MDedge Neurology

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

“Why did the other doctor say that?”

I get that question here and there, and it’s always irritating. How should I know?

Generally it’s referring to something they say their family doctor told them: A scan that showed normal pressure hydrocephalus or multiple sclerosis, but when I actually get the neuroradiologist’s report it was normal. Sometimes it’s an alleged side effect from a drug for which I can find nothing in the literature or something that requires urgent surgery in spite of all objective evidence to the contrary.

These appointments are always frustrating. The patient is upset that what they’ve been told (or at least think they’ve been told) is incorrect. They’ve spent a few weeks doing medical research on Google for a condition they don’t have. They’re angry at me for shooting them down. They’re angry at the person who referred them for not being right. They’re angry that they wasted their time coming to me.

And then they ask me why the other doctor said that. I wasn’t there. I don’t know. Medicine is a less-than-perfect science. Maybe they were looking at the wrong report. Maybe they’d gotten an incorrect “wet read” by phone. (How many doctors today even know where the term came from?) Maybe they were having a bad day, were overwhelmed, and misread something.

There’s also the possibility that the other doctor didn’t say it at all. Many people will only hear what they want to hear. Or they’ve already decided what they have and are claiming “the other doctor” told them just to give credence to it, even if it’s not true.

Such visits often end on an ugly note. The patient doesn’t want to be billed because I didn’t say what they wanted me to say. Or pay a copay. Or just get up and leave.

I try, very hard, to be polite when this happens. I don’t know what really went on at the other office – if what’s claimed even happened at all. Even if the patient is telling the truth, all doctors, like all people, make mistakes. It’s not like they were trying to be wrong or deceptive. I don’t fault my colleagues if they make an error, and hope they feel the same way about me.

But it’s still frustrating when it occurs. In many cases I’m left dictating a polite note back to the referring physician, explaining what happened. I chalk it up to a communication error, or experience, or even just a difficult patient. I never really know for sure.

I don’t think any of us are here to willfully deceive patients. We want to do our best for them. It’s frustrating when something happens to lead them to believe otherwise.

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

“Why did the other doctor say that?”

I get that question here and there, and it’s always irritating. How should I know?

Generally it’s referring to something they say their family doctor told them: A scan that showed normal pressure hydrocephalus or multiple sclerosis, but when I actually get the neuroradiologist’s report it was normal. Sometimes it’s an alleged side effect from a drug for which I can find nothing in the literature or something that requires urgent surgery in spite of all objective evidence to the contrary.

These appointments are always frustrating. The patient is upset that what they’ve been told (or at least think they’ve been told) is incorrect. They’ve spent a few weeks doing medical research on Google for a condition they don’t have. They’re angry at me for shooting them down. They’re angry at the person who referred them for not being right. They’re angry that they wasted their time coming to me.

And then they ask me why the other doctor said that. I wasn’t there. I don’t know. Medicine is a less-than-perfect science. Maybe they were looking at the wrong report. Maybe they’d gotten an incorrect “wet read” by phone. (How many doctors today even know where the term came from?) Maybe they were having a bad day, were overwhelmed, and misread something.

There’s also the possibility that the other doctor didn’t say it at all. Many people will only hear what they want to hear. Or they’ve already decided what they have and are claiming “the other doctor” told them just to give credence to it, even if it’s not true.

Such visits often end on an ugly note. The patient doesn’t want to be billed because I didn’t say what they wanted me to say. Or pay a copay. Or just get up and leave.

I try, very hard, to be polite when this happens. I don’t know what really went on at the other office – if what’s claimed even happened at all. Even if the patient is telling the truth, all doctors, like all people, make mistakes. It’s not like they were trying to be wrong or deceptive. I don’t fault my colleagues if they make an error, and hope they feel the same way about me.

But it’s still frustrating when it occurs. In many cases I’m left dictating a polite note back to the referring physician, explaining what happened. I chalk it up to a communication error, or experience, or even just a difficult patient. I never really know for sure.

I don’t think any of us are here to willfully deceive patients. We want to do our best for them. It’s frustrating when something happens to lead them to believe otherwise.

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

“Why did the other doctor say that?”

I get that question here and there, and it’s always irritating. How should I know?

Generally it’s referring to something they say their family doctor told them: A scan that showed normal pressure hydrocephalus or multiple sclerosis, but when I actually get the neuroradiologist’s report it was normal. Sometimes it’s an alleged side effect from a drug for which I can find nothing in the literature or something that requires urgent surgery in spite of all objective evidence to the contrary.

These appointments are always frustrating. The patient is upset that what they’ve been told (or at least think they’ve been told) is incorrect. They’ve spent a few weeks doing medical research on Google for a condition they don’t have. They’re angry at me for shooting them down. They’re angry at the person who referred them for not being right. They’re angry that they wasted their time coming to me.

And then they ask me why the other doctor said that. I wasn’t there. I don’t know. Medicine is a less-than-perfect science. Maybe they were looking at the wrong report. Maybe they’d gotten an incorrect “wet read” by phone. (How many doctors today even know where the term came from?) Maybe they were having a bad day, were overwhelmed, and misread something.

There’s also the possibility that the other doctor didn’t say it at all. Many people will only hear what they want to hear. Or they’ve already decided what they have and are claiming “the other doctor” told them just to give credence to it, even if it’s not true.

Such visits often end on an ugly note. The patient doesn’t want to be billed because I didn’t say what they wanted me to say. Or pay a copay. Or just get up and leave.

I try, very hard, to be polite when this happens. I don’t know what really went on at the other office – if what’s claimed even happened at all. Even if the patient is telling the truth, all doctors, like all people, make mistakes. It’s not like they were trying to be wrong or deceptive. I don’t fault my colleagues if they make an error, and hope they feel the same way about me.

But it’s still frustrating when it occurs. In many cases I’m left dictating a polite note back to the referring physician, explaining what happened. I chalk it up to a communication error, or experience, or even just a difficult patient. I never really know for sure.

I don’t think any of us are here to willfully deceive patients. We want to do our best for them. It’s frustrating when something happens to lead them to believe otherwise.

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

Dairy intake may increase risk of Parkinson’s disease in men, according to investigators. Men of European ancestry with a genetic marker predicting dairy consumption had significantly greater risk of Parkinson’s disease than individuals without the marker, suggesting a causal relationship between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, lead author Cloé Domenighetti, MSc, a PhD student at UVSQ, Université Paris Sud, and colleagues reported.

“Previous studies highlighted dairy intake as a risk factor of Parkinson’s disease,” the investigators wrote in Movement Disorders. “A meta-analysis of prospective studies reported a 40% increased Parkinson’s disease risk in participants with the highest intake. It is unclear whether the association is causal or explained by confounding or reverse causation, given the long prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A Mendelian randomization study

The investigators evaluated this link by comparing 9,823 cases of Parkinson’s disease with 8,376 controls, all individuals of European ancestry from the Courage-Parkinson’s disease consortium, comprising 23 studies. Data were analyzed by two-sample Mendelian randomization, a technique that uses genotype to predict behavior, thereby replacing conventional methods of capturing behavior, such as questionnaires. In this case, the investigators screened all participants for rs4988235, a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) upstream of the lactase gene that is well documented to predict dairy intake among individuals of European ancestry.

“Mendelian randomization uses genetic variants associated with exposures as instrumental variables to estimate causal relationships between exposures and outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mendelian randomization analyses are less likely to be biased by confounding or reverse causation than observational studies if a set of assumptions are met.”

The approach uncovered a significant association between rs4988235 and Parkinson’s disease, with a 70% increase in disease risk per one serving of dairy per day (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.60; P = .013). Further analysis revealed that this finding was driven by men, who had a 2.5-fold increased risk of Parkinson’s disease per one serving per day (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.37-4.56; P = .003) versus women, among whom there was no significant association (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.56-1.92; P = .91). No significant associations were observed among individuals grouped by age or Parkinson’s disease duration.

“Our findings suggest that dairy intake increases Parkinson’s disease risk,” the investigators concluded. “Therefore, diets with limited milk intake (e.g., Mediterranean diet) may be beneficial with respect to Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Further evidence supporting a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease

According to Silke Appel-Cresswell, MD, Marg Meikle Professor for Parkinson’s Research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, the findings align with previous prospective cohort studies demonstrating an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease with greater consumption of dairy.

“What the current study adds,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, “is a complementary approach to assess the association where the risk of reverse causation and of confounding are minimized. Like in some of the previous studies, the authors find sex differences with an increased risk for men but not women.”

Dr. Appel-Cresswell noted that an increasing body of evidence supports a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease, including a study of her own published last year, which showed later onset of Parkinson’s disease among individuals with a Mediterranean-style diet.

“We are accumulating evidence for a role of diet (or more broadly, the food exposome) for the risk to develop Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, noting that “key pieces are still missing, including mechanisms underlying associations, clinical trials in individuals with established Parkinson’s disease and – eventually – preventive interventions. This research is urgently needed and analyses will need to take sex differences and a large range of potential other factors into account.”
 

A ‘modest’ contributing factor?

Vikas Kotagal, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, offered a perspective on the study methodology, and suggested that a causal link between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, if present, is likely minimal.

“Limitations to the study include the fact that participants weren’t actually asked or tested for how much dairy they truly consumed,” Dr. Kotagal said*. “Their dairy intake was estimated based on their genetic background – there are certainly many assumptions baked into this analytic approach which may or may not be true. It is also worth noting the fact that this causal association was seen in men and not women, suggesting that even if dairy intake was truly causal, it is likely to be a modest contributing factor and not a significant cause of Parkinson’s disease in the broader population in general.”

Still, Dr. Kotagal agreed with Dr. Appel-Cresswell that underlying mechanisms need further investigation.

“The biggest takeaway here is to heighten the urgency for researchers and funders to explore whether factors that might cluster with dairy intake – including pesticide exposure in milk or even the make-up of bacterial populations in different peoples’ intestines – might deserve closer scrutiny as a missing link connecting dairy consumption to increased Parkinson’s disease risk,” Dr. Kotagal said.
 

Dietary advice

Considering all available evidence, Dr. Appel-Cresswell offered some dietary advice with benefits that may extend beyond prevention of Parkinson’s disease.

“From a clinical point of view, I suggest to limit dairy intake to a moderate amount,” she said. “Mediterranean diets so far have the best supporting evidence for a lower Parkinson’s disease risk, although data is lacking for benefits in established Parkinson’s disease. Given the low risk of the Mediterranean diet and the established benefits for a host of other medical conditions, this is generally a safe and delicious recommendation whether one is living with Parkinson’s or not.”

The study was supported by the European Union Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Disease Research, the National Centre of Excellence in Research on Parkinson’s Disease, the National Institutes of Health, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Kotagal and Dr. Appel-Cresswell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

*Correction, 2/10/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Kotagal's name in certain instances, including a photo caption.

Dairy intake may increase risk of Parkinson’s disease in men, according to investigators. Men of European ancestry with a genetic marker predicting dairy consumption had significantly greater risk of Parkinson’s disease than individuals without the marker, suggesting a causal relationship between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, lead author Cloé Domenighetti, MSc, a PhD student at UVSQ, Université Paris Sud, and colleagues reported.

“Previous studies highlighted dairy intake as a risk factor of Parkinson’s disease,” the investigators wrote in Movement Disorders. “A meta-analysis of prospective studies reported a 40% increased Parkinson’s disease risk in participants with the highest intake. It is unclear whether the association is causal or explained by confounding or reverse causation, given the long prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A Mendelian randomization study

The investigators evaluated this link by comparing 9,823 cases of Parkinson’s disease with 8,376 controls, all individuals of European ancestry from the Courage-Parkinson’s disease consortium, comprising 23 studies. Data were analyzed by two-sample Mendelian randomization, a technique that uses genotype to predict behavior, thereby replacing conventional methods of capturing behavior, such as questionnaires. In this case, the investigators screened all participants for rs4988235, a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) upstream of the lactase gene that is well documented to predict dairy intake among individuals of European ancestry.

“Mendelian randomization uses genetic variants associated with exposures as instrumental variables to estimate causal relationships between exposures and outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mendelian randomization analyses are less likely to be biased by confounding or reverse causation than observational studies if a set of assumptions are met.”

The approach uncovered a significant association between rs4988235 and Parkinson’s disease, with a 70% increase in disease risk per one serving of dairy per day (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.60; P = .013). Further analysis revealed that this finding was driven by men, who had a 2.5-fold increased risk of Parkinson’s disease per one serving per day (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.37-4.56; P = .003) versus women, among whom there was no significant association (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.56-1.92; P = .91). No significant associations were observed among individuals grouped by age or Parkinson’s disease duration.

“Our findings suggest that dairy intake increases Parkinson’s disease risk,” the investigators concluded. “Therefore, diets with limited milk intake (e.g., Mediterranean diet) may be beneficial with respect to Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Further evidence supporting a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease

According to Silke Appel-Cresswell, MD, Marg Meikle Professor for Parkinson’s Research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, the findings align with previous prospective cohort studies demonstrating an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease with greater consumption of dairy.

“What the current study adds,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, “is a complementary approach to assess the association where the risk of reverse causation and of confounding are minimized. Like in some of the previous studies, the authors find sex differences with an increased risk for men but not women.”

Dr. Appel-Cresswell noted that an increasing body of evidence supports a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease, including a study of her own published last year, which showed later onset of Parkinson’s disease among individuals with a Mediterranean-style diet.

“We are accumulating evidence for a role of diet (or more broadly, the food exposome) for the risk to develop Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, noting that “key pieces are still missing, including mechanisms underlying associations, clinical trials in individuals with established Parkinson’s disease and – eventually – preventive interventions. This research is urgently needed and analyses will need to take sex differences and a large range of potential other factors into account.”
 

A ‘modest’ contributing factor?

Vikas Kotagal, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, offered a perspective on the study methodology, and suggested that a causal link between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, if present, is likely minimal.

“Limitations to the study include the fact that participants weren’t actually asked or tested for how much dairy they truly consumed,” Dr. Kotagal said*. “Their dairy intake was estimated based on their genetic background – there are certainly many assumptions baked into this analytic approach which may or may not be true. It is also worth noting the fact that this causal association was seen in men and not women, suggesting that even if dairy intake was truly causal, it is likely to be a modest contributing factor and not a significant cause of Parkinson’s disease in the broader population in general.”

Still, Dr. Kotagal agreed with Dr. Appel-Cresswell that underlying mechanisms need further investigation.

“The biggest takeaway here is to heighten the urgency for researchers and funders to explore whether factors that might cluster with dairy intake – including pesticide exposure in milk or even the make-up of bacterial populations in different peoples’ intestines – might deserve closer scrutiny as a missing link connecting dairy consumption to increased Parkinson’s disease risk,” Dr. Kotagal said.
 

Dietary advice

Considering all available evidence, Dr. Appel-Cresswell offered some dietary advice with benefits that may extend beyond prevention of Parkinson’s disease.

“From a clinical point of view, I suggest to limit dairy intake to a moderate amount,” she said. “Mediterranean diets so far have the best supporting evidence for a lower Parkinson’s disease risk, although data is lacking for benefits in established Parkinson’s disease. Given the low risk of the Mediterranean diet and the established benefits for a host of other medical conditions, this is generally a safe and delicious recommendation whether one is living with Parkinson’s or not.”

The study was supported by the European Union Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Disease Research, the National Centre of Excellence in Research on Parkinson’s Disease, the National Institutes of Health, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Kotagal and Dr. Appel-Cresswell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

*Correction, 2/10/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Kotagal's name in certain instances, including a photo caption.

Dairy intake may increase risk of Parkinson’s disease in men, according to investigators. Men of European ancestry with a genetic marker predicting dairy consumption had significantly greater risk of Parkinson’s disease than individuals without the marker, suggesting a causal relationship between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, lead author Cloé Domenighetti, MSc, a PhD student at UVSQ, Université Paris Sud, and colleagues reported.

“Previous studies highlighted dairy intake as a risk factor of Parkinson’s disease,” the investigators wrote in Movement Disorders. “A meta-analysis of prospective studies reported a 40% increased Parkinson’s disease risk in participants with the highest intake. It is unclear whether the association is causal or explained by confounding or reverse causation, given the long prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease.”
 

A Mendelian randomization study

The investigators evaluated this link by comparing 9,823 cases of Parkinson’s disease with 8,376 controls, all individuals of European ancestry from the Courage-Parkinson’s disease consortium, comprising 23 studies. Data were analyzed by two-sample Mendelian randomization, a technique that uses genotype to predict behavior, thereby replacing conventional methods of capturing behavior, such as questionnaires. In this case, the investigators screened all participants for rs4988235, a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) upstream of the lactase gene that is well documented to predict dairy intake among individuals of European ancestry.

“Mendelian randomization uses genetic variants associated with exposures as instrumental variables to estimate causal relationships between exposures and outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mendelian randomization analyses are less likely to be biased by confounding or reverse causation than observational studies if a set of assumptions are met.”

The approach uncovered a significant association between rs4988235 and Parkinson’s disease, with a 70% increase in disease risk per one serving of dairy per day (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.60; P = .013). Further analysis revealed that this finding was driven by men, who had a 2.5-fold increased risk of Parkinson’s disease per one serving per day (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.37-4.56; P = .003) versus women, among whom there was no significant association (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.56-1.92; P = .91). No significant associations were observed among individuals grouped by age or Parkinson’s disease duration.

“Our findings suggest that dairy intake increases Parkinson’s disease risk,” the investigators concluded. “Therefore, diets with limited milk intake (e.g., Mediterranean diet) may be beneficial with respect to Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Further evidence supporting a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease

According to Silke Appel-Cresswell, MD, Marg Meikle Professor for Parkinson’s Research at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, the findings align with previous prospective cohort studies demonstrating an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease with greater consumption of dairy.

“What the current study adds,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, “is a complementary approach to assess the association where the risk of reverse causation and of confounding are minimized. Like in some of the previous studies, the authors find sex differences with an increased risk for men but not women.”

Dr. Appel-Cresswell noted that an increasing body of evidence supports a link between diet and Parkinson’s disease, including a study of her own published last year, which showed later onset of Parkinson’s disease among individuals with a Mediterranean-style diet.

“We are accumulating evidence for a role of diet (or more broadly, the food exposome) for the risk to develop Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Appel-Cresswell said, noting that “key pieces are still missing, including mechanisms underlying associations, clinical trials in individuals with established Parkinson’s disease and – eventually – preventive interventions. This research is urgently needed and analyses will need to take sex differences and a large range of potential other factors into account.”
 

A ‘modest’ contributing factor?

Vikas Kotagal, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, offered a perspective on the study methodology, and suggested that a causal link between dairy intake and Parkinson’s disease, if present, is likely minimal.

“Limitations to the study include the fact that participants weren’t actually asked or tested for how much dairy they truly consumed,” Dr. Kotagal said*. “Their dairy intake was estimated based on their genetic background – there are certainly many assumptions baked into this analytic approach which may or may not be true. It is also worth noting the fact that this causal association was seen in men and not women, suggesting that even if dairy intake was truly causal, it is likely to be a modest contributing factor and not a significant cause of Parkinson’s disease in the broader population in general.”

Still, Dr. Kotagal agreed with Dr. Appel-Cresswell that underlying mechanisms need further investigation.

“The biggest takeaway here is to heighten the urgency for researchers and funders to explore whether factors that might cluster with dairy intake – including pesticide exposure in milk or even the make-up of bacterial populations in different peoples’ intestines – might deserve closer scrutiny as a missing link connecting dairy consumption to increased Parkinson’s disease risk,” Dr. Kotagal said.
 

Dietary advice

Considering all available evidence, Dr. Appel-Cresswell offered some dietary advice with benefits that may extend beyond prevention of Parkinson’s disease.

“From a clinical point of view, I suggest to limit dairy intake to a moderate amount,” she said. “Mediterranean diets so far have the best supporting evidence for a lower Parkinson’s disease risk, although data is lacking for benefits in established Parkinson’s disease. Given the low risk of the Mediterranean diet and the established benefits for a host of other medical conditions, this is generally a safe and delicious recommendation whether one is living with Parkinson’s or not.”

The study was supported by the European Union Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Disease Research, the National Centre of Excellence in Research on Parkinson’s Disease, the National Institutes of Health, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Kotagal and Dr. Appel-Cresswell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

*Correction, 2/10/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Kotagal's name in certain instances, including a photo caption.

Impaired cognition associated with COVID-19 appears to have a biological versus psychological basis, early research suggests. Investigators found abnormalities in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and other risk factors, including diabetes and hypertension, present in individuals with mild COVID-19 experiencing persistent cognitive problems, often referred to as “brain fog.”

“We’re seeing changes to the [CSF] in the brain of most people who report cognitive changes,” said Joanna Hellmuth, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Memory and Aging Center, University of California, San Francisco. “We’re just in the beginning stages, but I hope this study will provide some legitimacy to this being a true neurologic condition.”

The study was published online Jan. 18, 2022, in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology.
 

No guidance

There is currently no guidance on how to identify patients with COVID-related cognitive changes, said Dr. Hellmuth. “The term ‘brain fog’ is not based in science or medicine, but that’s the most common term we use to describe this.”

The analysis included adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring hospitalization who were enrolled in the Long-term Impact of Infection with Novel Coronavirus study.

Participants underwent a structured interview that covered COVID-19 illness, past medical history, preexisting cognitive risk factors, medications, and cognitive symptoms following onset of COVID-19. They also completed an in-person battery of cognitive tests.

The analysis included 22 participants with at least one new cognitive symptom who had cognitive post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Ten cognitive controls reported no new cognitive symptoms after acute infection.

Participants were a median age of 41 years, had a median of 16 years of education, and were assessed a median of 10.1 months from their first COVID-19 symptom. There were no group differences in terms of age, gender, years of education, or distribution of race/ethnicity (all P > .05).

Among those with cognitive PASC, 43% reported cognitive symptoms starting 1 or more months after the first COVID symptom. About 29% reported cognitive changes started 2 or more months after their first COVID symptom.

“The immune system could be altered in some way after the infection, and perhaps that’s what’s contributing to these delayed onset cognitive changes,” said Dr. Hellmuth.

Compared with controls, participants with cognitive PASC had more preexisting cognitive risk factors (a median of 2.5 vs. 0; P = .03). These included hypertension and diabetes, which increase the risk of stroke, mild cognitive impairment, vascular dementia, traumatic brain injury, (TBI), learning disabilities, anxiety, depression, stimulant use, and ADHD, which may make the brain more vulnerable to executive functioning problems.

Dr. Hellmuth noted that the study wasn’t powered to determine whether any individual risk factor was associated with risk of cognitive changes.

As there are no published neuropsychological testing criteria for cognitive PASC, the researchers applied the equivalent criteria for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND), a similar, virally associated cognitive disorder. Only 59% of those with cognitive PASC met equivalent HAND criteria for objective cognitive impairment versus 70% of cognitive controls. This, the investigators noted, highlights “the challenges and incongruities of using subjective, versus objective cognitive assessments for diagnosis.”
 

Is self-report enough?

While there is currently “nothing objective doctors can hang their hats on to say ‘you do’ or ‘you don’t’ have cognitive changes related to COVID,” using the HAND criteria is “not particularly helpful,” said Dr. Hellmuth. “Comparing an individual to a population-based norm in this case is really nuanced, and we shouldn’t rely on this solely to determine whether they do, or don’t, have cognitive changes.”

Perhaps self-reports in this case are “enough” said Dr. Hellmuth. “People know their brains better than anyone else, better than any doctor will.”

A total of 13 in the cognitive PASC group and 4 in the control group consented to a lumbar puncture. Cognitive PASC participants were older than controls (median of 47 vs. 28 years; P = .03) with no other between-group differences.

Overall, 77% of participants with cognitive PASC had a CSF abnormality, compared with 0% of cognitive controls (P = .01). CSF abnormalities included elevated protein levels with no other explainable cause in 2 of the 13 subjects with PASC, which Dr. Hellmuth said is typically a marker of inflammation.

Researchers also noted abnormal oligoclonal banding, a collection of antibodies, in the blood or brain fluid. These were identified in 69% of participants with cognitive PASC, compared with 0% of cognitive controls (P = .03).

“When we find this pattern in both blood and brain, it suggests a systemic inflammatory disorder,” although “we have no idea what these antibodies are targeting,” said Dr. Hellmuth.

The study represents “the very beginning stages” of PASC becoming a medical diagnosis “where doctors know what to call it, how to treat it, and how to do blood and cerebrospinal fluid tests to diagnose it,” said Dr. Hellmuth.

She hopes PASC will receive medical legitimacy just as TBI has. In years past, a player was hit on the head or had their “bell rung,” simply returned to the field. “Now that we understand the science, we call it a mild TBI or concussion, and we have a very different medical approach to it.”

A limitation of the study was the small sample size, which may hinder the results’ validity. In addition, the study demographics may not reflect the broader population of those impacted by PASC.
 

‘A first substantial step’

Commenting on the research, William Schaffner, MD, professor, division of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the new results represent “a first substantial step on the road to trying to find out what’s going on” with COVID patients dealing with cognitive issues.

Dr. Schaffner noted that elevated protein levels, identified in some study subjects, “is usually a consequence of previous inflammation” and is “a very interesting” finding. “In people who are otherwise normal, if you do a lumbar puncture, you don’t find elevated proteins.”

However, he noted the “diversity of results” from CSF examinations. “A single pattern does not leap out.”

What the researchers are observing “is not just a phenomenon of the mind or just something psychological,” said Dr. Schaffner. “Something physical is going on here.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/NIMH supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner has disclosed not relevant financial relationships.

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

Impaired cognition associated with COVID-19 appears to have a biological versus psychological basis, early research suggests. Investigators found abnormalities in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and other risk factors, including diabetes and hypertension, present in individuals with mild COVID-19 experiencing persistent cognitive problems, often referred to as “brain fog.”

“We’re seeing changes to the [CSF] in the brain of most people who report cognitive changes,” said Joanna Hellmuth, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Memory and Aging Center, University of California, San Francisco. “We’re just in the beginning stages, but I hope this study will provide some legitimacy to this being a true neurologic condition.”

The study was published online Jan. 18, 2022, in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology.
 

No guidance

There is currently no guidance on how to identify patients with COVID-related cognitive changes, said Dr. Hellmuth. “The term ‘brain fog’ is not based in science or medicine, but that’s the most common term we use to describe this.”

The analysis included adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring hospitalization who were enrolled in the Long-term Impact of Infection with Novel Coronavirus study.

Participants underwent a structured interview that covered COVID-19 illness, past medical history, preexisting cognitive risk factors, medications, and cognitive symptoms following onset of COVID-19. They also completed an in-person battery of cognitive tests.

The analysis included 22 participants with at least one new cognitive symptom who had cognitive post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Ten cognitive controls reported no new cognitive symptoms after acute infection.

Participants were a median age of 41 years, had a median of 16 years of education, and were assessed a median of 10.1 months from their first COVID-19 symptom. There were no group differences in terms of age, gender, years of education, or distribution of race/ethnicity (all P > .05).

Among those with cognitive PASC, 43% reported cognitive symptoms starting 1 or more months after the first COVID symptom. About 29% reported cognitive changes started 2 or more months after their first COVID symptom.

“The immune system could be altered in some way after the infection, and perhaps that’s what’s contributing to these delayed onset cognitive changes,” said Dr. Hellmuth.

Compared with controls, participants with cognitive PASC had more preexisting cognitive risk factors (a median of 2.5 vs. 0; P = .03). These included hypertension and diabetes, which increase the risk of stroke, mild cognitive impairment, vascular dementia, traumatic brain injury, (TBI), learning disabilities, anxiety, depression, stimulant use, and ADHD, which may make the brain more vulnerable to executive functioning problems.

Dr. Hellmuth noted that the study wasn’t powered to determine whether any individual risk factor was associated with risk of cognitive changes.

As there are no published neuropsychological testing criteria for cognitive PASC, the researchers applied the equivalent criteria for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND), a similar, virally associated cognitive disorder. Only 59% of those with cognitive PASC met equivalent HAND criteria for objective cognitive impairment versus 70% of cognitive controls. This, the investigators noted, highlights “the challenges and incongruities of using subjective, versus objective cognitive assessments for diagnosis.”
 

Is self-report enough?

While there is currently “nothing objective doctors can hang their hats on to say ‘you do’ or ‘you don’t’ have cognitive changes related to COVID,” using the HAND criteria is “not particularly helpful,” said Dr. Hellmuth. “Comparing an individual to a population-based norm in this case is really nuanced, and we shouldn’t rely on this solely to determine whether they do, or don’t, have cognitive changes.”

Perhaps self-reports in this case are “enough” said Dr. Hellmuth. “People know their brains better than anyone else, better than any doctor will.”

A total of 13 in the cognitive PASC group and 4 in the control group consented to a lumbar puncture. Cognitive PASC participants were older than controls (median of 47 vs. 28 years; P = .03) with no other between-group differences.

Overall, 77% of participants with cognitive PASC had a CSF abnormality, compared with 0% of cognitive controls (P = .01). CSF abnormalities included elevated protein levels with no other explainable cause in 2 of the 13 subjects with PASC, which Dr. Hellmuth said is typically a marker of inflammation.

Researchers also noted abnormal oligoclonal banding, a collection of antibodies, in the blood or brain fluid. These were identified in 69% of participants with cognitive PASC, compared with 0% of cognitive controls (P = .03).

“When we find this pattern in both blood and brain, it suggests a systemic inflammatory disorder,” although “we have no idea what these antibodies are targeting,” said Dr. Hellmuth.

The study represents “the very beginning stages” of PASC becoming a medical diagnosis “where doctors know what to call it, how to treat it, and how to do blood and cerebrospinal fluid tests to diagnose it,” said Dr. Hellmuth.

She hopes PASC will receive medical legitimacy just as TBI has. In years past, a player was hit on the head or had their “bell rung,” simply returned to the field. “Now that we understand the science, we call it a mild TBI or concussion, and we have a very different medical approach to it.”

A limitation of the study was the small sample size, which may hinder the results’ validity. In addition, the study demographics may not reflect the broader population of those impacted by PASC.
 

‘A first substantial step’

Commenting on the research, William Schaffner, MD, professor, division of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the new results represent “a first substantial step on the road to trying to find out what’s going on” with COVID patients dealing with cognitive issues.

Dr. Schaffner noted that elevated protein levels, identified in some study subjects, “is usually a consequence of previous inflammation” and is “a very interesting” finding. “In people who are otherwise normal, if you do a lumbar puncture, you don’t find elevated proteins.”

However, he noted the “diversity of results” from CSF examinations. “A single pattern does not leap out.”

What the researchers are observing “is not just a phenomenon of the mind or just something psychological,” said Dr. Schaffner. “Something physical is going on here.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/NIMH supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner has disclosed not relevant financial relationships.

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

Impaired cognition associated with COVID-19 appears to have a biological versus psychological basis, early research suggests. Investigators found abnormalities in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and other risk factors, including diabetes and hypertension, present in individuals with mild COVID-19 experiencing persistent cognitive problems, often referred to as “brain fog.”

“We’re seeing changes to the [CSF] in the brain of most people who report cognitive changes,” said Joanna Hellmuth, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Memory and Aging Center, University of California, San Francisco. “We’re just in the beginning stages, but I hope this study will provide some legitimacy to this being a true neurologic condition.”

The study was published online Jan. 18, 2022, in Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology.
 

No guidance

There is currently no guidance on how to identify patients with COVID-related cognitive changes, said Dr. Hellmuth. “The term ‘brain fog’ is not based in science or medicine, but that’s the most common term we use to describe this.”

The analysis included adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring hospitalization who were enrolled in the Long-term Impact of Infection with Novel Coronavirus study.

Participants underwent a structured interview that covered COVID-19 illness, past medical history, preexisting cognitive risk factors, medications, and cognitive symptoms following onset of COVID-19. They also completed an in-person battery of cognitive tests.

The analysis included 22 participants with at least one new cognitive symptom who had cognitive post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Ten cognitive controls reported no new cognitive symptoms after acute infection.

Participants were a median age of 41 years, had a median of 16 years of education, and were assessed a median of 10.1 months from their first COVID-19 symptom. There were no group differences in terms of age, gender, years of education, or distribution of race/ethnicity (all P > .05).

Among those with cognitive PASC, 43% reported cognitive symptoms starting 1 or more months after the first COVID symptom. About 29% reported cognitive changes started 2 or more months after their first COVID symptom.

“The immune system could be altered in some way after the infection, and perhaps that’s what’s contributing to these delayed onset cognitive changes,” said Dr. Hellmuth.

Compared with controls, participants with cognitive PASC had more preexisting cognitive risk factors (a median of 2.5 vs. 0; P = .03). These included hypertension and diabetes, which increase the risk of stroke, mild cognitive impairment, vascular dementia, traumatic brain injury, (TBI), learning disabilities, anxiety, depression, stimulant use, and ADHD, which may make the brain more vulnerable to executive functioning problems.

Dr. Hellmuth noted that the study wasn’t powered to determine whether any individual risk factor was associated with risk of cognitive changes.

As there are no published neuropsychological testing criteria for cognitive PASC, the researchers applied the equivalent criteria for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND), a similar, virally associated cognitive disorder. Only 59% of those with cognitive PASC met equivalent HAND criteria for objective cognitive impairment versus 70% of cognitive controls. This, the investigators noted, highlights “the challenges and incongruities of using subjective, versus objective cognitive assessments for diagnosis.”
 

Is self-report enough?

While there is currently “nothing objective doctors can hang their hats on to say ‘you do’ or ‘you don’t’ have cognitive changes related to COVID,” using the HAND criteria is “not particularly helpful,” said Dr. Hellmuth. “Comparing an individual to a population-based norm in this case is really nuanced, and we shouldn’t rely on this solely to determine whether they do, or don’t, have cognitive changes.”

Perhaps self-reports in this case are “enough” said Dr. Hellmuth. “People know their brains better than anyone else, better than any doctor will.”

A total of 13 in the cognitive PASC group and 4 in the control group consented to a lumbar puncture. Cognitive PASC participants were older than controls (median of 47 vs. 28 years; P = .03) with no other between-group differences.

Overall, 77% of participants with cognitive PASC had a CSF abnormality, compared with 0% of cognitive controls (P = .01). CSF abnormalities included elevated protein levels with no other explainable cause in 2 of the 13 subjects with PASC, which Dr. Hellmuth said is typically a marker of inflammation.

Researchers also noted abnormal oligoclonal banding, a collection of antibodies, in the blood or brain fluid. These were identified in 69% of participants with cognitive PASC, compared with 0% of cognitive controls (P = .03).

“When we find this pattern in both blood and brain, it suggests a systemic inflammatory disorder,” although “we have no idea what these antibodies are targeting,” said Dr. Hellmuth.

The study represents “the very beginning stages” of PASC becoming a medical diagnosis “where doctors know what to call it, how to treat it, and how to do blood and cerebrospinal fluid tests to diagnose it,” said Dr. Hellmuth.

She hopes PASC will receive medical legitimacy just as TBI has. In years past, a player was hit on the head or had their “bell rung,” simply returned to the field. “Now that we understand the science, we call it a mild TBI or concussion, and we have a very different medical approach to it.”

A limitation of the study was the small sample size, which may hinder the results’ validity. In addition, the study demographics may not reflect the broader population of those impacted by PASC.
 

‘A first substantial step’

Commenting on the research, William Schaffner, MD, professor, division of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said the new results represent “a first substantial step on the road to trying to find out what’s going on” with COVID patients dealing with cognitive issues.

Dr. Schaffner noted that elevated protein levels, identified in some study subjects, “is usually a consequence of previous inflammation” and is “a very interesting” finding. “In people who are otherwise normal, if you do a lumbar puncture, you don’t find elevated proteins.”

However, he noted the “diversity of results” from CSF examinations. “A single pattern does not leap out.”

What the researchers are observing “is not just a phenomenon of the mind or just something psychological,” said Dr. Schaffner. “Something physical is going on here.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/NIMH supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner has disclosed not relevant financial relationships.

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

A new, highly contagious subvariant of Omicron has emerged, which some have begun calling “son of Omicron,” but public health officials say it’s too soon to tell what kind of real threat, if any, this new strain will present.

In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.

BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.

The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.

The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.

For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.

Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
 

No Pi for you

This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.

For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.

Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”

Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.

At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.

Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.

For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.

Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.

The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.

At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.

So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.

For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.

Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.

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

A new, highly contagious subvariant of Omicron has emerged, which some have begun calling “son of Omicron,” but public health officials say it’s too soon to tell what kind of real threat, if any, this new strain will present.

In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.

BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.

The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.

The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.

For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.

Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
 

No Pi for you

This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.

For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.

Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”

Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.

At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.

Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.

For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.

Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.

The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.

At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.

So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.

For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.

Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.

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

A new, highly contagious subvariant of Omicron has emerged, which some have begun calling “son of Omicron,” but public health officials say it’s too soon to tell what kind of real threat, if any, this new strain will present.

In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.

BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.

The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.

The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.

For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.

Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
 

No Pi for you

This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.

For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.

Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”

Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.

At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.

Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.

For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.

Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.

The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.

At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.

So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.

For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.

Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.

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

Two years ago, I argued that independent care from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) would not have ill effects on health outcomes. To the surprise of no one, NPs and PAs embraced the argument; physicians clobbered it.

My case had three pegs: One was that medicine isn’t rocket science and clinicians control a lot less than we think we do. The second peg was that technology levels the playing field of clinical care. High-sensitivity troponin assays, for instance, make missing MI a lot less likely. The third peg was empirical: Studies have found little difference in MD versus non–MD-led care. Looking back, I now see empiricism as the weakest part of the argument because the studies had so many limitations.

I update this viewpoint now because health care is increasingly delivered by NPs and PAs. And there are two concerning trends regarding NP education and experience. First is that nurses are turning to advanced practitioner training earlier in their careers – without gathering much bedside experience. And these training programs are increasingly likely to be online, with minimal hands-on clinical tutoring. 

Education and experience pop in my head often. Not every day, but many days I think back to my lucky 7 years in Indiana learning under the supervision of master clinicians – at a time when trainees were allowed the leeway to make decisions ... and mistakes. Then, when I joined private practice, I continued to learn from experienced practitioners.

It would be foolish to argue that training and experience aren’t important.

But here’s the thing: I still don’t see average health outcomes declining as a result of the rise in NPs and PAs. And even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. The rise in nonphysician care will not be undone, at least any time soon.

I will make three points: First, I will bolster two of my old arguments as to why we shouldn’t be worried about non-MD clinicians, then I will propose some ideas to increase confidence in NP and PA care.
 

Health care does not equal health

On the matter of how much clinicians affect outcomes, a recently published randomized controlled trial performed in India found that subsidizing insurance care led to increased utilization of hospital services but had no significant effect on health outcomes. This follows the RAND and Oregon Health Insurance studies in the United States, which largely reported similar results.

It’s about the delta

Logos trumps pathos. Sure, my physician colleagues can tell scary anecdotes of bad outcomes caused by an inexperienced NP or PA. I would counter that by saying I have sat on our hospital’s peer review committee for 2 decades, including the era before NPs or PAs were practicing, and I have plenty of stories of physician errors. These include, of course, my own errors.

Logos: We must consider the difference between non–MD-led care and MD-led care.

My arguments from 2020 remain relevant today. Most medical problems are not engineering puzzles. Many, perhaps most, patients fall into an easy protocol – say, chest pain, dyspnea, or atrial fibrillation. With basic training, a motivated serious person quickly gains skill in recognizing and treating everyday problems.

And just 2 years on, technology further levels the playing field. Consider radiology in 2022 – it’s easy to take for granted the speed of the CT scan, the fidelity of the MRI, and the easy access to both in the U.S. hospital system. Less experienced clinicians have never had more tools to assist with diagnostics and therapeutics.

The expansion of team-based care has also mitigated the effects of inexperience. It took Americans longer than Canadians to figure out how helpful pharmacists could be. Pharmacists in my hospital now help us dose complicated medicines and protect us against prescribing errors.

Then there is the immediate access to online information. Gone are the days when you had to memorize long-QT syndromes. Book knowledge – that I spent years acquiring – now comes in seconds. The other day an NP corrected me. I asked, Are you sure? Boom, she took out her phone and showed me the evidence.

In sum, if it were even possible to measure the clinical competence of care from NP and PA versus physicians, there would be two bell-shaped curves with a tremendous amount of overlap. And that overlap would steadily increase as a given NP or PA gathered experience. (The NP in our electrophysiology division has more than 25 years’ experience in heart rhythm care, and it is common for colleagues to call her before one of us docs. Rightly so.)
 

Three basic proposals regarding NP and PA care

To ensure quality of care, I have three proposals.

It has always seemed strange to me that an NP or PA can flip from one field to another without a period of training. I can’t just change practice from electrophysiology to dermatology without doing a residency. But NPs and PAs can.

My first proposal would be that NPs and PAs spend a substantial period of training in a field before practice – a legit apprenticeship. The duration of this period is a matter of debate, but it ought to be standardized.

My second proposal is that, if physicians are required to pass certification exams, so should NPs. (PAs have an exam every 10 years.) The exam should be the same as (or very similar to) the physician exam, and it should be specific to their field of practice.

While I have argued (and still feel) that the American Board of Internal Medicine brand of certification is dubious, the fact remains that physicians must maintain proficiency in their field. Requiring NPs and PAs to do the same would help foster specialization. And while I can’t cite empirical evidence, specialization seems super-important. We have NPs at my hospital who have been in the same area for years, and they exude clinical competence.

Finally, I have come to believe that the best way for nearly any clinician to practice medicine is as part of a team. (The exception being primary care in rural areas where there are clinician shortages.)

On the matter of team care, I’ve practiced for a long time, but nearly every day I run situations by a colleague; often this person is an NP. The economist Friedrich Hayek proposed that dispersed knowledge always outpaces the wisdom of any individual. That notion pertains well to the increasing complexities and specialization of modern medical practice.

A person who commits to learning one area of medicine, enjoys helping people, asks often for help, and has the support of colleagues is set up to be a successful clinician – whether the letters after their name are APRN, PA, DO, or MD.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. He did not report any relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years ago, I argued that independent care from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) would not have ill effects on health outcomes. To the surprise of no one, NPs and PAs embraced the argument; physicians clobbered it.

My case had three pegs: One was that medicine isn’t rocket science and clinicians control a lot less than we think we do. The second peg was that technology levels the playing field of clinical care. High-sensitivity troponin assays, for instance, make missing MI a lot less likely. The third peg was empirical: Studies have found little difference in MD versus non–MD-led care. Looking back, I now see empiricism as the weakest part of the argument because the studies had so many limitations.

I update this viewpoint now because health care is increasingly delivered by NPs and PAs. And there are two concerning trends regarding NP education and experience. First is that nurses are turning to advanced practitioner training earlier in their careers – without gathering much bedside experience. And these training programs are increasingly likely to be online, with minimal hands-on clinical tutoring. 

Education and experience pop in my head often. Not every day, but many days I think back to my lucky 7 years in Indiana learning under the supervision of master clinicians – at a time when trainees were allowed the leeway to make decisions ... and mistakes. Then, when I joined private practice, I continued to learn from experienced practitioners.

It would be foolish to argue that training and experience aren’t important.

But here’s the thing: I still don’t see average health outcomes declining as a result of the rise in NPs and PAs. And even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. The rise in nonphysician care will not be undone, at least any time soon.

I will make three points: First, I will bolster two of my old arguments as to why we shouldn’t be worried about non-MD clinicians, then I will propose some ideas to increase confidence in NP and PA care.
 

Health care does not equal health

On the matter of how much clinicians affect outcomes, a recently published randomized controlled trial performed in India found that subsidizing insurance care led to increased utilization of hospital services but had no significant effect on health outcomes. This follows the RAND and Oregon Health Insurance studies in the United States, which largely reported similar results.

It’s about the delta

Logos trumps pathos. Sure, my physician colleagues can tell scary anecdotes of bad outcomes caused by an inexperienced NP or PA. I would counter that by saying I have sat on our hospital’s peer review committee for 2 decades, including the era before NPs or PAs were practicing, and I have plenty of stories of physician errors. These include, of course, my own errors.

Logos: We must consider the difference between non–MD-led care and MD-led care.

My arguments from 2020 remain relevant today. Most medical problems are not engineering puzzles. Many, perhaps most, patients fall into an easy protocol – say, chest pain, dyspnea, or atrial fibrillation. With basic training, a motivated serious person quickly gains skill in recognizing and treating everyday problems.

And just 2 years on, technology further levels the playing field. Consider radiology in 2022 – it’s easy to take for granted the speed of the CT scan, the fidelity of the MRI, and the easy access to both in the U.S. hospital system. Less experienced clinicians have never had more tools to assist with diagnostics and therapeutics.

The expansion of team-based care has also mitigated the effects of inexperience. It took Americans longer than Canadians to figure out how helpful pharmacists could be. Pharmacists in my hospital now help us dose complicated medicines and protect us against prescribing errors.

Then there is the immediate access to online information. Gone are the days when you had to memorize long-QT syndromes. Book knowledge – that I spent years acquiring – now comes in seconds. The other day an NP corrected me. I asked, Are you sure? Boom, she took out her phone and showed me the evidence.

In sum, if it were even possible to measure the clinical competence of care from NP and PA versus physicians, there would be two bell-shaped curves with a tremendous amount of overlap. And that overlap would steadily increase as a given NP or PA gathered experience. (The NP in our electrophysiology division has more than 25 years’ experience in heart rhythm care, and it is common for colleagues to call her before one of us docs. Rightly so.)
 

Three basic proposals regarding NP and PA care

To ensure quality of care, I have three proposals.

It has always seemed strange to me that an NP or PA can flip from one field to another without a period of training. I can’t just change practice from electrophysiology to dermatology without doing a residency. But NPs and PAs can.

My first proposal would be that NPs and PAs spend a substantial period of training in a field before practice – a legit apprenticeship. The duration of this period is a matter of debate, but it ought to be standardized.

My second proposal is that, if physicians are required to pass certification exams, so should NPs. (PAs have an exam every 10 years.) The exam should be the same as (or very similar to) the physician exam, and it should be specific to their field of practice.

While I have argued (and still feel) that the American Board of Internal Medicine brand of certification is dubious, the fact remains that physicians must maintain proficiency in their field. Requiring NPs and PAs to do the same would help foster specialization. And while I can’t cite empirical evidence, specialization seems super-important. We have NPs at my hospital who have been in the same area for years, and they exude clinical competence.

Finally, I have come to believe that the best way for nearly any clinician to practice medicine is as part of a team. (The exception being primary care in rural areas where there are clinician shortages.)

On the matter of team care, I’ve practiced for a long time, but nearly every day I run situations by a colleague; often this person is an NP. The economist Friedrich Hayek proposed that dispersed knowledge always outpaces the wisdom of any individual. That notion pertains well to the increasing complexities and specialization of modern medical practice.

A person who commits to learning one area of medicine, enjoys helping people, asks often for help, and has the support of colleagues is set up to be a successful clinician – whether the letters after their name are APRN, PA, DO, or MD.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. He did not report any relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years ago, I argued that independent care from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) would not have ill effects on health outcomes. To the surprise of no one, NPs and PAs embraced the argument; physicians clobbered it.

My case had three pegs: One was that medicine isn’t rocket science and clinicians control a lot less than we think we do. The second peg was that technology levels the playing field of clinical care. High-sensitivity troponin assays, for instance, make missing MI a lot less likely. The third peg was empirical: Studies have found little difference in MD versus non–MD-led care. Looking back, I now see empiricism as the weakest part of the argument because the studies had so many limitations.

I update this viewpoint now because health care is increasingly delivered by NPs and PAs. And there are two concerning trends regarding NP education and experience. First is that nurses are turning to advanced practitioner training earlier in their careers – without gathering much bedside experience. And these training programs are increasingly likely to be online, with minimal hands-on clinical tutoring. 

Education and experience pop in my head often. Not every day, but many days I think back to my lucky 7 years in Indiana learning under the supervision of master clinicians – at a time when trainees were allowed the leeway to make decisions ... and mistakes. Then, when I joined private practice, I continued to learn from experienced practitioners.

It would be foolish to argue that training and experience aren’t important.

But here’s the thing: I still don’t see average health outcomes declining as a result of the rise in NPs and PAs. And even if I did, it wouldn’t matter. The rise in nonphysician care will not be undone, at least any time soon.

I will make three points: First, I will bolster two of my old arguments as to why we shouldn’t be worried about non-MD clinicians, then I will propose some ideas to increase confidence in NP and PA care.
 

Health care does not equal health

On the matter of how much clinicians affect outcomes, a recently published randomized controlled trial performed in India found that subsidizing insurance care led to increased utilization of hospital services but had no significant effect on health outcomes. This follows the RAND and Oregon Health Insurance studies in the United States, which largely reported similar results.

It’s about the delta

Logos trumps pathos. Sure, my physician colleagues can tell scary anecdotes of bad outcomes caused by an inexperienced NP or PA. I would counter that by saying I have sat on our hospital’s peer review committee for 2 decades, including the era before NPs or PAs were practicing, and I have plenty of stories of physician errors. These include, of course, my own errors.

Logos: We must consider the difference between non–MD-led care and MD-led care.

My arguments from 2020 remain relevant today. Most medical problems are not engineering puzzles. Many, perhaps most, patients fall into an easy protocol – say, chest pain, dyspnea, or atrial fibrillation. With basic training, a motivated serious person quickly gains skill in recognizing and treating everyday problems.

And just 2 years on, technology further levels the playing field. Consider radiology in 2022 – it’s easy to take for granted the speed of the CT scan, the fidelity of the MRI, and the easy access to both in the U.S. hospital system. Less experienced clinicians have never had more tools to assist with diagnostics and therapeutics.

The expansion of team-based care has also mitigated the effects of inexperience. It took Americans longer than Canadians to figure out how helpful pharmacists could be. Pharmacists in my hospital now help us dose complicated medicines and protect us against prescribing errors.

Then there is the immediate access to online information. Gone are the days when you had to memorize long-QT syndromes. Book knowledge – that I spent years acquiring – now comes in seconds. The other day an NP corrected me. I asked, Are you sure? Boom, she took out her phone and showed me the evidence.

In sum, if it were even possible to measure the clinical competence of care from NP and PA versus physicians, there would be two bell-shaped curves with a tremendous amount of overlap. And that overlap would steadily increase as a given NP or PA gathered experience. (The NP in our electrophysiology division has more than 25 years’ experience in heart rhythm care, and it is common for colleagues to call her before one of us docs. Rightly so.)
 

Three basic proposals regarding NP and PA care

To ensure quality of care, I have three proposals.

It has always seemed strange to me that an NP or PA can flip from one field to another without a period of training. I can’t just change practice from electrophysiology to dermatology without doing a residency. But NPs and PAs can.

My first proposal would be that NPs and PAs spend a substantial period of training in a field before practice – a legit apprenticeship. The duration of this period is a matter of debate, but it ought to be standardized.

My second proposal is that, if physicians are required to pass certification exams, so should NPs. (PAs have an exam every 10 years.) The exam should be the same as (or very similar to) the physician exam, and it should be specific to their field of practice.

While I have argued (and still feel) that the American Board of Internal Medicine brand of certification is dubious, the fact remains that physicians must maintain proficiency in their field. Requiring NPs and PAs to do the same would help foster specialization. And while I can’t cite empirical evidence, specialization seems super-important. We have NPs at my hospital who have been in the same area for years, and they exude clinical competence.

Finally, I have come to believe that the best way for nearly any clinician to practice medicine is as part of a team. (The exception being primary care in rural areas where there are clinician shortages.)

On the matter of team care, I’ve practiced for a long time, but nearly every day I run situations by a colleague; often this person is an NP. The economist Friedrich Hayek proposed that dispersed knowledge always outpaces the wisdom of any individual. That notion pertains well to the increasing complexities and specialization of modern medical practice.

A person who commits to learning one area of medicine, enjoys helping people, asks often for help, and has the support of colleagues is set up to be a successful clinician – whether the letters after their name are APRN, PA, DO, or MD.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. He did not report any relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who are unhappy with low insurance payments may be able to level the playing field and negotiate better rates in their contracts, say experts in physician-payer contracts.

Many doctors sign long-term agreements and then forget about them, says Marcia Brauchler, president and founder of Physicians’ Ally, Littleton, Colorado, a health care consulting company. “The average doctor is trying to run a practice on 2010 rates because they haven’t touched their insurance contracts for 10 years,” she says.

Payers also make a lot of money by adopting dozens of unilateral policy and procedure changes every year that they know physicians are too busy to read. They are counting on the fact that few doctors will understand what the policy changes are and that even fewer will contest them, says Greg Brodek, JD, chair of the health law practice group and head of the managed care litigation practice at Duane Morris, who represents doctors in disputes with payers.

These experts say doctors can push back on one-sided payer contracts and negotiate changes. Mr. Brodek says some practices have more leverage than others to influence payers – if they are larger, in a specialty that the payer needs in its network, or located in a remote area where the payer has limited options.

Here are seven key areas to pay attention to:

1. Long-term contracts. Most doctors sign multiyear “evergreen” contracts that renew automatically every year. This allows insurers to continue to pay doctors the same rate for years.

To avoid this, doctors should negotiate new rates when their agreements renew or, if they prefer, ask that a cost-of-living adjustment be included in the multiyear contract that applies to subsequent years, says Ms. Brauchler.

2. Fee schedules. Payers will “whitewash” what they’re paying you by saying it’s 100% of the payer fee schedule. When it comes to Medicare, they may be paying you a lot less, says Ms. Brauchler.

“My biggest takeaway is to compare the CPT codes of the payer’s fee schedule against what Medicare allows. For example, for CPT code 99213, a 15-minute established office visit, if Medicare pays you $100 and Aetna pays you $75.00, you’re getting 75% of Medicare,” says Ms. Brauchler. To avoid this, doctors should ask that the contract state that reimbursement be made according to Medicare’s medical policies rather than the payer’s.

3. Audits. Commercial payers will claim they have a contractual right to conduct pre- and post-payment audits of physicians’ claims that can result in reduced payments. The contract only states that if doctors correctly submit claims, they will get paid, not that they will have to go through extra steps, which is a breach of their agreement, says Mr. Brodek.

In his experience, 90% of payers back down when asked to provide the contractual basis to conduct these audits. “Or, they take the position that it’s not in the contract but that they have a policy.”

4. Contract amendments versus policies and procedures. This is a huge area that needs to be clarified in contracts and monitored by providers throughout their relationships with payers. Contracts have three elements: the parties, the services provided, and the payment. Changing any one of those terms requires an amendment and advance written notice that has to be delivered to the other party in a certain way, such as by overnight delivery, says Mr. Brodek.

In addition, both parties have to sign that they agree to an amendment. “But, that’s too cumbersome and complicated for payers who have decided to adopt policies instead. These are unilateral changes made with no advance notice given, since the payer typically posts the change on its website,” says Mr. Brodek.

5. Recoupment efforts. Payers will review claims after they’re paid and contact the doctor saying they found a mistake, such as inappropriate coding. They will claim that the doctor now owes them a large sum of money based on a percentage of claims reviewed. “They typically send the doctor a letter that ends with, ‘If you do not pay this amount within 30 days, we will offset the amount due against future payments that we would otherwise make to you,’” says Mr. Brodek.

He recommends that contracts include the doctors’ right to contest an audit so the “payer doesn’t have the unilateral right to disregard the initial coding that the doctor appropriately assigned to the claim and recoup the money anyway,” says Mr. Brodek.

6. Medical network rentals and products. Most contracts say that payers can rent out their medical networks to other health plans, such as HMOs, and that the clinicians agree to comply with all of their policies and procedures. The agreement may also cover the products of other plans.

“The problem is that physicians are not given information about the other plans, including their terms and conditions for getting paid,” says Mr. Brodek. If a problem with payment arises, they have no written agreement with that plan, which makes it harder to enforce.

“That’s why we recommend that doctors negotiate agreements that only cover the main payer. Most of the time, the payer is amenable to putting that language in the contract,” he says.

7. Payer products. In the past several years, a typical contract has included appendices that list the payer’s products, such as Medicare, workers compensation, auto insurance liability, or health care exchange products. Many clinicians don’t realize they can pick the plans they want to participate in by accepting or opting out, says Mr. Brodek.

“We advise clients to limit the contract to what you want covered and to make informed decisions, because some products have low fees set by the states, such as workers compensation and health care exchanges,” says Mr. Brodek.

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

Doctors who are unhappy with low insurance payments may be able to level the playing field and negotiate better rates in their contracts, say experts in physician-payer contracts.

Many doctors sign long-term agreements and then forget about them, says Marcia Brauchler, president and founder of Physicians’ Ally, Littleton, Colorado, a health care consulting company. “The average doctor is trying to run a practice on 2010 rates because they haven’t touched their insurance contracts for 10 years,” she says.

Payers also make a lot of money by adopting dozens of unilateral policy and procedure changes every year that they know physicians are too busy to read. They are counting on the fact that few doctors will understand what the policy changes are and that even fewer will contest them, says Greg Brodek, JD, chair of the health law practice group and head of the managed care litigation practice at Duane Morris, who represents doctors in disputes with payers.

These experts say doctors can push back on one-sided payer contracts and negotiate changes. Mr. Brodek says some practices have more leverage than others to influence payers – if they are larger, in a specialty that the payer needs in its network, or located in a remote area where the payer has limited options.

Here are seven key areas to pay attention to:

1. Long-term contracts. Most doctors sign multiyear “evergreen” contracts that renew automatically every year. This allows insurers to continue to pay doctors the same rate for years.

To avoid this, doctors should negotiate new rates when their agreements renew or, if they prefer, ask that a cost-of-living adjustment be included in the multiyear contract that applies to subsequent years, says Ms. Brauchler.

2. Fee schedules. Payers will “whitewash” what they’re paying you by saying it’s 100% of the payer fee schedule. When it comes to Medicare, they may be paying you a lot less, says Ms. Brauchler.

“My biggest takeaway is to compare the CPT codes of the payer’s fee schedule against what Medicare allows. For example, for CPT code 99213, a 15-minute established office visit, if Medicare pays you $100 and Aetna pays you $75.00, you’re getting 75% of Medicare,” says Ms. Brauchler. To avoid this, doctors should ask that the contract state that reimbursement be made according to Medicare’s medical policies rather than the payer’s.

3. Audits. Commercial payers will claim they have a contractual right to conduct pre- and post-payment audits of physicians’ claims that can result in reduced payments. The contract only states that if doctors correctly submit claims, they will get paid, not that they will have to go through extra steps, which is a breach of their agreement, says Mr. Brodek.

In his experience, 90% of payers back down when asked to provide the contractual basis to conduct these audits. “Or, they take the position that it’s not in the contract but that they have a policy.”

4. Contract amendments versus policies and procedures. This is a huge area that needs to be clarified in contracts and monitored by providers throughout their relationships with payers. Contracts have three elements: the parties, the services provided, and the payment. Changing any one of those terms requires an amendment and advance written notice that has to be delivered to the other party in a certain way, such as by overnight delivery, says Mr. Brodek.

In addition, both parties have to sign that they agree to an amendment. “But, that’s too cumbersome and complicated for payers who have decided to adopt policies instead. These are unilateral changes made with no advance notice given, since the payer typically posts the change on its website,” says Mr. Brodek.

5. Recoupment efforts. Payers will review claims after they’re paid and contact the doctor saying they found a mistake, such as inappropriate coding. They will claim that the doctor now owes them a large sum of money based on a percentage of claims reviewed. “They typically send the doctor a letter that ends with, ‘If you do not pay this amount within 30 days, we will offset the amount due against future payments that we would otherwise make to you,’” says Mr. Brodek.

He recommends that contracts include the doctors’ right to contest an audit so the “payer doesn’t have the unilateral right to disregard the initial coding that the doctor appropriately assigned to the claim and recoup the money anyway,” says Mr. Brodek.

6. Medical network rentals and products. Most contracts say that payers can rent out their medical networks to other health plans, such as HMOs, and that the clinicians agree to comply with all of their policies and procedures. The agreement may also cover the products of other plans.

“The problem is that physicians are not given information about the other plans, including their terms and conditions for getting paid,” says Mr. Brodek. If a problem with payment arises, they have no written agreement with that plan, which makes it harder to enforce.

“That’s why we recommend that doctors negotiate agreements that only cover the main payer. Most of the time, the payer is amenable to putting that language in the contract,” he says.

7. Payer products. In the past several years, a typical contract has included appendices that list the payer’s products, such as Medicare, workers compensation, auto insurance liability, or health care exchange products. Many clinicians don’t realize they can pick the plans they want to participate in by accepting or opting out, says Mr. Brodek.

“We advise clients to limit the contract to what you want covered and to make informed decisions, because some products have low fees set by the states, such as workers compensation and health care exchanges,” says Mr. Brodek.

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

Doctors who are unhappy with low insurance payments may be able to level the playing field and negotiate better rates in their contracts, say experts in physician-payer contracts.

Many doctors sign long-term agreements and then forget about them, says Marcia Brauchler, president and founder of Physicians’ Ally, Littleton, Colorado, a health care consulting company. “The average doctor is trying to run a practice on 2010 rates because they haven’t touched their insurance contracts for 10 years,” she says.

Payers also make a lot of money by adopting dozens of unilateral policy and procedure changes every year that they know physicians are too busy to read. They are counting on the fact that few doctors will understand what the policy changes are and that even fewer will contest them, says Greg Brodek, JD, chair of the health law practice group and head of the managed care litigation practice at Duane Morris, who represents doctors in disputes with payers.

These experts say doctors can push back on one-sided payer contracts and negotiate changes. Mr. Brodek says some practices have more leverage than others to influence payers – if they are larger, in a specialty that the payer needs in its network, or located in a remote area where the payer has limited options.

Here are seven key areas to pay attention to:

1. Long-term contracts. Most doctors sign multiyear “evergreen” contracts that renew automatically every year. This allows insurers to continue to pay doctors the same rate for years.

To avoid this, doctors should negotiate new rates when their agreements renew or, if they prefer, ask that a cost-of-living adjustment be included in the multiyear contract that applies to subsequent years, says Ms. Brauchler.

2. Fee schedules. Payers will “whitewash” what they’re paying you by saying it’s 100% of the payer fee schedule. When it comes to Medicare, they may be paying you a lot less, says Ms. Brauchler.

“My biggest takeaway is to compare the CPT codes of the payer’s fee schedule against what Medicare allows. For example, for CPT code 99213, a 15-minute established office visit, if Medicare pays you $100 and Aetna pays you $75.00, you’re getting 75% of Medicare,” says Ms. Brauchler. To avoid this, doctors should ask that the contract state that reimbursement be made according to Medicare’s medical policies rather than the payer’s.

3. Audits. Commercial payers will claim they have a contractual right to conduct pre- and post-payment audits of physicians’ claims that can result in reduced payments. The contract only states that if doctors correctly submit claims, they will get paid, not that they will have to go through extra steps, which is a breach of their agreement, says Mr. Brodek.

In his experience, 90% of payers back down when asked to provide the contractual basis to conduct these audits. “Or, they take the position that it’s not in the contract but that they have a policy.”

4. Contract amendments versus policies and procedures. This is a huge area that needs to be clarified in contracts and monitored by providers throughout their relationships with payers. Contracts have three elements: the parties, the services provided, and the payment. Changing any one of those terms requires an amendment and advance written notice that has to be delivered to the other party in a certain way, such as by overnight delivery, says Mr. Brodek.

In addition, both parties have to sign that they agree to an amendment. “But, that’s too cumbersome and complicated for payers who have decided to adopt policies instead. These are unilateral changes made with no advance notice given, since the payer typically posts the change on its website,” says Mr. Brodek.

5. Recoupment efforts. Payers will review claims after they’re paid and contact the doctor saying they found a mistake, such as inappropriate coding. They will claim that the doctor now owes them a large sum of money based on a percentage of claims reviewed. “They typically send the doctor a letter that ends with, ‘If you do not pay this amount within 30 days, we will offset the amount due against future payments that we would otherwise make to you,’” says Mr. Brodek.

He recommends that contracts include the doctors’ right to contest an audit so the “payer doesn’t have the unilateral right to disregard the initial coding that the doctor appropriately assigned to the claim and recoup the money anyway,” says Mr. Brodek.

6. Medical network rentals and products. Most contracts say that payers can rent out their medical networks to other health plans, such as HMOs, and that the clinicians agree to comply with all of their policies and procedures. The agreement may also cover the products of other plans.

“The problem is that physicians are not given information about the other plans, including their terms and conditions for getting paid,” says Mr. Brodek. If a problem with payment arises, they have no written agreement with that plan, which makes it harder to enforce.

“That’s why we recommend that doctors negotiate agreements that only cover the main payer. Most of the time, the payer is amenable to putting that language in the contract,” he says.

7. Payer products. In the past several years, a typical contract has included appendices that list the payer’s products, such as Medicare, workers compensation, auto insurance liability, or health care exchange products. Many clinicians don’t realize they can pick the plans they want to participate in by accepting or opting out, says Mr. Brodek.

“We advise clients to limit the contract to what you want covered and to make informed decisions, because some products have low fees set by the states, such as workers compensation and health care exchanges,” says Mr. Brodek.

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

Depending on the data you’re looking at, 40%-60% of physicians are burned out.

Research studies and the eye test reveal the painfully obvious: Colleagues are tired, winded, spent, and at times way past burned out. People aren’t asking me if they’re burned out. They know they’re burned out; heck, they can even recite the Maslach burnout inventory, forward and backward, in a mask, or while completing a COVID quarantine. A fair share of people know the key steps to prevent burnout and promote recovery.

What I’m starting to see more of is, “Why should I even bother to recover from this? Why pick myself up again just to get another occupational stress injury (burnout, demoralization, moral injury, etc.)?” In other words, it’s not just simply about negating burnout; it’s about supporting and facilitating the motivation to work.

We’ve been through so much with COVID that it might be challenging to remember when you saw a truly engaged work environment. No doubt, we have outstanding professionals across medicine who answer the bell every day. However, if you’ve been looking closely, many teams/units have lost a bit of the zip and pep. The synergy and trust aren’t as smooth, and at noon, everyone counts the hours to the end of the shift.

You may be thinking, Well, of course, they are; we’re still amid a pandemic, and people have been through hell. Your observation would be correct, except I’ve personally seen some teams weather the pandemic storm and still remain engaged (some even more involved).

The No. 1 consult result for the GW Resiliency and Well-Being Center, where I work, has been on lectures for burnout. The R&WC has given so many of these lectures that my dreams take the form of a PowerPoint presentation. Overall the talks have gone very well. We’ve added skills sections on practices of whole-person care. We’ve blitzed the daylights out of restorative sleep, yet I know we are still searching for the correct narrative.

Motivated staff, faculty, and students will genuinely take in the information and follow the recommendations; however, they still struggle to find that drive and zest for work. Yes, moving from burnout to neutral is reasonable but likely won’t move the needle of your professional or personal life. We need to have the emotional energy and the clear desire to utilize that energy for a meaningful purpose.

Talking about burnout in specific ways is straightforward and, in my opinion, much easier than talking about engagement. Part of the challenge when trying to discuss engagement is that people can feel invalidated or that you’re telling them to be stoic. Or worse yet, that the problem of burnout primarily lies with them. It’s essential to recognize the role of an organizational factor in burnout (approximately 80%, depending on the study); still, even if you address burnout, people may not be miserable, but it doesn’t mean they will stay at their current job (please cue intro music for the Great Resignation).

Engagement models have existed for some time and certainly have gained much more attention in health care settings over the past 2 decades. Engagement can be described as having three components: dedication, vigor, and absorption. When a person is filling all three of these components over time, presto – you get the much-sought-after state of the supremely engaged professional.

These models definitely give us excellent starting points to approach engagement from a pre-COVID era. In COVID and beyond, I’m not sure how these models will stand up in a hybrid work environment, where autonomy and flexibility could be more valued than ever. Personally, COVID revealed some things I was missing in my work pre-COVID:

• Time to think and process. This was one of the great things about being a consultation-liaison psychiatrist; it was literally feast or famine.
• Doing what I’m talented at and really enjoy.
• Time is short, and I want to be more present in the life of my family.
• Growth and curiosity are vitally important to me. These have to be part of my daily ritual and practice.

The list above isn’t exhaustive, but I’ve found them to be my own personal recipe for being engaged. Over the next series of articles, I’m going to focus on engagement and factors related to key resilience. These articles will be informed by a front-line view from my colleagues, and hopefully start to separate the myth from reality on the subject of health professional engagement and resilience.

Everyone be safe and well!

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

Depending on the data you’re looking at, 40%-60% of physicians are burned out.

Research studies and the eye test reveal the painfully obvious: Colleagues are tired, winded, spent, and at times way past burned out. People aren’t asking me if they’re burned out. They know they’re burned out; heck, they can even recite the Maslach burnout inventory, forward and backward, in a mask, or while completing a COVID quarantine. A fair share of people know the key steps to prevent burnout and promote recovery.

What I’m starting to see more of is, “Why should I even bother to recover from this? Why pick myself up again just to get another occupational stress injury (burnout, demoralization, moral injury, etc.)?” In other words, it’s not just simply about negating burnout; it’s about supporting and facilitating the motivation to work.

We’ve been through so much with COVID that it might be challenging to remember when you saw a truly engaged work environment. No doubt, we have outstanding professionals across medicine who answer the bell every day. However, if you’ve been looking closely, many teams/units have lost a bit of the zip and pep. The synergy and trust aren’t as smooth, and at noon, everyone counts the hours to the end of the shift.

You may be thinking, Well, of course, they are; we’re still amid a pandemic, and people have been through hell. Your observation would be correct, except I’ve personally seen some teams weather the pandemic storm and still remain engaged (some even more involved).

The No. 1 consult result for the GW Resiliency and Well-Being Center, where I work, has been on lectures for burnout. The R&WC has given so many of these lectures that my dreams take the form of a PowerPoint presentation. Overall the talks have gone very well. We’ve added skills sections on practices of whole-person care. We’ve blitzed the daylights out of restorative sleep, yet I know we are still searching for the correct narrative.

Motivated staff, faculty, and students will genuinely take in the information and follow the recommendations; however, they still struggle to find that drive and zest for work. Yes, moving from burnout to neutral is reasonable but likely won’t move the needle of your professional or personal life. We need to have the emotional energy and the clear desire to utilize that energy for a meaningful purpose.

Talking about burnout in specific ways is straightforward and, in my opinion, much easier than talking about engagement. Part of the challenge when trying to discuss engagement is that people can feel invalidated or that you’re telling them to be stoic. Or worse yet, that the problem of burnout primarily lies with them. It’s essential to recognize the role of an organizational factor in burnout (approximately 80%, depending on the study); still, even if you address burnout, people may not be miserable, but it doesn’t mean they will stay at their current job (please cue intro music for the Great Resignation).

Engagement models have existed for some time and certainly have gained much more attention in health care settings over the past 2 decades. Engagement can be described as having three components: dedication, vigor, and absorption. When a person is filling all three of these components over time, presto – you get the much-sought-after state of the supremely engaged professional.

These models definitely give us excellent starting points to approach engagement from a pre-COVID era. In COVID and beyond, I’m not sure how these models will stand up in a hybrid work environment, where autonomy and flexibility could be more valued than ever. Personally, COVID revealed some things I was missing in my work pre-COVID:

• Time to think and process. This was one of the great things about being a consultation-liaison psychiatrist; it was literally feast or famine.
• Doing what I’m talented at and really enjoy.
• Time is short, and I want to be more present in the life of my family.
• Growth and curiosity are vitally important to me. These have to be part of my daily ritual and practice.

The list above isn’t exhaustive, but I’ve found them to be my own personal recipe for being engaged. Over the next series of articles, I’m going to focus on engagement and factors related to key resilience. These articles will be informed by a front-line view from my colleagues, and hopefully start to separate the myth from reality on the subject of health professional engagement and resilience.

Everyone be safe and well!

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

Depending on the data you’re looking at, 40%-60% of physicians are burned out.

Research studies and the eye test reveal the painfully obvious: Colleagues are tired, winded, spent, and at times way past burned out. People aren’t asking me if they’re burned out. They know they’re burned out; heck, they can even recite the Maslach burnout inventory, forward and backward, in a mask, or while completing a COVID quarantine. A fair share of people know the key steps to prevent burnout and promote recovery.

What I’m starting to see more of is, “Why should I even bother to recover from this? Why pick myself up again just to get another occupational stress injury (burnout, demoralization, moral injury, etc.)?” In other words, it’s not just simply about negating burnout; it’s about supporting and facilitating the motivation to work.

We’ve been through so much with COVID that it might be challenging to remember when you saw a truly engaged work environment. No doubt, we have outstanding professionals across medicine who answer the bell every day. However, if you’ve been looking closely, many teams/units have lost a bit of the zip and pep. The synergy and trust aren’t as smooth, and at noon, everyone counts the hours to the end of the shift.

You may be thinking, Well, of course, they are; we’re still amid a pandemic, and people have been through hell. Your observation would be correct, except I’ve personally seen some teams weather the pandemic storm and still remain engaged (some even more involved).

The No. 1 consult result for the GW Resiliency and Well-Being Center, where I work, has been on lectures for burnout. The R&WC has given so many of these lectures that my dreams take the form of a PowerPoint presentation. Overall the talks have gone very well. We’ve added skills sections on practices of whole-person care. We’ve blitzed the daylights out of restorative sleep, yet I know we are still searching for the correct narrative.

Motivated staff, faculty, and students will genuinely take in the information and follow the recommendations; however, they still struggle to find that drive and zest for work. Yes, moving from burnout to neutral is reasonable but likely won’t move the needle of your professional or personal life. We need to have the emotional energy and the clear desire to utilize that energy for a meaningful purpose.

Talking about burnout in specific ways is straightforward and, in my opinion, much easier than talking about engagement. Part of the challenge when trying to discuss engagement is that people can feel invalidated or that you’re telling them to be stoic. Or worse yet, that the problem of burnout primarily lies with them. It’s essential to recognize the role of an organizational factor in burnout (approximately 80%, depending on the study); still, even if you address burnout, people may not be miserable, but it doesn’t mean they will stay at their current job (please cue intro music for the Great Resignation).

Engagement models have existed for some time and certainly have gained much more attention in health care settings over the past 2 decades. Engagement can be described as having three components: dedication, vigor, and absorption. When a person is filling all three of these components over time, presto – you get the much-sought-after state of the supremely engaged professional.

These models definitely give us excellent starting points to approach engagement from a pre-COVID era. In COVID and beyond, I’m not sure how these models will stand up in a hybrid work environment, where autonomy and flexibility could be more valued than ever. Personally, COVID revealed some things I was missing in my work pre-COVID:

• Time to think and process. This was one of the great things about being a consultation-liaison psychiatrist; it was literally feast or famine.
• Doing what I’m talented at and really enjoy.
• Time is short, and I want to be more present in the life of my family.
• Growth and curiosity are vitally important to me. These have to be part of my daily ritual and practice.

The list above isn’t exhaustive, but I’ve found them to be my own personal recipe for being engaged. Over the next series of articles, I’m going to focus on engagement and factors related to key resilience. These articles will be informed by a front-line view from my colleagues, and hopefully start to separate the myth from reality on the subject of health professional engagement and resilience.

Everyone be safe and well!

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

Disruption of the bacteria in the gut is linked with susceptibility to long COVID-19 syndrome, according to new findings.

While links have been found between the gut’s microbiome and COVID-19, as well as other diseases, this is the first published research to show a link specifically to COVID’s long-term effects, the investigators, based at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, wrote in Gut.

Courtesy Dr. Siew Ng

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that altered gut microbiome composition is strongly associated with persistent symptoms in patients with COVID-19 up to 6 months after clearance of SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Siew Ng, MBBS, PhD, associate director at the university’s Center for Gut Microbiota Research.

At three hospitals, the researchers enrolled 106 patients with COVID-19 from February to August 2020 with stool samples at admission and at 1 month and 6 months after discharge, and compared them with people who did not have COVID, recruited in 2019. The severity of COVID in the enrolled patients was mostly mild to moderate.

At 3 months, 86 of the patients with COVID had post–acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) – defined as at least one persistent, otherwise unexplained symptom 4 weeks after clearance of the virus. And 81 patients had PACS at 6 months, most commonly fatigue, poor memory, hair loss, anxiety, and trouble sleeping.

Using stool samples for their analysis, the researchers found that, broadly, the diversity of the types of bacteria, and the abundance of these bacteria, were significantly lower at 6 months for those with PACS, compared with those without PACS and with controls (P < .05 and P < .0001, respectively). Among those with PACS, 28 bacteria species were diminished and 14 were enriched, both at baseline and follow-up. Those patients who had COVID but not PACS showed just 25 alterations of bacteria species at the time of hospital admission, and they all normalized by 6 months.

Having respiratory symptoms at 6 months was linked with higher levels of opportunistic pathogens such as Streptococcus anginosus and S. vestibularis. Neuropsychiatric symptoms and fatigue were associated with nosocomial pathogens that are linked to opportunistic infections, such as Clostridium innocuum and Actinomyces naeslundii (P < .05).

Bacteria known for producing butyrate, a beneficial fatty acid, were significantly depleted in those patients with hair loss. And certain of these bacteria, including Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, had the largest inverse correlations with PACS at 6 months (P < .05), the researchers found.

“Particular gut microbial profiles may indicate heightened susceptibility,” Dr. Ng said.

Although the findings were drawn from patients with earlier strains of the COVID-19 virus, the findings still apply to new variants, including Omicron, since these pose the same problem of persistent disruption of the immune system, Dr. Ng said.

Her group is conducting trials to look at how modulating the microbiome might prevent long COVID and boost antibodies after vaccination in high-risk people, she said.

“Gut microbiota influences the health of the host,” Dr. Ng said. “It provides crucial benefits in the form of immune system development, prevention of infections, nutrient acquisition, and brain and nervous system functionality. Considering the millions of people infected during the ongoing pandemic, our findings are a strong impetus for consideration of microbiota modulation to facilitate timely recovery and reduce the burden of post–acute COVID-19 syndrome.”

Courtesy Dr. John Haran

John Haran, MD, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and physiological systems and emergency medicine at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said the research adds to the evidence base on the gut microbiome’s links to COVID, but there was likely be no clinical impact yet. Still, he said the findings linking specific species to specific symptoms was particularly interesting.

“Very early on during hospitalization, [the researchers] saw these differences and correlated out with people who have longer symptoms, and especially different groups of people that have longer symptoms, too,” said Dr. Haran, who has done research on the topic. “It’s very different if you have different symptoms, for example, you keep coughing for months versus you have brain fog and fatigue, or other debilitating symptoms.”

Dr. Haran noted that the findings didn’t identify bacteria types especially linked to COVID, but rather species that have already been found to be associated with a “bad” microbiome. He also pointed out that the patients enrolled in the study were not vaccinated, because vaccines weren’t available at the time. Still, further study to see whether modulation of gut bacteria can be a therapy seems worthwhile.

“Microbiome modulation is pretty safe, and that’s really the next big step that needs to be taken in this,” he said.

For now, the findings don’t give the clinician much new ammunition for treatment.

“We’re not there yet,” he added. “It’s not as if clinicians are going to tell their COVID patients: ‘Go out and buy some kale.’ ”

Eugene Chang, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, who has studied the gut microbiome and gastrointestinal disease, said it’s “too preliminary” to say whether the findings could lead to a clinical impact. The measures used merely identify the microbes present, but not what they are doing.

“These measures are unlikely to perform well enough to be useful for risk assessment or predicting clinical outcomes,” he said. “That being said, advances in technology are being made where next generations of metrics could be developed and useful as stratifiers and predictors of risk.”

Seeing shifting patterns associated with certain symptoms, he said, is “notable because it suggests that the disturbances of the gut microbiota in PACS are significant.”

But he said it’s important to know whether these changes are a cause of PACS in some way or just an effect of it.

“If causative or contributory – this has to be proven – then ‘microbiota modulation’ would make sense and could be a priority for development,” he said. “If merely an effect, these metrics and better ones to come could be useful as predictors or measures of the patient’s general state of health.”

As seen in his group’s work and other work, he said, “the gut microbiota is highly sensitive to changes in their ecosystem, which is influenced by the health state of the patient.”

Dr. Ng, Dr. Haran, and Dr. Chang reported no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated Jan. 27, 2022.

Disruption of the bacteria in the gut is linked with susceptibility to long COVID-19 syndrome, according to new findings.

While links have been found between the gut’s microbiome and COVID-19, as well as other diseases, this is the first published research to show a link specifically to COVID’s long-term effects, the investigators, based at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, wrote in Gut.

Courtesy Dr. Siew Ng

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that altered gut microbiome composition is strongly associated with persistent symptoms in patients with COVID-19 up to 6 months after clearance of SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Siew Ng, MBBS, PhD, associate director at the university’s Center for Gut Microbiota Research.

At three hospitals, the researchers enrolled 106 patients with COVID-19 from February to August 2020 with stool samples at admission and at 1 month and 6 months after discharge, and compared them with people who did not have COVID, recruited in 2019. The severity of COVID in the enrolled patients was mostly mild to moderate.

At 3 months, 86 of the patients with COVID had post–acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) – defined as at least one persistent, otherwise unexplained symptom 4 weeks after clearance of the virus. And 81 patients had PACS at 6 months, most commonly fatigue, poor memory, hair loss, anxiety, and trouble sleeping.

Using stool samples for their analysis, the researchers found that, broadly, the diversity of the types of bacteria, and the abundance of these bacteria, were significantly lower at 6 months for those with PACS, compared with those without PACS and with controls (P < .05 and P < .0001, respectively). Among those with PACS, 28 bacteria species were diminished and 14 were enriched, both at baseline and follow-up. Those patients who had COVID but not PACS showed just 25 alterations of bacteria species at the time of hospital admission, and they all normalized by 6 months.

Having respiratory symptoms at 6 months was linked with higher levels of opportunistic pathogens such as Streptococcus anginosus and S. vestibularis. Neuropsychiatric symptoms and fatigue were associated with nosocomial pathogens that are linked to opportunistic infections, such as Clostridium innocuum and Actinomyces naeslundii (P < .05).

Bacteria known for producing butyrate, a beneficial fatty acid, were significantly depleted in those patients with hair loss. And certain of these bacteria, including Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, had the largest inverse correlations with PACS at 6 months (P < .05), the researchers found.

“Particular gut microbial profiles may indicate heightened susceptibility,” Dr. Ng said.

Although the findings were drawn from patients with earlier strains of the COVID-19 virus, the findings still apply to new variants, including Omicron, since these pose the same problem of persistent disruption of the immune system, Dr. Ng said.

Her group is conducting trials to look at how modulating the microbiome might prevent long COVID and boost antibodies after vaccination in high-risk people, she said.

“Gut microbiota influences the health of the host,” Dr. Ng said. “It provides crucial benefits in the form of immune system development, prevention of infections, nutrient acquisition, and brain and nervous system functionality. Considering the millions of people infected during the ongoing pandemic, our findings are a strong impetus for consideration of microbiota modulation to facilitate timely recovery and reduce the burden of post–acute COVID-19 syndrome.”

Courtesy Dr. John Haran

John Haran, MD, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and physiological systems and emergency medicine at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said the research adds to the evidence base on the gut microbiome’s links to COVID, but there was likely be no clinical impact yet. Still, he said the findings linking specific species to specific symptoms was particularly interesting.

“Very early on during hospitalization, [the researchers] saw these differences and correlated out with people who have longer symptoms, and especially different groups of people that have longer symptoms, too,” said Dr. Haran, who has done research on the topic. “It’s very different if you have different symptoms, for example, you keep coughing for months versus you have brain fog and fatigue, or other debilitating symptoms.”

Dr. Haran noted that the findings didn’t identify bacteria types especially linked to COVID, but rather species that have already been found to be associated with a “bad” microbiome. He also pointed out that the patients enrolled in the study were not vaccinated, because vaccines weren’t available at the time. Still, further study to see whether modulation of gut bacteria can be a therapy seems worthwhile.

“Microbiome modulation is pretty safe, and that’s really the next big step that needs to be taken in this,” he said.

For now, the findings don’t give the clinician much new ammunition for treatment.

“We’re not there yet,” he added. “It’s not as if clinicians are going to tell their COVID patients: ‘Go out and buy some kale.’ ”

Eugene Chang, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, who has studied the gut microbiome and gastrointestinal disease, said it’s “too preliminary” to say whether the findings could lead to a clinical impact. The measures used merely identify the microbes present, but not what they are doing.

“These measures are unlikely to perform well enough to be useful for risk assessment or predicting clinical outcomes,” he said. “That being said, advances in technology are being made where next generations of metrics could be developed and useful as stratifiers and predictors of risk.”

Seeing shifting patterns associated with certain symptoms, he said, is “notable because it suggests that the disturbances of the gut microbiota in PACS are significant.”

But he said it’s important to know whether these changes are a cause of PACS in some way or just an effect of it.

“If causative or contributory – this has to be proven – then ‘microbiota modulation’ would make sense and could be a priority for development,” he said. “If merely an effect, these metrics and better ones to come could be useful as predictors or measures of the patient’s general state of health.”

As seen in his group’s work and other work, he said, “the gut microbiota is highly sensitive to changes in their ecosystem, which is influenced by the health state of the patient.”

Dr. Ng, Dr. Haran, and Dr. Chang reported no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated Jan. 27, 2022.

Disruption of the bacteria in the gut is linked with susceptibility to long COVID-19 syndrome, according to new findings.

While links have been found between the gut’s microbiome and COVID-19, as well as other diseases, this is the first published research to show a link specifically to COVID’s long-term effects, the investigators, based at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, wrote in Gut.

Courtesy Dr. Siew Ng

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that altered gut microbiome composition is strongly associated with persistent symptoms in patients with COVID-19 up to 6 months after clearance of SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Siew Ng, MBBS, PhD, associate director at the university’s Center for Gut Microbiota Research.

At three hospitals, the researchers enrolled 106 patients with COVID-19 from February to August 2020 with stool samples at admission and at 1 month and 6 months after discharge, and compared them with people who did not have COVID, recruited in 2019. The severity of COVID in the enrolled patients was mostly mild to moderate.

At 3 months, 86 of the patients with COVID had post–acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) – defined as at least one persistent, otherwise unexplained symptom 4 weeks after clearance of the virus. And 81 patients had PACS at 6 months, most commonly fatigue, poor memory, hair loss, anxiety, and trouble sleeping.

Using stool samples for their analysis, the researchers found that, broadly, the diversity of the types of bacteria, and the abundance of these bacteria, were significantly lower at 6 months for those with PACS, compared with those without PACS and with controls (P < .05 and P < .0001, respectively). Among those with PACS, 28 bacteria species were diminished and 14 were enriched, both at baseline and follow-up. Those patients who had COVID but not PACS showed just 25 alterations of bacteria species at the time of hospital admission, and they all normalized by 6 months.

Having respiratory symptoms at 6 months was linked with higher levels of opportunistic pathogens such as Streptococcus anginosus and S. vestibularis. Neuropsychiatric symptoms and fatigue were associated with nosocomial pathogens that are linked to opportunistic infections, such as Clostridium innocuum and Actinomyces naeslundii (P < .05).

Bacteria known for producing butyrate, a beneficial fatty acid, were significantly depleted in those patients with hair loss. And certain of these bacteria, including Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, had the largest inverse correlations with PACS at 6 months (P < .05), the researchers found.

“Particular gut microbial profiles may indicate heightened susceptibility,” Dr. Ng said.

Although the findings were drawn from patients with earlier strains of the COVID-19 virus, the findings still apply to new variants, including Omicron, since these pose the same problem of persistent disruption of the immune system, Dr. Ng said.

Her group is conducting trials to look at how modulating the microbiome might prevent long COVID and boost antibodies after vaccination in high-risk people, she said.

“Gut microbiota influences the health of the host,” Dr. Ng said. “It provides crucial benefits in the form of immune system development, prevention of infections, nutrient acquisition, and brain and nervous system functionality. Considering the millions of people infected during the ongoing pandemic, our findings are a strong impetus for consideration of microbiota modulation to facilitate timely recovery and reduce the burden of post–acute COVID-19 syndrome.”

Courtesy Dr. John Haran

John Haran, MD, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and physiological systems and emergency medicine at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said the research adds to the evidence base on the gut microbiome’s links to COVID, but there was likely be no clinical impact yet. Still, he said the findings linking specific species to specific symptoms was particularly interesting.

“Very early on during hospitalization, [the researchers] saw these differences and correlated out with people who have longer symptoms, and especially different groups of people that have longer symptoms, too,” said Dr. Haran, who has done research on the topic. “It’s very different if you have different symptoms, for example, you keep coughing for months versus you have brain fog and fatigue, or other debilitating symptoms.”

Dr. Haran noted that the findings didn’t identify bacteria types especially linked to COVID, but rather species that have already been found to be associated with a “bad” microbiome. He also pointed out that the patients enrolled in the study were not vaccinated, because vaccines weren’t available at the time. Still, further study to see whether modulation of gut bacteria can be a therapy seems worthwhile.

“Microbiome modulation is pretty safe, and that’s really the next big step that needs to be taken in this,” he said.

For now, the findings don’t give the clinician much new ammunition for treatment.

“We’re not there yet,” he added. “It’s not as if clinicians are going to tell their COVID patients: ‘Go out and buy some kale.’ ”

Eugene Chang, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, who has studied the gut microbiome and gastrointestinal disease, said it’s “too preliminary” to say whether the findings could lead to a clinical impact. The measures used merely identify the microbes present, but not what they are doing.

“These measures are unlikely to perform well enough to be useful for risk assessment or predicting clinical outcomes,” he said. “That being said, advances in technology are being made where next generations of metrics could be developed and useful as stratifiers and predictors of risk.”

Seeing shifting patterns associated with certain symptoms, he said, is “notable because it suggests that the disturbances of the gut microbiota in PACS are significant.”

But he said it’s important to know whether these changes are a cause of PACS in some way or just an effect of it.

“If causative or contributory – this has to be proven – then ‘microbiota modulation’ would make sense and could be a priority for development,” he said. “If merely an effect, these metrics and better ones to come could be useful as predictors or measures of the patient’s general state of health.”

As seen in his group’s work and other work, he said, “the gut microbiota is highly sensitive to changes in their ecosystem, which is influenced by the health state of the patient.”

Dr. Ng, Dr. Haran, and Dr. Chang reported no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated Jan. 27, 2022.

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

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

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

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

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Researchers surprised by findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s driving the trend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public health implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s the big take-home message?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Researchers surprised by findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s driving the trend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public health implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s the big take-home message?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2020 presidential election was rigged and stolen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Researchers surprised by findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s driving the trend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public health implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s the big take-home message?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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