MDedge Dermatology

Children born to mothers who take antibiotics during pregnancy may be at an increased risk of developing pediatric asthma and other diseases involved in the atopic march, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“Antibiotic use during pregnancy is significantly associated with the development of asthma in children. Additionally prenatal antibiotic exposure is also associated with disorders present in the atopic march including atopic sensitization, dermatitis/eczema, food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and wheeze,” lead study author Alissa Cait, PhD, of Malaghan Institute of Medical Research in Wellington, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Allergy.

“Antibiotics account for 80% of prescribed medications during pregnancy, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of pregnant women receive at least one course of an antibiotic during this time period,” they add.

The researchers evaluated prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk for childhood wheeze or asthma, as well as for diseases associated with the atopic march, by searching standard medical databases for controlled trials in English, German, French, Dutch, or Arabic involving the use of any antibiotic at any time during pregnancy and for atopic disease incidence in children with asthma or wheeze as primary outcome. They excluded reviews, preclinical data, and descriptive studies.

From the 6,060 citations the search returned, 11 prospective and 16 retrospective studies met the authors’ selection criteria. For each study, they evaluated risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and they rated certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol.

The studies, published between 2002 and 2020, were conducted in Europe, North America, Asia, and South America. Exposure to antibiotics during the prenatal period was assessed through unsupervised questionnaires, interviews by medical professionals, or extraction from official medical databases.

The results showed that:

• Antibiotic use during pregnancy was linked with increased relative risk of developing wheeze (relative risk, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.94) or asthma (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.34) during childhood.
• Antibiotic use during pregnancy also increased a child’s risk for eczema or dermatitis (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53) and allergic rhinitis (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25).
• Food allergy increased in one study (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.95).

Quality of studies

“These results have importance for antibiotic stewardship throughout the prenatal period,” the authors write. However, due to issues including high heterogeneity, publication bias, and lack of population numbers in some studies, the overall quality of the evidence presented in the studies was low. Other limitations include mainly White and European study populations, underpowered studies, and study protocol inconsistencies.

“Though there is evidence that antibiotic treatment during pregnancy is a driver of the atopic march, due to a large heterogeneity between studies more research is needed to draw firm conclusions on this matter,” the authors add. “Future studies should employ and report more direct and objective measurement methods rather than self-reported questionnaires.”

Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, a neonatologist and clinical researcher in perinatal infectious diseases and neonatal antimicrobial resistance and stewardship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that the study was well done.

He noted, though, that “although the study reports an association, it cannot prove causation. The relationship between prenatal antibiotics and childhood allergic disorders is likely multifactorial and quite complex.”

He joins the authors in recommending further related research. “Due to the variation in how exposures and outcomes were defined across the studies, more rigorous research will be needed in this area.”

Despite the study’s limitations, “given that some studies have found associations between prenatal antibiotic exposure and childhood atopic and allergic disorders, including asthma, while other studies have not, this systematic review and meta-analysis asks an important question,” Dr. Flannery, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“Investigators found a strong association between prenatal antibiotic exposure and risk of childhood asthma and other disorders,” he said. “This finding supports efforts to safely reduce antibiotic use during pregnancy.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The authors and Dr. Flannery have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children born to mothers who take antibiotics during pregnancy may be at an increased risk of developing pediatric asthma and other diseases involved in the atopic march, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“Antibiotic use during pregnancy is significantly associated with the development of asthma in children. Additionally prenatal antibiotic exposure is also associated with disorders present in the atopic march including atopic sensitization, dermatitis/eczema, food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and wheeze,” lead study author Alissa Cait, PhD, of Malaghan Institute of Medical Research in Wellington, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Allergy.

“Antibiotics account for 80% of prescribed medications during pregnancy, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of pregnant women receive at least one course of an antibiotic during this time period,” they add.

The researchers evaluated prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk for childhood wheeze or asthma, as well as for diseases associated with the atopic march, by searching standard medical databases for controlled trials in English, German, French, Dutch, or Arabic involving the use of any antibiotic at any time during pregnancy and for atopic disease incidence in children with asthma or wheeze as primary outcome. They excluded reviews, preclinical data, and descriptive studies.

From the 6,060 citations the search returned, 11 prospective and 16 retrospective studies met the authors’ selection criteria. For each study, they evaluated risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and they rated certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol.

The studies, published between 2002 and 2020, were conducted in Europe, North America, Asia, and South America. Exposure to antibiotics during the prenatal period was assessed through unsupervised questionnaires, interviews by medical professionals, or extraction from official medical databases.

The results showed that:

• Antibiotic use during pregnancy was linked with increased relative risk of developing wheeze (relative risk, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.94) or asthma (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.34) during childhood.
• Antibiotic use during pregnancy also increased a child’s risk for eczema or dermatitis (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53) and allergic rhinitis (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25).
• Food allergy increased in one study (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.95).

Quality of studies

“These results have importance for antibiotic stewardship throughout the prenatal period,” the authors write. However, due to issues including high heterogeneity, publication bias, and lack of population numbers in some studies, the overall quality of the evidence presented in the studies was low. Other limitations include mainly White and European study populations, underpowered studies, and study protocol inconsistencies.

“Though there is evidence that antibiotic treatment during pregnancy is a driver of the atopic march, due to a large heterogeneity between studies more research is needed to draw firm conclusions on this matter,” the authors add. “Future studies should employ and report more direct and objective measurement methods rather than self-reported questionnaires.”

Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, a neonatologist and clinical researcher in perinatal infectious diseases and neonatal antimicrobial resistance and stewardship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that the study was well done.

He noted, though, that “although the study reports an association, it cannot prove causation. The relationship between prenatal antibiotics and childhood allergic disorders is likely multifactorial and quite complex.”

He joins the authors in recommending further related research. “Due to the variation in how exposures and outcomes were defined across the studies, more rigorous research will be needed in this area.”

Despite the study’s limitations, “given that some studies have found associations between prenatal antibiotic exposure and childhood atopic and allergic disorders, including asthma, while other studies have not, this systematic review and meta-analysis asks an important question,” Dr. Flannery, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“Investigators found a strong association between prenatal antibiotic exposure and risk of childhood asthma and other disorders,” he said. “This finding supports efforts to safely reduce antibiotic use during pregnancy.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The authors and Dr. Flannery have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children born to mothers who take antibiotics during pregnancy may be at an increased risk of developing pediatric asthma and other diseases involved in the atopic march, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“Antibiotic use during pregnancy is significantly associated with the development of asthma in children. Additionally prenatal antibiotic exposure is also associated with disorders present in the atopic march including atopic sensitization, dermatitis/eczema, food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and wheeze,” lead study author Alissa Cait, PhD, of Malaghan Institute of Medical Research in Wellington, New Zealand, and colleagues write in Allergy.

“Antibiotics account for 80% of prescribed medications during pregnancy, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of pregnant women receive at least one course of an antibiotic during this time period,” they add.

The researchers evaluated prenatal antibiotic exposure and the risk for childhood wheeze or asthma, as well as for diseases associated with the atopic march, by searching standard medical databases for controlled trials in English, German, French, Dutch, or Arabic involving the use of any antibiotic at any time during pregnancy and for atopic disease incidence in children with asthma or wheeze as primary outcome. They excluded reviews, preclinical data, and descriptive studies.

From the 6,060 citations the search returned, 11 prospective and 16 retrospective studies met the authors’ selection criteria. For each study, they evaluated risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and they rated certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) protocol.

The studies, published between 2002 and 2020, were conducted in Europe, North America, Asia, and South America. Exposure to antibiotics during the prenatal period was assessed through unsupervised questionnaires, interviews by medical professionals, or extraction from official medical databases.

The results showed that:

• Antibiotic use during pregnancy was linked with increased relative risk of developing wheeze (relative risk, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.94) or asthma (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.34) during childhood.
• Antibiotic use during pregnancy also increased a child’s risk for eczema or dermatitis (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53) and allergic rhinitis (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25).
• Food allergy increased in one study (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.95).

Quality of studies

“These results have importance for antibiotic stewardship throughout the prenatal period,” the authors write. However, due to issues including high heterogeneity, publication bias, and lack of population numbers in some studies, the overall quality of the evidence presented in the studies was low. Other limitations include mainly White and European study populations, underpowered studies, and study protocol inconsistencies.

“Though there is evidence that antibiotic treatment during pregnancy is a driver of the atopic march, due to a large heterogeneity between studies more research is needed to draw firm conclusions on this matter,” the authors add. “Future studies should employ and report more direct and objective measurement methods rather than self-reported questionnaires.”

Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, a neonatologist and clinical researcher in perinatal infectious diseases and neonatal antimicrobial resistance and stewardship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that the study was well done.

He noted, though, that “although the study reports an association, it cannot prove causation. The relationship between prenatal antibiotics and childhood allergic disorders is likely multifactorial and quite complex.”

He joins the authors in recommending further related research. “Due to the variation in how exposures and outcomes were defined across the studies, more rigorous research will be needed in this area.”

Despite the study’s limitations, “given that some studies have found associations between prenatal antibiotic exposure and childhood atopic and allergic disorders, including asthma, while other studies have not, this systematic review and meta-analysis asks an important question,” Dr. Flannery, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“Investigators found a strong association between prenatal antibiotic exposure and risk of childhood asthma and other disorders,” he said. “This finding supports efforts to safely reduce antibiotic use during pregnancy.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The authors and Dr. Flannery have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

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

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

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

Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.

The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.

For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.

However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.

Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.

“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”

Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
 

LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts

A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.

In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.

Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.

Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.

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

Chemotherapy, now streaming at just $15.99 a month!

It’s a lazy Sunday and you flip on Netflix, looking for something new to watch. There’s an almost-overwhelming number of shows out there, but right at the top of the recommended list is something that strikes your fancy right away. The algorithm behind the scenes is doing its job well, winnowing the universe of content right down to the few things you’ll find relevant, based on what you’ve watched and liked in the past.

rawpixel

Now, the almighty content algorithm is coming for something a little more useful than binge watching obscure 80s sitcoms: cancer treatment.

By plugging the fully sequenced genomes of nearly 10,000 patients with 33 different types of cancer into an algorithm powered by the same sort of artificial intelligence used by Netflix, researchers from London and San Diego found 21 common faults in the chromosomes of tumors, which they called copy number signatures. While cancer is a complex disease, when faults occur in those copy number signatures, the results were similar across the board. If X genetic defect occurs within a tumor, Y result will happen, even across cancer types. For example, tumors whose chromosomes had shattered and reformed had by far the worst disease outcomes.

The eventual hope is that, just as Netflix can predict what you’ll want to watch based on what you’ve already seen, oncologists will be able to predict the course of a cancer, based on the tumor’s early genetic traits, and get ahead of future genetic degradation to prevent the worst outcomes. A sort of “Oh, your tumor has enjoyed The Office. Might we suggest a treatment of 30 Rock” situation. Further research will be required to determine whether or not the cancer algorithm can get us part 2 of “Stranger Things 4” a week early.
 

Pay criminals, cut crime?

What is the best method for punishing those who commit wrongdoing? Fines? Jail time? Actually, no. A recent study says that financial compensation works best.

In other words, pay them for their actions. Really.

wakila/Getty Images

Psychologist Tage S. Rai, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management, found that people who hurt others or commit crimes are actually doing it because they think it’s the right thing to do. The results of this study say play at the angle of their morality. When that’s compromised, the offender is less likely to do it again.

Four different experiments were conducted using an online economics game with nearly 1,500 participants. Dr. Rai found that providing a monetary bonus for inflicting a punishment on a third party within the game cut the participants’ willingness to do it again by 50%.

“People punish others to signal their own goodness and receiving compensation might make it seem as though they’re driven by greed rather than justice,” he said.

The big deterrent, though, was negative judgment from peers. People in the study were even more hesitant to inflict harm and gain a profit if they thought they were going to be judged for it.

So maybe the answer to cutting crime isn’t as simple as slapping on a fine. It’s slapping on shame and paying them for it.
 

A conspiracy of chronobiologic proportions

The Golden State Warriors just won the NBA championship – that much is true – but we’ve got some news that you didn’t get from ESPN. The kind of news that their “partners” from the NBA didn’t want them to report. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, this one has some science behind it.

PxHere

In this case, science in the form of a study published in Frontiers in Physiology says that jet lag had a greater effect on the Boston Celtics than it did on the Warriors.

“Eastward travel – where the destination time is later than the origin time – requires the athlete to shorten their day (known as a phase advance). During phase advance, athletes often struggle to fall asleep at an earlier bedtime, leading to sleep loss and, consequently, potential impaired physiological performance and motivation the next day,” senior author Elise Facer-Childs, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, said in written statement.

Dr. Facer-Childs and associates took a very close look at 10 seasons’ worth of NBA games – 11,481 games, to be exact – and found “that eastward (but not westward) jet lag was associated with impaired performance for home (but not away) teams.” The existence of a pro-Western bias against teams that traveled eastward for their home games was clear:

• The chance of winning for eastern teams was reduced by 6.0%.
• They grabbed 1.3 fewer rebounds per game.
• Their field goal percentage was 1.2% lower.

And here’s the final nail in the conspiracy coffin: The NBA knew about the jet lag effect and changed the schedule of the finals in 2014 in a way that makes it worse. Before that, the higher-seeded team got two home games, then the lower-seeded team had three at home, followed by two more at the home of the higher seed. Now it’s a 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement that leads to more travel and, of course, more jet lag.

The study was published during the championship series, so the investigators suggested that the Celtics “might benefit from chronobiology-informed strategies designed to mitigate eastward jet lag symptomatology.”

So there you have it, sports fans/conspiracy theorists: You can’t chase Steph Curry around the court for 48 minutes without the right chronobiology-informed strategy. Everyone knows that.
 

Being hungry can alter your ‘type’

Fasting and being hungry can be a dangerous mix for becoming “hangry” and irritable, but did you know being hungry can also affect your attraction to other people?

©stevanovicigor/thinkstockphotos.com

Evidence has shown that being hungry can affect important things such as decision-making, memory, cognition, and function. It might affect decision-making in the sense that those six tacos at Taco Bell might win out over grilled chicken breast and veggies at home, but can hunger make you think that the person you just swiped right on isn’t really your type after all?

We’ll leave that up to Valentina Cazzato of Liverpool (England) John Moores University and associates, whose study involved 44 people, of whom 21 were women in their early 20s. The participants were shown computer-generated images of men and women of different sizes. The same background was used for each picture and all the expressions of the models were neutral. Participants were asked to rate each image on how much they liked it. One study was done on participants who had been fasting for 12 hours, and the second was done on those who had just eaten something.

The subjects generally preferred slim models over more rounded ones, but not after fasting. When they were hungry, they found the round human bodies and faces more attractive. So, yes, it’s definitely possible that hunger can alter your attraction to others.

“Future work might seek to elucidate the relationship between physiological states of hunger and shifts in appreciation of the human bodies and whether this relationship might be mediated by individual traits associated with to beholder’s body adiposity,” said researchers.

Chemotherapy, now streaming at just $15.99 a month!

It’s a lazy Sunday and you flip on Netflix, looking for something new to watch. There’s an almost-overwhelming number of shows out there, but right at the top of the recommended list is something that strikes your fancy right away. The algorithm behind the scenes is doing its job well, winnowing the universe of content right down to the few things you’ll find relevant, based on what you’ve watched and liked in the past.

rawpixel

Now, the almighty content algorithm is coming for something a little more useful than binge watching obscure 80s sitcoms: cancer treatment.

By plugging the fully sequenced genomes of nearly 10,000 patients with 33 different types of cancer into an algorithm powered by the same sort of artificial intelligence used by Netflix, researchers from London and San Diego found 21 common faults in the chromosomes of tumors, which they called copy number signatures. While cancer is a complex disease, when faults occur in those copy number signatures, the results were similar across the board. If X genetic defect occurs within a tumor, Y result will happen, even across cancer types. For example, tumors whose chromosomes had shattered and reformed had by far the worst disease outcomes.

The eventual hope is that, just as Netflix can predict what you’ll want to watch based on what you’ve already seen, oncologists will be able to predict the course of a cancer, based on the tumor’s early genetic traits, and get ahead of future genetic degradation to prevent the worst outcomes. A sort of “Oh, your tumor has enjoyed The Office. Might we suggest a treatment of 30 Rock” situation. Further research will be required to determine whether or not the cancer algorithm can get us part 2 of “Stranger Things 4” a week early.
 

Pay criminals, cut crime?

What is the best method for punishing those who commit wrongdoing? Fines? Jail time? Actually, no. A recent study says that financial compensation works best.

In other words, pay them for their actions. Really.

wakila/Getty Images

Psychologist Tage S. Rai, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management, found that people who hurt others or commit crimes are actually doing it because they think it’s the right thing to do. The results of this study say play at the angle of their morality. When that’s compromised, the offender is less likely to do it again.

Four different experiments were conducted using an online economics game with nearly 1,500 participants. Dr. Rai found that providing a monetary bonus for inflicting a punishment on a third party within the game cut the participants’ willingness to do it again by 50%.

“People punish others to signal their own goodness and receiving compensation might make it seem as though they’re driven by greed rather than justice,” he said.

The big deterrent, though, was negative judgment from peers. People in the study were even more hesitant to inflict harm and gain a profit if they thought they were going to be judged for it.

So maybe the answer to cutting crime isn’t as simple as slapping on a fine. It’s slapping on shame and paying them for it.
 

A conspiracy of chronobiologic proportions

The Golden State Warriors just won the NBA championship – that much is true – but we’ve got some news that you didn’t get from ESPN. The kind of news that their “partners” from the NBA didn’t want them to report. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, this one has some science behind it.

PxHere

In this case, science in the form of a study published in Frontiers in Physiology says that jet lag had a greater effect on the Boston Celtics than it did on the Warriors.

“Eastward travel – where the destination time is later than the origin time – requires the athlete to shorten their day (known as a phase advance). During phase advance, athletes often struggle to fall asleep at an earlier bedtime, leading to sleep loss and, consequently, potential impaired physiological performance and motivation the next day,” senior author Elise Facer-Childs, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, said in written statement.

Dr. Facer-Childs and associates took a very close look at 10 seasons’ worth of NBA games – 11,481 games, to be exact – and found “that eastward (but not westward) jet lag was associated with impaired performance for home (but not away) teams.” The existence of a pro-Western bias against teams that traveled eastward for their home games was clear:

• The chance of winning for eastern teams was reduced by 6.0%.
• They grabbed 1.3 fewer rebounds per game.
• Their field goal percentage was 1.2% lower.

And here’s the final nail in the conspiracy coffin: The NBA knew about the jet lag effect and changed the schedule of the finals in 2014 in a way that makes it worse. Before that, the higher-seeded team got two home games, then the lower-seeded team had three at home, followed by two more at the home of the higher seed. Now it’s a 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement that leads to more travel and, of course, more jet lag.

The study was published during the championship series, so the investigators suggested that the Celtics “might benefit from chronobiology-informed strategies designed to mitigate eastward jet lag symptomatology.”

So there you have it, sports fans/conspiracy theorists: You can’t chase Steph Curry around the court for 48 minutes without the right chronobiology-informed strategy. Everyone knows that.
 

Being hungry can alter your ‘type’

Fasting and being hungry can be a dangerous mix for becoming “hangry” and irritable, but did you know being hungry can also affect your attraction to other people?

©stevanovicigor/thinkstockphotos.com

Evidence has shown that being hungry can affect important things such as decision-making, memory, cognition, and function. It might affect decision-making in the sense that those six tacos at Taco Bell might win out over grilled chicken breast and veggies at home, but can hunger make you think that the person you just swiped right on isn’t really your type after all?

We’ll leave that up to Valentina Cazzato of Liverpool (England) John Moores University and associates, whose study involved 44 people, of whom 21 were women in their early 20s. The participants were shown computer-generated images of men and women of different sizes. The same background was used for each picture and all the expressions of the models were neutral. Participants were asked to rate each image on how much they liked it. One study was done on participants who had been fasting for 12 hours, and the second was done on those who had just eaten something.

The subjects generally preferred slim models over more rounded ones, but not after fasting. When they were hungry, they found the round human bodies and faces more attractive. So, yes, it’s definitely possible that hunger can alter your attraction to others.

“Future work might seek to elucidate the relationship between physiological states of hunger and shifts in appreciation of the human bodies and whether this relationship might be mediated by individual traits associated with to beholder’s body adiposity,” said researchers.

Chemotherapy, now streaming at just $15.99 a month!

It’s a lazy Sunday and you flip on Netflix, looking for something new to watch. There’s an almost-overwhelming number of shows out there, but right at the top of the recommended list is something that strikes your fancy right away. The algorithm behind the scenes is doing its job well, winnowing the universe of content right down to the few things you’ll find relevant, based on what you’ve watched and liked in the past.

rawpixel

Now, the almighty content algorithm is coming for something a little more useful than binge watching obscure 80s sitcoms: cancer treatment.

By plugging the fully sequenced genomes of nearly 10,000 patients with 33 different types of cancer into an algorithm powered by the same sort of artificial intelligence used by Netflix, researchers from London and San Diego found 21 common faults in the chromosomes of tumors, which they called copy number signatures. While cancer is a complex disease, when faults occur in those copy number signatures, the results were similar across the board. If X genetic defect occurs within a tumor, Y result will happen, even across cancer types. For example, tumors whose chromosomes had shattered and reformed had by far the worst disease outcomes.

The eventual hope is that, just as Netflix can predict what you’ll want to watch based on what you’ve already seen, oncologists will be able to predict the course of a cancer, based on the tumor’s early genetic traits, and get ahead of future genetic degradation to prevent the worst outcomes. A sort of “Oh, your tumor has enjoyed The Office. Might we suggest a treatment of 30 Rock” situation. Further research will be required to determine whether or not the cancer algorithm can get us part 2 of “Stranger Things 4” a week early.
 

Pay criminals, cut crime?

What is the best method for punishing those who commit wrongdoing? Fines? Jail time? Actually, no. A recent study says that financial compensation works best.

In other words, pay them for their actions. Really.

wakila/Getty Images

Psychologist Tage S. Rai, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management, found that people who hurt others or commit crimes are actually doing it because they think it’s the right thing to do. The results of this study say play at the angle of their morality. When that’s compromised, the offender is less likely to do it again.

Four different experiments were conducted using an online economics game with nearly 1,500 participants. Dr. Rai found that providing a monetary bonus for inflicting a punishment on a third party within the game cut the participants’ willingness to do it again by 50%.

“People punish others to signal their own goodness and receiving compensation might make it seem as though they’re driven by greed rather than justice,” he said.

The big deterrent, though, was negative judgment from peers. People in the study were even more hesitant to inflict harm and gain a profit if they thought they were going to be judged for it.

So maybe the answer to cutting crime isn’t as simple as slapping on a fine. It’s slapping on shame and paying them for it.
 

A conspiracy of chronobiologic proportions

The Golden State Warriors just won the NBA championship – that much is true – but we’ve got some news that you didn’t get from ESPN. The kind of news that their “partners” from the NBA didn’t want them to report. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, this one has some science behind it.

PxHere

In this case, science in the form of a study published in Frontiers in Physiology says that jet lag had a greater effect on the Boston Celtics than it did on the Warriors.

“Eastward travel – where the destination time is later than the origin time – requires the athlete to shorten their day (known as a phase advance). During phase advance, athletes often struggle to fall asleep at an earlier bedtime, leading to sleep loss and, consequently, potential impaired physiological performance and motivation the next day,” senior author Elise Facer-Childs, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, said in written statement.

Dr. Facer-Childs and associates took a very close look at 10 seasons’ worth of NBA games – 11,481 games, to be exact – and found “that eastward (but not westward) jet lag was associated with impaired performance for home (but not away) teams.” The existence of a pro-Western bias against teams that traveled eastward for their home games was clear:

• The chance of winning for eastern teams was reduced by 6.0%.
• They grabbed 1.3 fewer rebounds per game.
• Their field goal percentage was 1.2% lower.

And here’s the final nail in the conspiracy coffin: The NBA knew about the jet lag effect and changed the schedule of the finals in 2014 in a way that makes it worse. Before that, the higher-seeded team got two home games, then the lower-seeded team had three at home, followed by two more at the home of the higher seed. Now it’s a 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement that leads to more travel and, of course, more jet lag.

The study was published during the championship series, so the investigators suggested that the Celtics “might benefit from chronobiology-informed strategies designed to mitigate eastward jet lag symptomatology.”

So there you have it, sports fans/conspiracy theorists: You can’t chase Steph Curry around the court for 48 minutes without the right chronobiology-informed strategy. Everyone knows that.
 

Being hungry can alter your ‘type’

Fasting and being hungry can be a dangerous mix for becoming “hangry” and irritable, but did you know being hungry can also affect your attraction to other people?

©stevanovicigor/thinkstockphotos.com

Evidence has shown that being hungry can affect important things such as decision-making, memory, cognition, and function. It might affect decision-making in the sense that those six tacos at Taco Bell might win out over grilled chicken breast and veggies at home, but can hunger make you think that the person you just swiped right on isn’t really your type after all?

We’ll leave that up to Valentina Cazzato of Liverpool (England) John Moores University and associates, whose study involved 44 people, of whom 21 were women in their early 20s. The participants were shown computer-generated images of men and women of different sizes. The same background was used for each picture and all the expressions of the models were neutral. Participants were asked to rate each image on how much they liked it. One study was done on participants who had been fasting for 12 hours, and the second was done on those who had just eaten something.

The subjects generally preferred slim models over more rounded ones, but not after fasting. When they were hungry, they found the round human bodies and faces more attractive. So, yes, it’s definitely possible that hunger can alter your attraction to others.

“Future work might seek to elucidate the relationship between physiological states of hunger and shifts in appreciation of the human bodies and whether this relationship might be mediated by individual traits associated with to beholder’s body adiposity,” said researchers.

Key clinical point: The prevalence of keratosis pilaris (KP) was low in Finnish patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with no evidence of KP serving as a predictor of AD severity or its early onset.

Major finding: KP was less frequent in patients with AD (28 with vs. 319 without KP), with no association observed between KP and AD severity based on the Eczema Area and Severity Index at the clinical visit (P = .3232; 95% CI 0.276-0.357) or Rajka Langeland severity score (P = .649; 95% CI 0.569-0.654) and early onset of AD (odds ratio 0.616; 95% CI 0.225-1.690).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional, observational study including 502 patients with AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by University of Helsinki. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Salava A et al. Keratosis pilaris and filaggrin loss-of-function mutations in patients with atopic dermatitis – Results of a Finnish cross-sectional study. J Dermatol. 2022 (May 26). Doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.16477

Key clinical point: The prevalence of keratosis pilaris (KP) was low in Finnish patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with no evidence of KP serving as a predictor of AD severity or its early onset.

Major finding: KP was less frequent in patients with AD (28 with vs. 319 without KP), with no association observed between KP and AD severity based on the Eczema Area and Severity Index at the clinical visit (P = .3232; 95% CI 0.276-0.357) or Rajka Langeland severity score (P = .649; 95% CI 0.569-0.654) and early onset of AD (odds ratio 0.616; 95% CI 0.225-1.690).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional, observational study including 502 patients with AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by University of Helsinki. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Salava A et al. Keratosis pilaris and filaggrin loss-of-function mutations in patients with atopic dermatitis – Results of a Finnish cross-sectional study. J Dermatol. 2022 (May 26). Doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.16477

Key clinical point: The prevalence of keratosis pilaris (KP) was low in Finnish patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with no evidence of KP serving as a predictor of AD severity or its early onset.

Major finding: KP was less frequent in patients with AD (28 with vs. 319 without KP), with no association observed between KP and AD severity based on the Eczema Area and Severity Index at the clinical visit (P = .3232; 95% CI 0.276-0.357) or Rajka Langeland severity score (P = .649; 95% CI 0.569-0.654) and early onset of AD (odds ratio 0.616; 95% CI 0.225-1.690).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional, observational study including 502 patients with AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by University of Helsinki. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Salava A et al. Keratosis pilaris and filaggrin loss-of-function mutations in patients with atopic dermatitis – Results of a Finnish cross-sectional study. J Dermatol. 2022 (May 26). Doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.16477

Key clinical point: A substantial proportion of adults with atopic dermatitis showed contact hypersensitivity to preservatives (PCHS), thus highlighting the need for patch testing in case of worsening skin symptoms because of topical medications or personal care products.

Major finding: The most common preservatives affecting patients with concomitant AD and PCHS were methylisothiazolinone (MI; 83.8%) and 3:1 ratio of methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI (Kathon CG; 36.8%), followed by methyldibromo-glutaronitrile (16.2%), paraben (11.8%), and formaldehyde (7.4%). The majority of patients (79.41%) had one PCHS, whereas 17.65% of patients had two PCHS, with MI and Kathon CG being the most common combination.

Study details: Findings are from a 15-year retrospective study including 723 adults with PCHS and 639 adults with AD, of which 68 patients had concomitant AD and PCHS.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Semmelweis 250+ PhD Excellency Scholarship, Hungary. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Nemeth D et al. Preservative contact hypersensitivity among adult atopic dermatitis patients. Life (Basel). 2022;12(5): 715 (May 11). Doi: 10.3390/life12050715

Key clinical point: A substantial proportion of adults with atopic dermatitis showed contact hypersensitivity to preservatives (PCHS), thus highlighting the need for patch testing in case of worsening skin symptoms because of topical medications or personal care products.

Major finding: The most common preservatives affecting patients with concomitant AD and PCHS were methylisothiazolinone (MI; 83.8%) and 3:1 ratio of methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI (Kathon CG; 36.8%), followed by methyldibromo-glutaronitrile (16.2%), paraben (11.8%), and formaldehyde (7.4%). The majority of patients (79.41%) had one PCHS, whereas 17.65% of patients had two PCHS, with MI and Kathon CG being the most common combination.

Study details: Findings are from a 15-year retrospective study including 723 adults with PCHS and 639 adults with AD, of which 68 patients had concomitant AD and PCHS.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Semmelweis 250+ PhD Excellency Scholarship, Hungary. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Nemeth D et al. Preservative contact hypersensitivity among adult atopic dermatitis patients. Life (Basel). 2022;12(5): 715 (May 11). Doi: 10.3390/life12050715

Key clinical point: A substantial proportion of adults with atopic dermatitis showed contact hypersensitivity to preservatives (PCHS), thus highlighting the need for patch testing in case of worsening skin symptoms because of topical medications or personal care products.

Major finding: The most common preservatives affecting patients with concomitant AD and PCHS were methylisothiazolinone (MI; 83.8%) and 3:1 ratio of methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI (Kathon CG; 36.8%), followed by methyldibromo-glutaronitrile (16.2%), paraben (11.8%), and formaldehyde (7.4%). The majority of patients (79.41%) had one PCHS, whereas 17.65% of patients had two PCHS, with MI and Kathon CG being the most common combination.

Study details: Findings are from a 15-year retrospective study including 723 adults with PCHS and 639 adults with AD, of which 68 patients had concomitant AD and PCHS.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Semmelweis 250+ PhD Excellency Scholarship, Hungary. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Nemeth D et al. Preservative contact hypersensitivity among adult atopic dermatitis patients. Life (Basel). 2022;12(5): 715 (May 11). Doi: 10.3390/life12050715

Key clinical point: In a real-world setting, patients initiating dupilumab reported longstanding moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) with frequent type 2 comorbidities and poor quality of life (QoL).

Major finding: Patients reported experiencing AD for a median duration of 17 years, with 93.3% of patients receiving treatments for AD in the previous year, 49.5% receiving systemic medications, and 65.4% reporting a history of ≥1 type 2 inflammatory comorbidities. Overall, 89.2% of patients had a disease severity score of 3/4 (moderate/severe AD) and a mean dermatology life quality index score of 12.7, indicating a severe effect of AD on QoL.

Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the ongoing longitudinal, prospective, observational PROSE study including 315 adults with physician-diagnosed AD who initiated dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Seven authors declared being employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals or Sanofi, and the other authors reported ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Bagel J et al. Baseline demographics and severity and burden of atopic dermatitis in adult patients initiating dupilumab treatment in a real-world registry (PROSE). Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 (May 20). Doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00742-w

Key clinical point: In a real-world setting, patients initiating dupilumab reported longstanding moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) with frequent type 2 comorbidities and poor quality of life (QoL).

Major finding: Patients reported experiencing AD for a median duration of 17 years, with 93.3% of patients receiving treatments for AD in the previous year, 49.5% receiving systemic medications, and 65.4% reporting a history of ≥1 type 2 inflammatory comorbidities. Overall, 89.2% of patients had a disease severity score of 3/4 (moderate/severe AD) and a mean dermatology life quality index score of 12.7, indicating a severe effect of AD on QoL.

Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the ongoing longitudinal, prospective, observational PROSE study including 315 adults with physician-diagnosed AD who initiated dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Seven authors declared being employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals or Sanofi, and the other authors reported ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Bagel J et al. Baseline demographics and severity and burden of atopic dermatitis in adult patients initiating dupilumab treatment in a real-world registry (PROSE). Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 (May 20). Doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00742-w

Key clinical point: In a real-world setting, patients initiating dupilumab reported longstanding moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) with frequent type 2 comorbidities and poor quality of life (QoL).

Major finding: Patients reported experiencing AD for a median duration of 17 years, with 93.3% of patients receiving treatments for AD in the previous year, 49.5% receiving systemic medications, and 65.4% reporting a history of ≥1 type 2 inflammatory comorbidities. Overall, 89.2% of patients had a disease severity score of 3/4 (moderate/severe AD) and a mean dermatology life quality index score of 12.7, indicating a severe effect of AD on QoL.

Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the ongoing longitudinal, prospective, observational PROSE study including 315 adults with physician-diagnosed AD who initiated dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Seven authors declared being employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals or Sanofi, and the other authors reported ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Bagel J et al. Baseline demographics and severity and burden of atopic dermatitis in adult patients initiating dupilumab treatment in a real-world registry (PROSE). Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 (May 20). Doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00742-w

Key clinical point: Face masks worn during the COVID-19 pandemic increased the quality of life by covering facial eczemas and increased the efficacy of dupilumab therapy by minimizing exposure to allergens and air pollution in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Although the prevalence of facial eczema was similar before and after the COVID-19 pandemic (P = .7618), patients with AD showed improved Dermatology Life Quality Index scores at baseline (13.14 vs. 23.06; P < .0001) along with a higher reduction in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores after 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment (−21.46 vs. −17.83; P = .0001) in the post- vs. pre-pandemic period.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 64 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were assessed for facial involvement at baseline and after 16 weeks of dupilumab therapy in both the pre- and post-pandemic periods.

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

Source: Vanessa M et al. Facial dermatoses and use of protective mask during Covid-19 pandemic: A clinical and psychological evaluation in patients affected by moderate–severe atopic dermatitis under treatment with dupilumab. Dermatol Ther. 2022; e15573 (May 10). Doi: 10.1111/dth.15573

Key clinical point: Face masks worn during the COVID-19 pandemic increased the quality of life by covering facial eczemas and increased the efficacy of dupilumab therapy by minimizing exposure to allergens and air pollution in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Although the prevalence of facial eczema was similar before and after the COVID-19 pandemic (P = .7618), patients with AD showed improved Dermatology Life Quality Index scores at baseline (13.14 vs. 23.06; P < .0001) along with a higher reduction in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores after 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment (−21.46 vs. −17.83; P = .0001) in the post- vs. pre-pandemic period.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 64 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were assessed for facial involvement at baseline and after 16 weeks of dupilumab therapy in both the pre- and post-pandemic periods.

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

Source: Vanessa M et al. Facial dermatoses and use of protective mask during Covid-19 pandemic: A clinical and psychological evaluation in patients affected by moderate–severe atopic dermatitis under treatment with dupilumab. Dermatol Ther. 2022; e15573 (May 10). Doi: 10.1111/dth.15573

Key clinical point: Face masks worn during the COVID-19 pandemic increased the quality of life by covering facial eczemas and increased the efficacy of dupilumab therapy by minimizing exposure to allergens and air pollution in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Although the prevalence of facial eczema was similar before and after the COVID-19 pandemic (P = .7618), patients with AD showed improved Dermatology Life Quality Index scores at baseline (13.14 vs. 23.06; P < .0001) along with a higher reduction in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores after 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment (−21.46 vs. −17.83; P = .0001) in the post- vs. pre-pandemic period.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 64 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were assessed for facial involvement at baseline and after 16 weeks of dupilumab therapy in both the pre- and post-pandemic periods.

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

Source: Vanessa M et al. Facial dermatoses and use of protective mask during Covid-19 pandemic: A clinical and psychological evaluation in patients affected by moderate–severe atopic dermatitis under treatment with dupilumab. Dermatol Ther. 2022; e15573 (May 10). Doi: 10.1111/dth.15573

Key clinical point: Probiotic supplementation reduced the clinical severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) and improved the quality of life (QoL) in adults with AD compared with control intervention.

Major finding: Probiotic vs. control intervention significantly reduced the clinical severity of AD in both the short-term (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.63; P = .04) and long-term (SMD 1.57; P < .001) and significantly improved the long-term QoL (SMD 0.74; P < .001), with a mixture of Lactobacillus salivarius and Bifidobacterium being the best supplementation for both short- and long-term outcomes (surface under the cumulative ranking 95.2%).

Study details: Finding are from a meta-analysis of nine studies including 402 adults who received probiotic supplementation (patients with AD; n = 208) or placebo or standard treatment only (control individuals; n = 194).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Medical and Health Research Project of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li Y et al. The efficacy of probiotics supplementation for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 (Jun 7). Doi: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2080170

Key clinical point: Probiotic supplementation reduced the clinical severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) and improved the quality of life (QoL) in adults with AD compared with control intervention.

Major finding: Probiotic vs. control intervention significantly reduced the clinical severity of AD in both the short-term (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.63; P = .04) and long-term (SMD 1.57; P < .001) and significantly improved the long-term QoL (SMD 0.74; P < .001), with a mixture of Lactobacillus salivarius and Bifidobacterium being the best supplementation for both short- and long-term outcomes (surface under the cumulative ranking 95.2%).

Study details: Finding are from a meta-analysis of nine studies including 402 adults who received probiotic supplementation (patients with AD; n = 208) or placebo or standard treatment only (control individuals; n = 194).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Medical and Health Research Project of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li Y et al. The efficacy of probiotics supplementation for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 (Jun 7). Doi: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2080170

Key clinical point: Probiotic supplementation reduced the clinical severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) and improved the quality of life (QoL) in adults with AD compared with control intervention.

Major finding: Probiotic vs. control intervention significantly reduced the clinical severity of AD in both the short-term (standard mean difference [SMD] 0.63; P = .04) and long-term (SMD 1.57; P < .001) and significantly improved the long-term QoL (SMD 0.74; P < .001), with a mixture of Lactobacillus salivarius and Bifidobacterium being the best supplementation for both short- and long-term outcomes (surface under the cumulative ranking 95.2%).

Study details: Finding are from a meta-analysis of nine studies including 402 adults who received probiotic supplementation (patients with AD; n = 208) or placebo or standard treatment only (control individuals; n = 194).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Medical and Health Research Project of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li Y et al. The efficacy of probiotics supplementation for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 (Jun 7). Doi: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2080170

Key clinical point: Children born to mothers who received probiotics vs. placebo during gestation or 1 year after childbirth showed a lower risk for infantile atopic dermatitis (AD), but a similar risk for immunoglobulin E (IgE)-associated infantile AD or sensitive constitution.

Major finding: Children born to mothers in the probiotics vs. placebo group showed a lower risk for infantile AD (risk ratio [RR] 0.86; 95% CI 0.78-0.95), although the risk for IgE-associated infantile AD (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.79-1.22) or sensitive constitution (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.81-1.08) was similar between both the treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials including 2575 infants born to mothers who received probiotics or placebo during gestation or 1 year after birth.

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

Source: Pan H, Su J. Association of probiotics with atopic dermatitis among infant: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022;2022:5080190 (May 23). Doi: 10.1155/2022/5080190

Key clinical point: Children born to mothers who received probiotics vs. placebo during gestation or 1 year after childbirth showed a lower risk for infantile atopic dermatitis (AD), but a similar risk for immunoglobulin E (IgE)-associated infantile AD or sensitive constitution.

Major finding: Children born to mothers in the probiotics vs. placebo group showed a lower risk for infantile AD (risk ratio [RR] 0.86; 95% CI 0.78-0.95), although the risk for IgE-associated infantile AD (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.79-1.22) or sensitive constitution (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.81-1.08) was similar between both the treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials including 2575 infants born to mothers who received probiotics or placebo during gestation or 1 year after birth.

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

Source: Pan H, Su J. Association of probiotics with atopic dermatitis among infant: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022;2022:5080190 (May 23). Doi: 10.1155/2022/5080190

Key clinical point: Children born to mothers who received probiotics vs. placebo during gestation or 1 year after childbirth showed a lower risk for infantile atopic dermatitis (AD), but a similar risk for immunoglobulin E (IgE)-associated infantile AD or sensitive constitution.

Major finding: Children born to mothers in the probiotics vs. placebo group showed a lower risk for infantile AD (risk ratio [RR] 0.86; 95% CI 0.78-0.95), although the risk for IgE-associated infantile AD (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.79-1.22) or sensitive constitution (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.81-1.08) was similar between both the treatment groups.

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials including 2575 infants born to mothers who received probiotics or placebo during gestation or 1 year after birth.

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

Source: Pan H, Su J. Association of probiotics with atopic dermatitis among infant: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022;2022:5080190 (May 23). Doi: 10.1155/2022/5080190