activity and GlcChol levels, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Children's Research Centre, Dublin, Ireland. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kezic S et al. Br J Dermatol. 2022 (Jan 7). Doi: 10.1111/bjd.20979.

Key clinical point: Young adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) did not have lower bone mineral density (BMD) compared with healthy controls; however, early onset, longer duration of AD, and lower body mass index (BMI) increased the risk for low BMD.

Major finding: The prevalence rate of low BMD (z-score) was similar in patients with vs. without AD in both men (P = .56) and women (P = .40), with early onset of AD, longer disease duration (both P < .001), and lower BMI (P < .05) being significant risk factors for low BMD in patients with AD.

Study details: Findings are from a case-control cohort including 311 patients with AD who were matched with 8,972 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim S et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11:24228 (Dec 20). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03630-z.

Key clinical point: Young adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) did not have lower bone mineral density (BMD) compared with healthy controls; however, early onset, longer duration of AD, and lower body mass index (BMI) increased the risk for low BMD.

Major finding: The prevalence rate of low BMD (z-score) was similar in patients with vs. without AD in both men (P = .56) and women (P = .40), with early onset of AD, longer disease duration (both P < .001), and lower BMI (P < .05) being significant risk factors for low BMD in patients with AD.

Study details: Findings are from a case-control cohort including 311 patients with AD who were matched with 8,972 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim S et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11:24228 (Dec 20). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03630-z.

Key clinical point: Young adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) did not have lower bone mineral density (BMD) compared with healthy controls; however, early onset, longer duration of AD, and lower body mass index (BMI) increased the risk for low BMD.

Major finding: The prevalence rate of low BMD (z-score) was similar in patients with vs. without AD in both men (P = .56) and women (P = .40), with early onset of AD, longer disease duration (both P < .001), and lower BMI (P < .05) being significant risk factors for low BMD in patients with AD.

Study details: Findings are from a case-control cohort including 311 patients with AD who were matched with 8,972 healthy controls.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim S et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11:24228 (Dec 20). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03630-z.

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who received dupilumab therapy experienced rapid and sustained disease control for up to 12 months after therapy initiation.

Major finding: The mean AD Control Tool score reduced from 15.8 at baseline to 6.4 and 4.4 at months 1 and 12, respectively (both P < .001). Furthermore, at month 1, with the use of concomitant AD therapies, flares and skin symptoms, such as skin pain/soreness, hot/burning feeling, and sensitivity to touch, were reduced and health-related quality of life improved with effects sustained until month 12 (all P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, longitudinal RELIEVE-AD study including 699 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who initiated treatment with dupilumab and were followed up for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. The authors declared serving as consultants, advisory board members, and speakers or receiving honoraria and funding from several sources. Some of the authors reported being employees or shareholders of Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and others.

Source: Strober B et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4778.

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who received dupilumab therapy experienced rapid and sustained disease control for up to 12 months after therapy initiation.

Major finding: The mean AD Control Tool score reduced from 15.8 at baseline to 6.4 and 4.4 at months 1 and 12, respectively (both P < .001). Furthermore, at month 1, with the use of concomitant AD therapies, flares and skin symptoms, such as skin pain/soreness, hot/burning feeling, and sensitivity to touch, were reduced and health-related quality of life improved with effects sustained until month 12 (all P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, longitudinal RELIEVE-AD study including 699 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who initiated treatment with dupilumab and were followed up for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. The authors declared serving as consultants, advisory board members, and speakers or receiving honoraria and funding from several sources. Some of the authors reported being employees or shareholders of Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and others.

Source: Strober B et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4778.

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who received dupilumab therapy experienced rapid and sustained disease control for up to 12 months after therapy initiation.

Major finding: The mean AD Control Tool score reduced from 15.8 at baseline to 6.4 and 4.4 at months 1 and 12, respectively (both P < .001). Furthermore, at month 1, with the use of concomitant AD therapies, flares and skin symptoms, such as skin pain/soreness, hot/burning feeling, and sensitivity to touch, were reduced and health-related quality of life improved with effects sustained until month 12 (all P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, longitudinal RELIEVE-AD study including 699 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who initiated treatment with dupilumab and were followed up for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. The authors declared serving as consultants, advisory board members, and speakers or receiving honoraria and funding from several sources. Some of the authors reported being employees or shareholders of Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and others.

Source: Strober B et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.4778.

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

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

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

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

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Researchers surprised by findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s driving the trend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public health implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s the big take-home message?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Researchers surprised by findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s driving the trend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public health implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s the big take-home message?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Researchers surprised by findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s driving the trend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public health implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s the big take-home message?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Customers were also asked to complete the enclosed confirmation form and email to [email protected].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Customers were also asked to complete the enclosed confirmation form and email to [email protected].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Customers were also asked to complete the enclosed confirmation form and email to [email protected].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measuring the effect on ‘chemo brain’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does it work?

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

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

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

Benefits reported beyond breast cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measuring the effect on ‘chemo brain’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does it work?

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

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

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

Benefits reported beyond breast cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measuring the effect on ‘chemo brain’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does it work?

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

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

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

Benefits reported beyond breast cancer

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

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

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

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