In the United States, uterine cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women, behind breast, lung/bronchus, and colorectal cancer. There are expected to be almost 66,000 new cases of uterine cancer in 2022.¹ The majority of uterine cancers are endometrioid in histology and tend to be low grade, diagnosed at an early stage, and have a good prognosis. While our molecular understanding of endometrial cancers (EC) has changed significantly in recent years, low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinomas have historically been described as type 1 ECs. Type 1 ECs are typically caused by excess estrogen exposure (often unopposed or lacking progesterone protection) and are preceded by endometrial hyperplasia. Excess estrogen can come from exogenous sources (such as unopposed estrogen replacement therapy or tamoxifen, a commonly used treatment in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer that acts as an estrogen agonist in the endometrium in postmenopausal patients) or endogenous ones (such as obesity).

Peripheral adipose tissue converts androgens into estrogens; paired with the decreased levels of sex hormone–binding globulin seen in obesity, there is more unbound or free serum estrogen (specifically estradiol) in obese women. Estrogen acts on the endometrium to cause proliferation and, if unopposed or imbalanced in relation to progesterone exposure, can ultimately lead to hyperplasia and malignancy.

Footnote: vaginal estrogen therapy

There are no randomized trials assessing the safety of vaginal estrogen preparations or their effect on oncologic outcomes in EC survivors. Observational data from the Women’s Health Initiative showed no increased risk of endometrial cancer in patients who used vaginal estrogen with an intact uterus.⁴ A recently published retrospective study among 244 gynecologic cancer survivors found low rates of disease recurrence and adverse outcomes among women who used vaginal estrogen for genitourinary symptoms.⁵ Among EC survivors, the incidence of recurrence was 2.4% for patients with stage I/II disease and 4.3% for stage III/IV disease, with a median follow-up of 80.2 months. While there appears to be some systemic absorption with vaginal estrogen use, this can be quite challenging to measure because of the current sensitivity of serum estradiol and estrone assays. Given the significantly lower serum levels with vaginal estrogen preparations compared with ERT, vaginal estrogen use appears to be safe in EC survivors.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Cancer Stat Facts: Uterine Cancer. National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Accessed 12 Aug. 2022. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html.

2. Barakat RR et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

3. Shim SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(9):1628-37.

4. Crandall CJ et al. Menopause. 2018 Jan;25(1):11-20.

5. Chambers LM et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Apr;30(4):515-24.

In the United States, uterine cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women, behind breast, lung/bronchus, and colorectal cancer. There are expected to be almost 66,000 new cases of uterine cancer in 2022.¹ The majority of uterine cancers are endometrioid in histology and tend to be low grade, diagnosed at an early stage, and have a good prognosis. While our molecular understanding of endometrial cancers (EC) has changed significantly in recent years, low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinomas have historically been described as type 1 ECs. Type 1 ECs are typically caused by excess estrogen exposure (often unopposed or lacking progesterone protection) and are preceded by endometrial hyperplasia. Excess estrogen can come from exogenous sources (such as unopposed estrogen replacement therapy or tamoxifen, a commonly used treatment in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer that acts as an estrogen agonist in the endometrium in postmenopausal patients) or endogenous ones (such as obesity).

Peripheral adipose tissue converts androgens into estrogens; paired with the decreased levels of sex hormone–binding globulin seen in obesity, there is more unbound or free serum estrogen (specifically estradiol) in obese women. Estrogen acts on the endometrium to cause proliferation and, if unopposed or imbalanced in relation to progesterone exposure, can ultimately lead to hyperplasia and malignancy.

Footnote: vaginal estrogen therapy

There are no randomized trials assessing the safety of vaginal estrogen preparations or their effect on oncologic outcomes in EC survivors. Observational data from the Women’s Health Initiative showed no increased risk of endometrial cancer in patients who used vaginal estrogen with an intact uterus.⁴ A recently published retrospective study among 244 gynecologic cancer survivors found low rates of disease recurrence and adverse outcomes among women who used vaginal estrogen for genitourinary symptoms.⁵ Among EC survivors, the incidence of recurrence was 2.4% for patients with stage I/II disease and 4.3% for stage III/IV disease, with a median follow-up of 80.2 months. While there appears to be some systemic absorption with vaginal estrogen use, this can be quite challenging to measure because of the current sensitivity of serum estradiol and estrone assays. Given the significantly lower serum levels with vaginal estrogen preparations compared with ERT, vaginal estrogen use appears to be safe in EC survivors.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Cancer Stat Facts: Uterine Cancer. National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Accessed 12 Aug. 2022. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html.

2. Barakat RR et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

3. Shim SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(9):1628-37.

4. Crandall CJ et al. Menopause. 2018 Jan;25(1):11-20.

5. Chambers LM et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Apr;30(4):515-24.

In the United States, uterine cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women, behind breast, lung/bronchus, and colorectal cancer. There are expected to be almost 66,000 new cases of uterine cancer in 2022.¹ The majority of uterine cancers are endometrioid in histology and tend to be low grade, diagnosed at an early stage, and have a good prognosis. While our molecular understanding of endometrial cancers (EC) has changed significantly in recent years, low-grade endometrioid adenocarcinomas have historically been described as type 1 ECs. Type 1 ECs are typically caused by excess estrogen exposure (often unopposed or lacking progesterone protection) and are preceded by endometrial hyperplasia. Excess estrogen can come from exogenous sources (such as unopposed estrogen replacement therapy or tamoxifen, a commonly used treatment in estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer that acts as an estrogen agonist in the endometrium in postmenopausal patients) or endogenous ones (such as obesity).

Peripheral adipose tissue converts androgens into estrogens; paired with the decreased levels of sex hormone–binding globulin seen in obesity, there is more unbound or free serum estrogen (specifically estradiol) in obese women. Estrogen acts on the endometrium to cause proliferation and, if unopposed or imbalanced in relation to progesterone exposure, can ultimately lead to hyperplasia and malignancy.

Footnote: vaginal estrogen therapy

There are no randomized trials assessing the safety of vaginal estrogen preparations or their effect on oncologic outcomes in EC survivors. Observational data from the Women’s Health Initiative showed no increased risk of endometrial cancer in patients who used vaginal estrogen with an intact uterus.⁴ A recently published retrospective study among 244 gynecologic cancer survivors found low rates of disease recurrence and adverse outcomes among women who used vaginal estrogen for genitourinary symptoms.⁵ Among EC survivors, the incidence of recurrence was 2.4% for patients with stage I/II disease and 4.3% for stage III/IV disease, with a median follow-up of 80.2 months. While there appears to be some systemic absorption with vaginal estrogen use, this can be quite challenging to measure because of the current sensitivity of serum estradiol and estrone assays. Given the significantly lower serum levels with vaginal estrogen preparations compared with ERT, vaginal estrogen use appears to be safe in EC survivors.

Dr. Tucker is assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Cancer Stat Facts: Uterine Cancer. National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Accessed 12 Aug. 2022. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html.

2. Barakat RR et al. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):587-92.

3. Shim SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(9):1628-37.

4. Crandall CJ et al. Menopause. 2018 Jan;25(1):11-20.

5. Chambers LM et al. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Apr;30(4):515-24.

Annual prostate cancer screening may be particularly important for Black men, new data suggest.

The data come from a review of 45,834 veterans (aged 55-69 years) who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. About one-third of these men self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, and the rest were White.

During the study period (2004-2017), 2,465 men (5.4%) died of the disease.

The review found that annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced the risk of dying from prostate cancer among Black men but not White men.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

“These results may be biologically plausible because a shorter screening interval may be valuable for detecting aggressive disease, which is more common in Black men,” say investigators, led by University of California, San Diego, radiation oncology resident Michael Sherer, MD.

“Given that Black men are younger at diagnosis and have worse prostate cancer survival compared with White men,” more intensive screening recommendations “may benefit Black patients,” they write.

The study “conclusions are reasonable,” said Christopher Wallis, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, when asked for comment.

Annual screening may well have “a greater potential to benefit” Black men, he said. “While we would ideally see randomized data supporting this, those data are unlikely to ever be forthcoming. Thus, this study provides a strong rationale to support the recommendations from many guideline panels (including those from the American Urological Association) that Black men, in the context of shared decision-making, may benefit more from PSA-based prostate cancer screening than the population at large,” he added.

Overall, the findings could help inform screening discussions with Black men, the investigators comments. In its most recent guidance, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making regarding PSA screening for men aged 55-69 years.
 

Similar screening frequency

For their study, the team reviewed Veterans Health Administration data to assess PSA screening patterns – which they categorized as no screening, less than annual screening, or annual screening – in the 5 years leading up to diagnosis.

They then correlated screening behaviors with the subsequent risk of dying from prostate cancer.

Overall, the reduction in risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) associated with screening was similar among Black men (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .001) and White men (sHR, 0.58; P = .001).

However, on multivariable regression, annual screening, in comparison with some screening, was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of dying from prostate cancer only among Black men (sHR, 0.65; P = .02), not among White men (sHR, 0.91; P = .35).

The cumulative incidence of PCSM among Black men was 4.7% with annual screening but 7.3% with only some screening.

Among White men, the cumulative incidence of PCSM with annual screening was 5.9% vs. 6.9% with less than annual screening.

Screening frequency was similar between Black men and White men. Black men were younger on average (61.8 vs. 63.1 years) and had slightly higher PSA levels at diagnosis but were not more likely to have regional or metastatic disease.

No funding was reported for this study. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallis has received personal fees from Janssen Canada.

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

Annual prostate cancer screening may be particularly important for Black men, new data suggest.

The data come from a review of 45,834 veterans (aged 55-69 years) who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. About one-third of these men self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, and the rest were White.

During the study period (2004-2017), 2,465 men (5.4%) died of the disease.

The review found that annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced the risk of dying from prostate cancer among Black men but not White men.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

“These results may be biologically plausible because a shorter screening interval may be valuable for detecting aggressive disease, which is more common in Black men,” say investigators, led by University of California, San Diego, radiation oncology resident Michael Sherer, MD.

“Given that Black men are younger at diagnosis and have worse prostate cancer survival compared with White men,” more intensive screening recommendations “may benefit Black patients,” they write.

The study “conclusions are reasonable,” said Christopher Wallis, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, when asked for comment.

Annual screening may well have “a greater potential to benefit” Black men, he said. “While we would ideally see randomized data supporting this, those data are unlikely to ever be forthcoming. Thus, this study provides a strong rationale to support the recommendations from many guideline panels (including those from the American Urological Association) that Black men, in the context of shared decision-making, may benefit more from PSA-based prostate cancer screening than the population at large,” he added.

Overall, the findings could help inform screening discussions with Black men, the investigators comments. In its most recent guidance, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making regarding PSA screening for men aged 55-69 years.
 

Similar screening frequency

For their study, the team reviewed Veterans Health Administration data to assess PSA screening patterns – which they categorized as no screening, less than annual screening, or annual screening – in the 5 years leading up to diagnosis.

They then correlated screening behaviors with the subsequent risk of dying from prostate cancer.

Overall, the reduction in risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) associated with screening was similar among Black men (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .001) and White men (sHR, 0.58; P = .001).

However, on multivariable regression, annual screening, in comparison with some screening, was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of dying from prostate cancer only among Black men (sHR, 0.65; P = .02), not among White men (sHR, 0.91; P = .35).

The cumulative incidence of PCSM among Black men was 4.7% with annual screening but 7.3% with only some screening.

Among White men, the cumulative incidence of PCSM with annual screening was 5.9% vs. 6.9% with less than annual screening.

Screening frequency was similar between Black men and White men. Black men were younger on average (61.8 vs. 63.1 years) and had slightly higher PSA levels at diagnosis but were not more likely to have regional or metastatic disease.

No funding was reported for this study. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallis has received personal fees from Janssen Canada.

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

Annual prostate cancer screening may be particularly important for Black men, new data suggest.

The data come from a review of 45,834 veterans (aged 55-69 years) who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. About one-third of these men self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, and the rest were White.

During the study period (2004-2017), 2,465 men (5.4%) died of the disease.

The review found that annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced the risk of dying from prostate cancer among Black men but not White men.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

“These results may be biologically plausible because a shorter screening interval may be valuable for detecting aggressive disease, which is more common in Black men,” say investigators, led by University of California, San Diego, radiation oncology resident Michael Sherer, MD.

“Given that Black men are younger at diagnosis and have worse prostate cancer survival compared with White men,” more intensive screening recommendations “may benefit Black patients,” they write.

The study “conclusions are reasonable,” said Christopher Wallis, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, when asked for comment.

Annual screening may well have “a greater potential to benefit” Black men, he said. “While we would ideally see randomized data supporting this, those data are unlikely to ever be forthcoming. Thus, this study provides a strong rationale to support the recommendations from many guideline panels (including those from the American Urological Association) that Black men, in the context of shared decision-making, may benefit more from PSA-based prostate cancer screening than the population at large,” he added.

Overall, the findings could help inform screening discussions with Black men, the investigators comments. In its most recent guidance, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making regarding PSA screening for men aged 55-69 years.
 

Similar screening frequency

For their study, the team reviewed Veterans Health Administration data to assess PSA screening patterns – which they categorized as no screening, less than annual screening, or annual screening – in the 5 years leading up to diagnosis.

They then correlated screening behaviors with the subsequent risk of dying from prostate cancer.

Overall, the reduction in risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) associated with screening was similar among Black men (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .001) and White men (sHR, 0.58; P = .001).

However, on multivariable regression, annual screening, in comparison with some screening, was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of dying from prostate cancer only among Black men (sHR, 0.65; P = .02), not among White men (sHR, 0.91; P = .35).

The cumulative incidence of PCSM among Black men was 4.7% with annual screening but 7.3% with only some screening.

Among White men, the cumulative incidence of PCSM with annual screening was 5.9% vs. 6.9% with less than annual screening.

Screening frequency was similar between Black men and White men. Black men were younger on average (61.8 vs. 63.1 years) and had slightly higher PSA levels at diagnosis but were not more likely to have regional or metastatic disease.

No funding was reported for this study. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallis has received personal fees from Janssen Canada.

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

Varicella zoster virus (VZV) infection may activate dormant herpes simplex virus (HSV-1), leading to neuroinflammation and accumulation of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)–related proteins in the brain, new research suggests.

“Our results suggest one pathway to Alzheimer’s disease, caused by a VZV infection which creates inflammatory triggers that awaken HSV in the brain,” lead author Dana Cairns, PhD, research associate, department of biomedical engineering at Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.

The findings were published online  in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

‘One-two punch’

Previous research has suggested a correlation between HSV-1 and AD and involvement of VZV. However, the sequence of events that the viruses create to set the disease in motion has been unclear.

“We think we now have evidence of those events,” co–senior author David Kaplan, PhD, chair of the department of biomedical engineering at Tufts, said in the release.

Working with co–senior author Ruth Itzhaki, PhD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, the researchers infected human-induced neural stem cells (hiNSCs) and 3D brain tissue models with HSV-1 and/or VZV. Dr. Itzhaki was one of the first to hypothesize a connection between herpes virus and AD.

The investigators found that HSV-1 infection of hiNSCs induces amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation: the main components of AD plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, respectively.

On the other hand, VZV infection of cultured hiNSCs did not lead to amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation but instead resulted in gliosis and increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines.

“Strikingly,” VZV infection of cells quiescently infected with HSV-1 caused reactivation of HSV-1, leading to AD-like changes, including amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation, the investigators report.

This suggests that VZV is unlikely to be a direct cause of AD but rather acts indirectly via reactivation of HSV-1, they add.

Similar findings emerged in similar experiments using 3D human brain tissue models.

“It’s a one-two punch of two viruses that are very common and usually harmless, but the lab studies suggest that if a new exposure to VZV wakes up dormant HSV-1, they could cause trouble,” Dr. Cairns said.

The researchers note that vaccination against VZV has been shown previously to reduce risk for dementia. It is possible, they add, that the vaccine is helping to stop the cycle of viral reactivation, inflammation, and neuronal damage.
 

‘A first step’

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said that the study “is using artificial systems with the goal of more clearly and more deeply understanding” the assessed associations.

She added that although it is a first step, it may provide valuable direction for follow-up research.

“This is preliminary work that first needs replication, validation, and further development to understand if any association that is uncovered between viruses and Alzheimer’s/dementia has a mechanistic link,” said Dr. Snyder.

She noted that several past studies have sought to help the research field better understand the links between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

“There have been some challenges in evaluating these associations in our current model systems or in individuals for a number of reasons,” said Dr. Snyder.

However, “the COVID-19 pandemic has created an opportunity to examine and investigate the relationships between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other dementias by following individuals in more common and well-established ways,” she added.

She reported that her organization is “leading and working with a large global network of studies and investigators to address some of these questions” from during and after the COVID pandemic.

“The lessons we learn and share may inform our understanding of how other viruses are, or are not, connected to Alzheimer’s and other dementia,” Dr. Snyder said.

More information on the Alzheimer’s Association International Cohort Study of Chronic Neurological Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 is available online.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cairns, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Itzhaki, and Dr. Snyder have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Varicella zoster virus (VZV) infection may activate dormant herpes simplex virus (HSV-1), leading to neuroinflammation and accumulation of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)–related proteins in the brain, new research suggests.

“Our results suggest one pathway to Alzheimer’s disease, caused by a VZV infection which creates inflammatory triggers that awaken HSV in the brain,” lead author Dana Cairns, PhD, research associate, department of biomedical engineering at Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.

The findings were published online  in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

‘One-two punch’

Previous research has suggested a correlation between HSV-1 and AD and involvement of VZV. However, the sequence of events that the viruses create to set the disease in motion has been unclear.

“We think we now have evidence of those events,” co–senior author David Kaplan, PhD, chair of the department of biomedical engineering at Tufts, said in the release.

Working with co–senior author Ruth Itzhaki, PhD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, the researchers infected human-induced neural stem cells (hiNSCs) and 3D brain tissue models with HSV-1 and/or VZV. Dr. Itzhaki was one of the first to hypothesize a connection between herpes virus and AD.

The investigators found that HSV-1 infection of hiNSCs induces amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation: the main components of AD plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, respectively.

On the other hand, VZV infection of cultured hiNSCs did not lead to amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation but instead resulted in gliosis and increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines.

“Strikingly,” VZV infection of cells quiescently infected with HSV-1 caused reactivation of HSV-1, leading to AD-like changes, including amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation, the investigators report.

This suggests that VZV is unlikely to be a direct cause of AD but rather acts indirectly via reactivation of HSV-1, they add.

Similar findings emerged in similar experiments using 3D human brain tissue models.

“It’s a one-two punch of two viruses that are very common and usually harmless, but the lab studies suggest that if a new exposure to VZV wakes up dormant HSV-1, they could cause trouble,” Dr. Cairns said.

The researchers note that vaccination against VZV has been shown previously to reduce risk for dementia. It is possible, they add, that the vaccine is helping to stop the cycle of viral reactivation, inflammation, and neuronal damage.
 

‘A first step’

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said that the study “is using artificial systems with the goal of more clearly and more deeply understanding” the assessed associations.

She added that although it is a first step, it may provide valuable direction for follow-up research.

“This is preliminary work that first needs replication, validation, and further development to understand if any association that is uncovered between viruses and Alzheimer’s/dementia has a mechanistic link,” said Dr. Snyder.

She noted that several past studies have sought to help the research field better understand the links between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

“There have been some challenges in evaluating these associations in our current model systems or in individuals for a number of reasons,” said Dr. Snyder.

However, “the COVID-19 pandemic has created an opportunity to examine and investigate the relationships between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other dementias by following individuals in more common and well-established ways,” she added.

She reported that her organization is “leading and working with a large global network of studies and investigators to address some of these questions” from during and after the COVID pandemic.

“The lessons we learn and share may inform our understanding of how other viruses are, or are not, connected to Alzheimer’s and other dementia,” Dr. Snyder said.

More information on the Alzheimer’s Association International Cohort Study of Chronic Neurological Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 is available online.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cairns, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Itzhaki, and Dr. Snyder have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Varicella zoster virus (VZV) infection may activate dormant herpes simplex virus (HSV-1), leading to neuroinflammation and accumulation of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)–related proteins in the brain, new research suggests.

“Our results suggest one pathway to Alzheimer’s disease, caused by a VZV infection which creates inflammatory triggers that awaken HSV in the brain,” lead author Dana Cairns, PhD, research associate, department of biomedical engineering at Tufts University, Boston, said in a news release.

The findings were published online  in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

‘One-two punch’

Previous research has suggested a correlation between HSV-1 and AD and involvement of VZV. However, the sequence of events that the viruses create to set the disease in motion has been unclear.

“We think we now have evidence of those events,” co–senior author David Kaplan, PhD, chair of the department of biomedical engineering at Tufts, said in the release.

Working with co–senior author Ruth Itzhaki, PhD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, the researchers infected human-induced neural stem cells (hiNSCs) and 3D brain tissue models with HSV-1 and/or VZV. Dr. Itzhaki was one of the first to hypothesize a connection between herpes virus and AD.

The investigators found that HSV-1 infection of hiNSCs induces amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation: the main components of AD plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, respectively.

On the other hand, VZV infection of cultured hiNSCs did not lead to amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation but instead resulted in gliosis and increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines.

“Strikingly,” VZV infection of cells quiescently infected with HSV-1 caused reactivation of HSV-1, leading to AD-like changes, including amyloid-beta and P-tau accumulation, the investigators report.

This suggests that VZV is unlikely to be a direct cause of AD but rather acts indirectly via reactivation of HSV-1, they add.

Similar findings emerged in similar experiments using 3D human brain tissue models.

“It’s a one-two punch of two viruses that are very common and usually harmless, but the lab studies suggest that if a new exposure to VZV wakes up dormant HSV-1, they could cause trouble,” Dr. Cairns said.

The researchers note that vaccination against VZV has been shown previously to reduce risk for dementia. It is possible, they add, that the vaccine is helping to stop the cycle of viral reactivation, inflammation, and neuronal damage.
 

‘A first step’

Heather M. Snyder, PhD, vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said that the study “is using artificial systems with the goal of more clearly and more deeply understanding” the assessed associations.

She added that although it is a first step, it may provide valuable direction for follow-up research.

“This is preliminary work that first needs replication, validation, and further development to understand if any association that is uncovered between viruses and Alzheimer’s/dementia has a mechanistic link,” said Dr. Snyder.

She noted that several past studies have sought to help the research field better understand the links between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

“There have been some challenges in evaluating these associations in our current model systems or in individuals for a number of reasons,” said Dr. Snyder.

However, “the COVID-19 pandemic has created an opportunity to examine and investigate the relationships between different viruses and Alzheimer’s and other dementias by following individuals in more common and well-established ways,” she added.

She reported that her organization is “leading and working with a large global network of studies and investigators to address some of these questions” from during and after the COVID pandemic.

“The lessons we learn and share may inform our understanding of how other viruses are, or are not, connected to Alzheimer’s and other dementia,” Dr. Snyder said.

More information on the Alzheimer’s Association International Cohort Study of Chronic Neurological Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 is available online.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cairns, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Itzhaki, and Dr. Snyder have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

2021 bought welcome relief to oncologists, whose incomes generally rose as practices reopened after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted and patients ventured out again, concludes the latest Medscape Oncologist Wealth & Debt Report 2022.

Comparing the findings with those in the larger Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022, which surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties, the findings for oncologists show how they compare with those who chose other paths in medicine.

Oncologists’ income rose, on average, by 2% in the past year and now stands at an average of $411,000 annually, up from $403,000 in the 2021 report.

This puts oncologists in the top third of specialties, with plastic surgeons again in the top slot (with average income of $576,000 in 2022).

One-fifth (20%) of oncologists surveyed reported a family worth of more than $5 million, which represents substantial family wealth, the report comments.

However, 22% of oncologists reported that their family net worth was less than $500,000, and another 10% estimated that it to fall between $500,000 and $1 million.

For comparison, the average U.S. family net worth is about $749,000, according to data from the Federal Reserve.
 

Most live ‘within their means’

Most oncologists (94%) and also most (94%) of all of the physicians surveyed said that they live within or below their means.

How does one do this? Just paying off credit cards each month and contributing enough to a 401(k) account to receive an employer match does not meet this standard, said Joel Greenwald MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians. To live within or below your means, you also need to be saving at least 20% toward retirement, pay down student loans, contribute to your kids’ college savings, and set aside rainy day cash, he explained.

When physicians were asked about their favorite cost-cutting tactics, replies included bringing lunch to work, keeping a car for 15 years, and carrying out their own household maintenance and repairs. One doctor described a “24-hour rule” when it comes to shopping: “Revisit the desired purchase after 24 hours to see if it’s still desired.”

But how well do these tactics go down with ‘the other half’ and the rest of the household? Two-thirds (66%) of oncologists, and a similar proportion of all physicians, said that they argue with their significant other about spending. This appears to be high in comparison with the finding from a recent survey that across the United States, about one in four couples (25%) argue about money at least once a month.

Regarding spending, the top expense among oncologists was for childcare (16%), private tuition for offspring (14%), mortgage on a second home (14%), college tuition for offspring (14%), and a car lease (12%).

Around 17% of oncologists reported that they are still paying off their own college or medical school loans. For this statistic, they are about in the middle of all specialties.

The report notes that freeing oneself from medical school debt is very costly. Physicians in the United States pay an average of $356,000-$440,000, about half of which is interest.
 

Little change over 2021

The COVID pandemic had much less of an impact on physicians than it had on the general population when it comes to keeping up with payments, and most physicians were not affected. Only 3% of oncologists said they fell behind with payments for mortgage; 6% fell behind with payments for other bills.

In comparison, nearly half (46%) of Americans missed one or more payments of rent or mortgage because of COVID, according to a 2021 industry survey.

Over the past year, most oncologists (70%) did not change their spending habits, and only 11% cut expenses by deferring or refinancing loans. Also, most oncologists (75%) avoided major financial loses. Only 8% reported financial losses because of problems at their medical practice.

However, a slightly higher percentage of oncologists reported a stock or company investment that had turned sour in 2022 (37%) in comparison with 2021 (28%).

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

2021 bought welcome relief to oncologists, whose incomes generally rose as practices reopened after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted and patients ventured out again, concludes the latest Medscape Oncologist Wealth & Debt Report 2022.

Comparing the findings with those in the larger Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022, which surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties, the findings for oncologists show how they compare with those who chose other paths in medicine.

Oncologists’ income rose, on average, by 2% in the past year and now stands at an average of $411,000 annually, up from $403,000 in the 2021 report.

This puts oncologists in the top third of specialties, with plastic surgeons again in the top slot (with average income of $576,000 in 2022).

One-fifth (20%) of oncologists surveyed reported a family worth of more than $5 million, which represents substantial family wealth, the report comments.

However, 22% of oncologists reported that their family net worth was less than $500,000, and another 10% estimated that it to fall between $500,000 and $1 million.

For comparison, the average U.S. family net worth is about $749,000, according to data from the Federal Reserve.
 

Most live ‘within their means’

Most oncologists (94%) and also most (94%) of all of the physicians surveyed said that they live within or below their means.

How does one do this? Just paying off credit cards each month and contributing enough to a 401(k) account to receive an employer match does not meet this standard, said Joel Greenwald MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians. To live within or below your means, you also need to be saving at least 20% toward retirement, pay down student loans, contribute to your kids’ college savings, and set aside rainy day cash, he explained.

When physicians were asked about their favorite cost-cutting tactics, replies included bringing lunch to work, keeping a car for 15 years, and carrying out their own household maintenance and repairs. One doctor described a “24-hour rule” when it comes to shopping: “Revisit the desired purchase after 24 hours to see if it’s still desired.”

But how well do these tactics go down with ‘the other half’ and the rest of the household? Two-thirds (66%) of oncologists, and a similar proportion of all physicians, said that they argue with their significant other about spending. This appears to be high in comparison with the finding from a recent survey that across the United States, about one in four couples (25%) argue about money at least once a month.

Regarding spending, the top expense among oncologists was for childcare (16%), private tuition for offspring (14%), mortgage on a second home (14%), college tuition for offspring (14%), and a car lease (12%).

Around 17% of oncologists reported that they are still paying off their own college or medical school loans. For this statistic, they are about in the middle of all specialties.

The report notes that freeing oneself from medical school debt is very costly. Physicians in the United States pay an average of $356,000-$440,000, about half of which is interest.
 

Little change over 2021

The COVID pandemic had much less of an impact on physicians than it had on the general population when it comes to keeping up with payments, and most physicians were not affected. Only 3% of oncologists said they fell behind with payments for mortgage; 6% fell behind with payments for other bills.

In comparison, nearly half (46%) of Americans missed one or more payments of rent or mortgage because of COVID, according to a 2021 industry survey.

Over the past year, most oncologists (70%) did not change their spending habits, and only 11% cut expenses by deferring or refinancing loans. Also, most oncologists (75%) avoided major financial loses. Only 8% reported financial losses because of problems at their medical practice.

However, a slightly higher percentage of oncologists reported a stock or company investment that had turned sour in 2022 (37%) in comparison with 2021 (28%).

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

2021 bought welcome relief to oncologists, whose incomes generally rose as practices reopened after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted and patients ventured out again, concludes the latest Medscape Oncologist Wealth & Debt Report 2022.

Comparing the findings with those in the larger Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022, which surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties, the findings for oncologists show how they compare with those who chose other paths in medicine.

Oncologists’ income rose, on average, by 2% in the past year and now stands at an average of $411,000 annually, up from $403,000 in the 2021 report.

This puts oncologists in the top third of specialties, with plastic surgeons again in the top slot (with average income of $576,000 in 2022).

One-fifth (20%) of oncologists surveyed reported a family worth of more than $5 million, which represents substantial family wealth, the report comments.

However, 22% of oncologists reported that their family net worth was less than $500,000, and another 10% estimated that it to fall between $500,000 and $1 million.

For comparison, the average U.S. family net worth is about $749,000, according to data from the Federal Reserve.
 

Most live ‘within their means’

Most oncologists (94%) and also most (94%) of all of the physicians surveyed said that they live within or below their means.

How does one do this? Just paying off credit cards each month and contributing enough to a 401(k) account to receive an employer match does not meet this standard, said Joel Greenwald MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians. To live within or below your means, you also need to be saving at least 20% toward retirement, pay down student loans, contribute to your kids’ college savings, and set aside rainy day cash, he explained.

When physicians were asked about their favorite cost-cutting tactics, replies included bringing lunch to work, keeping a car for 15 years, and carrying out their own household maintenance and repairs. One doctor described a “24-hour rule” when it comes to shopping: “Revisit the desired purchase after 24 hours to see if it’s still desired.”

But how well do these tactics go down with ‘the other half’ and the rest of the household? Two-thirds (66%) of oncologists, and a similar proportion of all physicians, said that they argue with their significant other about spending. This appears to be high in comparison with the finding from a recent survey that across the United States, about one in four couples (25%) argue about money at least once a month.

Regarding spending, the top expense among oncologists was for childcare (16%), private tuition for offspring (14%), mortgage on a second home (14%), college tuition for offspring (14%), and a car lease (12%).

Around 17% of oncologists reported that they are still paying off their own college or medical school loans. For this statistic, they are about in the middle of all specialties.

The report notes that freeing oneself from medical school debt is very costly. Physicians in the United States pay an average of $356,000-$440,000, about half of which is interest.
 

Little change over 2021

The COVID pandemic had much less of an impact on physicians than it had on the general population when it comes to keeping up with payments, and most physicians were not affected. Only 3% of oncologists said they fell behind with payments for mortgage; 6% fell behind with payments for other bills.

In comparison, nearly half (46%) of Americans missed one or more payments of rent or mortgage because of COVID, according to a 2021 industry survey.

Over the past year, most oncologists (70%) did not change their spending habits, and only 11% cut expenses by deferring or refinancing loans. Also, most oncologists (75%) avoided major financial loses. Only 8% reported financial losses because of problems at their medical practice.

However, a slightly higher percentage of oncologists reported a stock or company investment that had turned sour in 2022 (37%) in comparison with 2021 (28%).

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

It used to be the treatment of “last resort” but for competitive athletes, intravenous nutrition is threatening to become the norm, despite no scientific evidence that it works, or is safe, warned experts.

In their editorial, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, experts urged the “food first” and “no needle” messages – that are taught in sports nutrition courses around the world – need to be amplified among all athletes and their support teams to “stop this trend in its tracks”.

The international group of authors, including experts from St Mary’s University, London; University College London; and University of Bath (England), who regularly interact with professional team players in European and American leagues and their support teams, said they have become increasingly aware of the practice.

Although it’s not known exactly how common the practice is, they pointed out that, anecdotally, some players are hooked up to intravenous nutrition drips as often as every week as part of a pre- or postgame routine.
 

‘Drip-bars’ easily accessible but devoid of regulation

Intravenous nutrition has traditionally been reserved for serious clinical conditions – such as anaemia – symptoms caused by nutrient deficiencies, or to correct severe dehydration caused by marathon running in, for example, a desert.

A ban on needle use by athletes at the Olympic Games has been in place for all recent Games except for appropriate medical use, and where a therapeutic use exemption is obtained, explained the authors.

However, “so-called ‘drip bars’ and concierge IV nutrition services are now easily accessible,” they said. These claim to boost health and performance, restore hydration, and speed up recovery, by offering a menu of B vitamins, amino acids, glutathione, vitamin C, and electrolytes, and potentially boosting levels beyond any therapeutic range.

However, they are “devoid of regulation” and for players or practitioners there is no official guidance on their use.
 

Physical and reputational risks

Bypassing the gut-liver axis risks nutrient toxicity warned the authors, and “appears foolhardy” unless there is a “significant clinical rationale.” They highlighted that they had noted vitamin B6 and vitamin B12 levels often “beyond the measurement range of the laboratory” in a subgroup of professional players. They pointed out how long-term effects of too much vitamin B6 include peripheral neuropathy, and that athletes regularly receiving parenteral iron “risk liver disease.”

“Given that the long-term effects of supratherapeutic doses of B vitamins and other nutrients are unknown in athletes, it does not appear to be worth the risk, especially given the lack of evidence-based benefits,” they said. They added that there is also the risk related to venous access, including “infection and thromboembolic complications.”

Additionally, a shift away from “what works” according to scientific standards to that which is “unproven” puts the reputation of sport at risk, and also puts athletes at risk of antidoping violation, they cautioned.

Figures on the prevalence of intravenous nutrition need to be gathered in tandem with governing bodies and players’ associations in the professional leagues providing guidance on the potential risks of intravenous nutrition use, recommended the authors.

The ‘food first’ and ‘no needle’ messages need to be amplified among all athletes and multidisciplinary support teams, they emphasised, to avoid what was previously a ‘last resort’ treatment becoming “normal without scientific evidence of benefit”.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

It used to be the treatment of “last resort” but for competitive athletes, intravenous nutrition is threatening to become the norm, despite no scientific evidence that it works, or is safe, warned experts.

In their editorial, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, experts urged the “food first” and “no needle” messages – that are taught in sports nutrition courses around the world – need to be amplified among all athletes and their support teams to “stop this trend in its tracks”.

The international group of authors, including experts from St Mary’s University, London; University College London; and University of Bath (England), who regularly interact with professional team players in European and American leagues and their support teams, said they have become increasingly aware of the practice.

Although it’s not known exactly how common the practice is, they pointed out that, anecdotally, some players are hooked up to intravenous nutrition drips as often as every week as part of a pre- or postgame routine.
 

‘Drip-bars’ easily accessible but devoid of regulation

Intravenous nutrition has traditionally been reserved for serious clinical conditions – such as anaemia – symptoms caused by nutrient deficiencies, or to correct severe dehydration caused by marathon running in, for example, a desert.

A ban on needle use by athletes at the Olympic Games has been in place for all recent Games except for appropriate medical use, and where a therapeutic use exemption is obtained, explained the authors.

However, “so-called ‘drip bars’ and concierge IV nutrition services are now easily accessible,” they said. These claim to boost health and performance, restore hydration, and speed up recovery, by offering a menu of B vitamins, amino acids, glutathione, vitamin C, and electrolytes, and potentially boosting levels beyond any therapeutic range.

However, they are “devoid of regulation” and for players or practitioners there is no official guidance on their use.
 

Physical and reputational risks

Bypassing the gut-liver axis risks nutrient toxicity warned the authors, and “appears foolhardy” unless there is a “significant clinical rationale.” They highlighted that they had noted vitamin B6 and vitamin B12 levels often “beyond the measurement range of the laboratory” in a subgroup of professional players. They pointed out how long-term effects of too much vitamin B6 include peripheral neuropathy, and that athletes regularly receiving parenteral iron “risk liver disease.”

“Given that the long-term effects of supratherapeutic doses of B vitamins and other nutrients are unknown in athletes, it does not appear to be worth the risk, especially given the lack of evidence-based benefits,” they said. They added that there is also the risk related to venous access, including “infection and thromboembolic complications.”

Additionally, a shift away from “what works” according to scientific standards to that which is “unproven” puts the reputation of sport at risk, and also puts athletes at risk of antidoping violation, they cautioned.

Figures on the prevalence of intravenous nutrition need to be gathered in tandem with governing bodies and players’ associations in the professional leagues providing guidance on the potential risks of intravenous nutrition use, recommended the authors.

The ‘food first’ and ‘no needle’ messages need to be amplified among all athletes and multidisciplinary support teams, they emphasised, to avoid what was previously a ‘last resort’ treatment becoming “normal without scientific evidence of benefit”.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

It used to be the treatment of “last resort” but for competitive athletes, intravenous nutrition is threatening to become the norm, despite no scientific evidence that it works, or is safe, warned experts.

In their editorial, published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, experts urged the “food first” and “no needle” messages – that are taught in sports nutrition courses around the world – need to be amplified among all athletes and their support teams to “stop this trend in its tracks”.

The international group of authors, including experts from St Mary’s University, London; University College London; and University of Bath (England), who regularly interact with professional team players in European and American leagues and their support teams, said they have become increasingly aware of the practice.

Although it’s not known exactly how common the practice is, they pointed out that, anecdotally, some players are hooked up to intravenous nutrition drips as often as every week as part of a pre- or postgame routine.
 

‘Drip-bars’ easily accessible but devoid of regulation

Intravenous nutrition has traditionally been reserved for serious clinical conditions – such as anaemia – symptoms caused by nutrient deficiencies, or to correct severe dehydration caused by marathon running in, for example, a desert.

A ban on needle use by athletes at the Olympic Games has been in place for all recent Games except for appropriate medical use, and where a therapeutic use exemption is obtained, explained the authors.

However, “so-called ‘drip bars’ and concierge IV nutrition services are now easily accessible,” they said. These claim to boost health and performance, restore hydration, and speed up recovery, by offering a menu of B vitamins, amino acids, glutathione, vitamin C, and electrolytes, and potentially boosting levels beyond any therapeutic range.

However, they are “devoid of regulation” and for players or practitioners there is no official guidance on their use.
 

Physical and reputational risks

Bypassing the gut-liver axis risks nutrient toxicity warned the authors, and “appears foolhardy” unless there is a “significant clinical rationale.” They highlighted that they had noted vitamin B6 and vitamin B12 levels often “beyond the measurement range of the laboratory” in a subgroup of professional players. They pointed out how long-term effects of too much vitamin B6 include peripheral neuropathy, and that athletes regularly receiving parenteral iron “risk liver disease.”

“Given that the long-term effects of supratherapeutic doses of B vitamins and other nutrients are unknown in athletes, it does not appear to be worth the risk, especially given the lack of evidence-based benefits,” they said. They added that there is also the risk related to venous access, including “infection and thromboembolic complications.”

Additionally, a shift away from “what works” according to scientific standards to that which is “unproven” puts the reputation of sport at risk, and also puts athletes at risk of antidoping violation, they cautioned.

Figures on the prevalence of intravenous nutrition need to be gathered in tandem with governing bodies and players’ associations in the professional leagues providing guidance on the potential risks of intravenous nutrition use, recommended the authors.

The ‘food first’ and ‘no needle’ messages need to be amplified among all athletes and multidisciplinary support teams, they emphasised, to avoid what was previously a ‘last resort’ treatment becoming “normal without scientific evidence of benefit”.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks for preoperative pain management after hip fracture provide improvements over conventional anesthesia including greater pain reduction and fewer adverse events, results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.

With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.

“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.

Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.

Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.

“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.

To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.

The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.

Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).

Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).

Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.

Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.

“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.

Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.

No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.

However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.

“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
 

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible

Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.

Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.

“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.

“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”

Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.

Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.

“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”

Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.

“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.

“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”

The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.

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

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks for preoperative pain management after hip fracture provide improvements over conventional anesthesia including greater pain reduction and fewer adverse events, results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.

With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.

“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.

Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.

Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.

“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.

To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.

The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.

Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).

Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).

Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.

Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.

“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.

Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.

No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.

However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.

“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
 

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible

Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.

Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.

“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.

“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”

Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.

Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.

“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”

Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.

“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.

“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”

The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.

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

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks for preoperative pain management after hip fracture provide improvements over conventional anesthesia including greater pain reduction and fewer adverse events, results from a meta-analysis published in BMC Anesthesiology show.

With the caveat that the quality of evidence in most trials in the analysis is low owing to a lack of blinding and other factors, “our review suggests that, among patients suffering from a hip fracture, a preoperative ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with a significant pain reduction and reduced need for systemic analgesics compared to conventional analgesia,” reported the authors.

“Our results may also indicate a lower risk of delirium, serious adverse events and higher patient satisfaction in patients receiving an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block,” they added.

Because hip fractures commonly affect older populations and those who are frail, treatment of the substantial pain that can occur perioperatively is a challenge.

Peripheral nerve blocks have been shown to reduce pain within 30 minutes of the block placement; however, most studies have primarily included blocks that use anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation for guidance. However, the use of ultrasound guidance with the nerve block should improve efficacy, the authors noted.

“It seems intuitive that using ultrasound-guidance should be more effective than using a blind technique, since it allows a trained physician to deposit the local anesthetic with much more precision,” they wrote.

To evaluate the data from studies that have looked at ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, Oskar Wilborg Exsteen, of the department of anesthesiology and intensive care, Copenhagen University Hospital and Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark, and colleagues identified 12 randomized controlled trials, involving a combined total of 976 participants, for the meta-analysis.

The studies included 509 participants who received ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, specifically the femoral nerve block and fascia iliaca block, and 476 who were randomly assigned to control groups.

Overall, those treated with the nerve blocks showed significantly greater reductions in pain measured closest to 2 hours of block placement, compared with conventional analgesia, with a mean reduction of 2.26 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range, 0-10; P < .001).

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower preoperative usage of analgesic intravenous morphine equivalents in milligram, reported in four of the trials (random effects model mean difference, –5.34; P = .003).

Delirium was also significantly lower with the nerve blocks (risk ratio, 0.6; P = 0.03), as were serious adverse events, compared with standard analgesia (RR, 0.33; P = .006), whereas patient satisfaction was significantly higher with the nerve blocks (mean VAS difference, 25.9 [score 0-100]; P < .001).

Seven of the studies had monitored for serious adverse events or complications related to the nerve blocks, but none reported any complications directly related to the ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks.

Owing to the inability to conduct blinded comparisons, clinical heterogeneity, and other caveats, the quality of evidence was ultimately judged to be “low” or “very low”; however, the observed benefits are nevertheless relevant, the authors concluded.

“Despite the low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia,” they said.

Key caveats include that the morphine reductions observed with the nerve blocks were not substantial, they noted. “The opioid-sparing effect seems small and may be of less clinical importance.” The decreases in opioid consumption, as well as pain reduction in the analysis, are in fact similar to those observed with conventional, peripheral nerve blocks that did not use ultrasound guidance, compared with standard pain management.

No trials were identified that directly compared ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks with nerve block techniques that didn’t use ultrasound.

However, the other noted improvements carry more weight, the authors said.

“The potential for higher patient satisfaction and reduction in serious adverse events and delirium may be of clinical importance,” they wrote.
 

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks not always accessible

Of note, the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks appears to be somewhat low, with one observational trend study of national data in the United States showing that, among patients receiving a peripheral nerve block for hip arthroplasty, only 3.2% of the procedures were performed using ultrasound guidance.

Stephen C. Haskins, MD, a coauthor on that study, said that the low utilization underscores that, in real-world practice, an ultrasound-guided approach isn’t always convenient.

“I think our findings demonstrate a common misconception that exists for those of us that work at academic institutions and/or within the ivory towers of regional anesthesia, which is that everyone is performing cutting edge ultrasound-guided techniques for all procedures,” Dr. Haskins, an associate attending anesthesiologist and chief medical diversity officer with the department of anesthesiology, critical care & pain management at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

However, “there are many limitations to use of ultrasound for these blocks, including limited access to machines, limited access to training, and limited interest and support from our surgical colleagues,” he explained.

“Ultimately, the best nerve block is the one performed in a timely and successful fashion, regardless of technique,” he said. “But we will continue to see a trend towards ultrasound use in the future due to increasing access in the form of portability and affordability.”

Haskins noted that newer ultrasound-guided nerve blocks that were not reviewed in the study, such as the pericapsular nerve group block, regional block, and supra-inguinal fascia iliaca block, which provide additional benefits such as avoiding quadriceps weakness.

Jeff Gadsden, MD, chief of the orthopedics, plastic, and regional anesthesiology division at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed, noting that much has changed since some of the older studies in the analysis, that date back to 2010.

“A fascia iliaca block done in 2022 looks a lot different than it did in 2012, and we would expect it to be more consistent, reliable and longer-lasting with current techniques and technology,” he said in an interview. “So, if anything, I would expect the findings of this analysis to undersell the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks in this population.”

Although the quality of evidence in the meta-analysis is described as “low,” the downsides of the procedures are few, and “the potential benefits [of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks] are just too good to ignore,” Dr. Gadsden emphasized.

“If we can avoid or reduce opioids in this population and at the same time reduce the acute pain from the injury, there is no question that the incidence of delirium will go down,” he said. “Delirium is associated with a number of poor outcomes following hip fracture, including increased mortality.

“The bottom line is that the risk/benefit ratio is so far in favor of performing the blocks that even in the face of ‘modest’ levels of evidence, we should all be doing these.”

The authors, Dr. Haskins, and Dr. Gadsden had no disclosures relating to the study to report.

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

Five years ago, Kay Dean relied upon Yelp! and Google reviews in her search for a doctor in her area. After finding a physician with fairly high reviews, Ms. Dean was shocked when her personal experience was significantly worse than patients on the review platforms.

Following her experience, Ms. Dean, a former federal government investigator, became skeptical and used her skills to investigate the practice on all review platforms. She uncovered that the practice had a review from an individual who was involved in a review trading group on Facebook, where organizations openly barter their services in exchange for positive reviews fraud.

“I discovered that the online review world was just saturated with fake reviews, much more so than I think most people are aware ... and law enforcement regulators aren’t doing anything to address the problem,” said Ms. Dean. “In this online space, it’s the Wild West; cheating is rewarded.”

Ms. Dean decided to take matters into her own hands. She created a YouTube channel called Fake Review Watch, where she exposes real businesses and their attempts to dupe potential consumers with fake positive reviews.

For example, one video analyzes an orthopedic surgeon in Manhattan with an abundance of five-star reviews. Through her detailed analysis, Ms. Dean created a spreadsheet of the 26 alleged patients of the orthopedic surgeon that had submitted glowing reviews. She looked into other businesses that the individuals had left reviews for and found a significant amount of overlap.

According to the video, 19 of the doctor’s reviewers had left high reviews for the same moving company in Las Vegas, and 18 of them reviewed the same locksmith in Texas. Overall, eight of the patients reviewed the same mover, locksmith, and hotel in New Zealand.
 

A matter of trust

Ms. Dean expressed the gravity of this phenomenon, especially in health care, as patients often head online first when searching for care options. Based on a survey by Software Advice, about 84% of patients use online reviews to assess a physician, and 77% use review sites as the first step in finding a doctor.

Patient trust has continued to diminish in recent years, particularly following the pandemic. In a 2021 global ranking of trust levels towards health care by country, the U.S. health care system ranked 19th, far below those of several developing countries.

Owing to the rise of fake patient reviews and their inscrutable nature, Ms. Dean advises staying away from online review platforms. Instead, she suggests sticking to the old-fashioned method of getting recommendations from friends and relatives, not virtual people.

Ms. Dean explained a few indicators that she looks for when trying to identify a fake review.

“The business has all five-star reviews, negative reviews are followed by five-star reviews, or the business has an abnormal number of positive reviews in a short period of time,” she noted. “Some businesses try to bury legitimate negative reviews by obtaining more recent, fake, positive ones. The recent reviews will contradict the specific criticisms in the negative review.”

She warned that consumers should not give credibility to reviews simply because the reviewer is dubbed “Elite” or a Google Local Guide, because she has seen plenty of these individuals posting fake reviews.

Unfortunately, review platforms haven’t been doing much self-policing. Google and Healthgrades have a series of policies against fake engagement, impersonation, misinformation, and misrepresentation, according to their websites. However, the only consequence of these violations is review removal.

Both Yelp! and Google say they have automated software that distinguishes real versus fake reviews. When Yelp! uncovers users engaging in compensation review activity, it removes their reviews, closes their account, and blocks those users from creating future Yelp! accounts.
 

Physicians’ basis

Moreover, physicians purchasing fake reviews create an unfair environment for those physicians who choose to be ethical and honest with patients.

“I think there’s an erosion of business ethics because cheating is rewarded. You can’t compete in an environment where your competition is allowed to accumulate numerous fake reviews while you’re still trying to fill chairs in your business,” said Ms. Dean. “Your competition is then getting the business because the tech companies are allowing this fraud.”

Family physician and practice owner Mike Woo-Ming, MD, MPH, provides career coaching for physicians, including maintaining a good reputation – in-person and online. He has seen physicians bumping up their own five-star reviews personally as well as posting negative reviews for their competition.

“I’ve seen where they’re going to lose business, as many practices were affected through COVID,” he said. “Business owners can become desperate and may decide to start posting or buying reviews because they know people will choose certain services these days based upon reviews.”

Dr. Woo-Ming expressed his frustration with fellow physicians who give in to purchasing fake reviews, because the patients have no idea whether reviews are genuine or not.

To encourage genuine positive reviews, Dr. Woo-Ming’s practice uses a third-party app system that sends patients a follow-up email or text asking about their experience with a link to review sites.

“Honest reviews are a reflection of what I can do to improve my business. At the end of the day, if you’re truly providing great service and you’re helping people by providing great medical care, those are going to win out,” he said. “I would rather, as a responsible practice owner, improve the experience and outcome for the patient.”

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

Five years ago, Kay Dean relied upon Yelp! and Google reviews in her search for a doctor in her area. After finding a physician with fairly high reviews, Ms. Dean was shocked when her personal experience was significantly worse than patients on the review platforms.

Following her experience, Ms. Dean, a former federal government investigator, became skeptical and used her skills to investigate the practice on all review platforms. She uncovered that the practice had a review from an individual who was involved in a review trading group on Facebook, where organizations openly barter their services in exchange for positive reviews fraud.

“I discovered that the online review world was just saturated with fake reviews, much more so than I think most people are aware ... and law enforcement regulators aren’t doing anything to address the problem,” said Ms. Dean. “In this online space, it’s the Wild West; cheating is rewarded.”

Ms. Dean decided to take matters into her own hands. She created a YouTube channel called Fake Review Watch, where she exposes real businesses and their attempts to dupe potential consumers with fake positive reviews.

For example, one video analyzes an orthopedic surgeon in Manhattan with an abundance of five-star reviews. Through her detailed analysis, Ms. Dean created a spreadsheet of the 26 alleged patients of the orthopedic surgeon that had submitted glowing reviews. She looked into other businesses that the individuals had left reviews for and found a significant amount of overlap.

According to the video, 19 of the doctor’s reviewers had left high reviews for the same moving company in Las Vegas, and 18 of them reviewed the same locksmith in Texas. Overall, eight of the patients reviewed the same mover, locksmith, and hotel in New Zealand.
 

A matter of trust

Ms. Dean expressed the gravity of this phenomenon, especially in health care, as patients often head online first when searching for care options. Based on a survey by Software Advice, about 84% of patients use online reviews to assess a physician, and 77% use review sites as the first step in finding a doctor.

Patient trust has continued to diminish in recent years, particularly following the pandemic. In a 2021 global ranking of trust levels towards health care by country, the U.S. health care system ranked 19th, far below those of several developing countries.

Owing to the rise of fake patient reviews and their inscrutable nature, Ms. Dean advises staying away from online review platforms. Instead, she suggests sticking to the old-fashioned method of getting recommendations from friends and relatives, not virtual people.

Ms. Dean explained a few indicators that she looks for when trying to identify a fake review.

“The business has all five-star reviews, negative reviews are followed by five-star reviews, or the business has an abnormal number of positive reviews in a short period of time,” she noted. “Some businesses try to bury legitimate negative reviews by obtaining more recent, fake, positive ones. The recent reviews will contradict the specific criticisms in the negative review.”

She warned that consumers should not give credibility to reviews simply because the reviewer is dubbed “Elite” or a Google Local Guide, because she has seen plenty of these individuals posting fake reviews.

Unfortunately, review platforms haven’t been doing much self-policing. Google and Healthgrades have a series of policies against fake engagement, impersonation, misinformation, and misrepresentation, according to their websites. However, the only consequence of these violations is review removal.

Both Yelp! and Google say they have automated software that distinguishes real versus fake reviews. When Yelp! uncovers users engaging in compensation review activity, it removes their reviews, closes their account, and blocks those users from creating future Yelp! accounts.
 

Physicians’ basis

Moreover, physicians purchasing fake reviews create an unfair environment for those physicians who choose to be ethical and honest with patients.

“I think there’s an erosion of business ethics because cheating is rewarded. You can’t compete in an environment where your competition is allowed to accumulate numerous fake reviews while you’re still trying to fill chairs in your business,” said Ms. Dean. “Your competition is then getting the business because the tech companies are allowing this fraud.”

Family physician and practice owner Mike Woo-Ming, MD, MPH, provides career coaching for physicians, including maintaining a good reputation – in-person and online. He has seen physicians bumping up their own five-star reviews personally as well as posting negative reviews for their competition.

“I’ve seen where they’re going to lose business, as many practices were affected through COVID,” he said. “Business owners can become desperate and may decide to start posting or buying reviews because they know people will choose certain services these days based upon reviews.”

Dr. Woo-Ming expressed his frustration with fellow physicians who give in to purchasing fake reviews, because the patients have no idea whether reviews are genuine or not.

To encourage genuine positive reviews, Dr. Woo-Ming’s practice uses a third-party app system that sends patients a follow-up email or text asking about their experience with a link to review sites.

“Honest reviews are a reflection of what I can do to improve my business. At the end of the day, if you’re truly providing great service and you’re helping people by providing great medical care, those are going to win out,” he said. “I would rather, as a responsible practice owner, improve the experience and outcome for the patient.”

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

Five years ago, Kay Dean relied upon Yelp! and Google reviews in her search for a doctor in her area. After finding a physician with fairly high reviews, Ms. Dean was shocked when her personal experience was significantly worse than patients on the review platforms.

Following her experience, Ms. Dean, a former federal government investigator, became skeptical and used her skills to investigate the practice on all review platforms. She uncovered that the practice had a review from an individual who was involved in a review trading group on Facebook, where organizations openly barter their services in exchange for positive reviews fraud.

“I discovered that the online review world was just saturated with fake reviews, much more so than I think most people are aware ... and law enforcement regulators aren’t doing anything to address the problem,” said Ms. Dean. “In this online space, it’s the Wild West; cheating is rewarded.”

Ms. Dean decided to take matters into her own hands. She created a YouTube channel called Fake Review Watch, where she exposes real businesses and their attempts to dupe potential consumers with fake positive reviews.

For example, one video analyzes an orthopedic surgeon in Manhattan with an abundance of five-star reviews. Through her detailed analysis, Ms. Dean created a spreadsheet of the 26 alleged patients of the orthopedic surgeon that had submitted glowing reviews. She looked into other businesses that the individuals had left reviews for and found a significant amount of overlap.

According to the video, 19 of the doctor’s reviewers had left high reviews for the same moving company in Las Vegas, and 18 of them reviewed the same locksmith in Texas. Overall, eight of the patients reviewed the same mover, locksmith, and hotel in New Zealand.
 

A matter of trust

Ms. Dean expressed the gravity of this phenomenon, especially in health care, as patients often head online first when searching for care options. Based on a survey by Software Advice, about 84% of patients use online reviews to assess a physician, and 77% use review sites as the first step in finding a doctor.

Patient trust has continued to diminish in recent years, particularly following the pandemic. In a 2021 global ranking of trust levels towards health care by country, the U.S. health care system ranked 19th, far below those of several developing countries.

Owing to the rise of fake patient reviews and their inscrutable nature, Ms. Dean advises staying away from online review platforms. Instead, she suggests sticking to the old-fashioned method of getting recommendations from friends and relatives, not virtual people.

Ms. Dean explained a few indicators that she looks for when trying to identify a fake review.

“The business has all five-star reviews, negative reviews are followed by five-star reviews, or the business has an abnormal number of positive reviews in a short period of time,” she noted. “Some businesses try to bury legitimate negative reviews by obtaining more recent, fake, positive ones. The recent reviews will contradict the specific criticisms in the negative review.”

She warned that consumers should not give credibility to reviews simply because the reviewer is dubbed “Elite” or a Google Local Guide, because she has seen plenty of these individuals posting fake reviews.

Unfortunately, review platforms haven’t been doing much self-policing. Google and Healthgrades have a series of policies against fake engagement, impersonation, misinformation, and misrepresentation, according to their websites. However, the only consequence of these violations is review removal.

Both Yelp! and Google say they have automated software that distinguishes real versus fake reviews. When Yelp! uncovers users engaging in compensation review activity, it removes their reviews, closes their account, and blocks those users from creating future Yelp! accounts.
 

Physicians’ basis

Moreover, physicians purchasing fake reviews create an unfair environment for those physicians who choose to be ethical and honest with patients.

“I think there’s an erosion of business ethics because cheating is rewarded. You can’t compete in an environment where your competition is allowed to accumulate numerous fake reviews while you’re still trying to fill chairs in your business,” said Ms. Dean. “Your competition is then getting the business because the tech companies are allowing this fraud.”

Family physician and practice owner Mike Woo-Ming, MD, MPH, provides career coaching for physicians, including maintaining a good reputation – in-person and online. He has seen physicians bumping up their own five-star reviews personally as well as posting negative reviews for their competition.

“I’ve seen where they’re going to lose business, as many practices were affected through COVID,” he said. “Business owners can become desperate and may decide to start posting or buying reviews because they know people will choose certain services these days based upon reviews.”

Dr. Woo-Ming expressed his frustration with fellow physicians who give in to purchasing fake reviews, because the patients have no idea whether reviews are genuine or not.

To encourage genuine positive reviews, Dr. Woo-Ming’s practice uses a third-party app system that sends patients a follow-up email or text asking about their experience with a link to review sites.

“Honest reviews are a reflection of what I can do to improve my business. At the end of the day, if you’re truly providing great service and you’re helping people by providing great medical care, those are going to win out,” he said. “I would rather, as a responsible practice owner, improve the experience and outcome for the patient.”

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

The transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

Once again, we’re doing an informal journal club to talk about a really interesting study, “A Neuro-metabolic Account of Why Daylong Cognitive Work Alters the Control of Economic Decisions,” that just came out. It tries to answer the question of why our brains wear out. I’m going to put myself in the corner here. Let’s walk through this study, which appears in Current Biology, by lead author Antonius Wiehler from Paris.

The big question is what’s going on with cognitive fatigue. If you look at chess players who are exerting a lot of cognitive effort, it’s well documented that over hours of play, they get worse and make more mistakes. It takes them longer to make decisions. The question is, why?

Why does your brain get tired?

To date, it’s been a little bit hard to tease that out. Now, there is some suggestion of what is responsible for this. The cognitive control center of the brain is probably somewhere in the left lateral prefrontal cortex (LLPC).

The prefrontal cortex is responsible for higher-level thinking. It’s what causes you to be inhibited. It gets shut off by alcohol and leads to impulsive behaviors. The LLPC, according to functional MRI studies, has reduced activity as people become more and more cognitively fatigued. The LLPC helps you think through choices. As you become more fatigued, this area of the brain isn’t working as well. But why would it not work as well? What is going on in that particular part of the brain? It doesn’t seem to be something simple, like glucose levels; that’s been investigated and glucose levels are pretty constant throughout the brain, regardless of cognitive task. This paper seeks to tease out what is actually going on in the LLPC when you are becoming cognitively tired.

They did an experiment where they induced cognitive fatigue, and it sounds like a painful experiment. For more than 6 hours, volunteers completed sessions during which they had to perform cognitive switching tasks. Investigators showed participants a letter, in either red or green, and the participant would respond with whether it was a vowel or a consonant or whether it was a capital or lowercase letter, based on the color. If it’s red, say whether it’s a consonant or vowel. If it’s green, say whether it’s upper- or lowercase.

It’s hard, and doing it for 6 hours is likely to induce a lot of cognitive fatigue. They had a control group as well, which is really important here. The control group also did a task like this for 6 hours, but for them, investigators didn’t change the color as often – perhaps only once per session. For the study group, they were switching colors back and forth quite a lot. They also incorporated a memory challenge that worked in a similar way.

So, what are the readouts of this study? They had a group who went through the hard cognitive challenge and a group who went through the easy cognitive challenge. They looked at a variety of metrics. I’ll describe a few.

The first is performance decrement. Did they get it wrong? What percentage of the time did the participant say “consonant” when they should have said “lowercase?”

• Have a 25% chance of earning $50 OR a 95% chance of earning $17.30?
• Earn $50, but your next task session will be hard or earn $40 and your next task session will be easy?

Participants had to figure out the better odds – what should they be choosing here? They had to tease out whether they preferred lower cost lower-risk choices – when they are cognitively fatigued, which has been shown in prior studies.

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

Once again, we’re doing an informal journal club to talk about a really interesting study, “A Neuro-metabolic Account of Why Daylong Cognitive Work Alters the Control of Economic Decisions,” that just came out. It tries to answer the question of why our brains wear out. I’m going to put myself in the corner here. Let’s walk through this study, which appears in Current Biology, by lead author Antonius Wiehler from Paris.

The big question is what’s going on with cognitive fatigue. If you look at chess players who are exerting a lot of cognitive effort, it’s well documented that over hours of play, they get worse and make more mistakes. It takes them longer to make decisions. The question is, why?

Why does your brain get tired?

To date, it’s been a little bit hard to tease that out. Now, there is some suggestion of what is responsible for this. The cognitive control center of the brain is probably somewhere in the left lateral prefrontal cortex (LLPC).

The prefrontal cortex is responsible for higher-level thinking. It’s what causes you to be inhibited. It gets shut off by alcohol and leads to impulsive behaviors. The LLPC, according to functional MRI studies, has reduced activity as people become more and more cognitively fatigued. The LLPC helps you think through choices. As you become more fatigued, this area of the brain isn’t working as well. But why would it not work as well? What is going on in that particular part of the brain? It doesn’t seem to be something simple, like glucose levels; that’s been investigated and glucose levels are pretty constant throughout the brain, regardless of cognitive task. This paper seeks to tease out what is actually going on in the LLPC when you are becoming cognitively tired.

They did an experiment where they induced cognitive fatigue, and it sounds like a painful experiment. For more than 6 hours, volunteers completed sessions during which they had to perform cognitive switching tasks. Investigators showed participants a letter, in either red or green, and the participant would respond with whether it was a vowel or a consonant or whether it was a capital or lowercase letter, based on the color. If it’s red, say whether it’s a consonant or vowel. If it’s green, say whether it’s upper- or lowercase.

It’s hard, and doing it for 6 hours is likely to induce a lot of cognitive fatigue. They had a control group as well, which is really important here. The control group also did a task like this for 6 hours, but for them, investigators didn’t change the color as often – perhaps only once per session. For the study group, they were switching colors back and forth quite a lot. They also incorporated a memory challenge that worked in a similar way.

So, what are the readouts of this study? They had a group who went through the hard cognitive challenge and a group who went through the easy cognitive challenge. They looked at a variety of metrics. I’ll describe a few.

The first is performance decrement. Did they get it wrong? What percentage of the time did the participant say “consonant” when they should have said “lowercase?”

• Have a 25% chance of earning $50 OR a 95% chance of earning $17.30?
• Earn $50, but your next task session will be hard or earn $40 and your next task session will be easy?

Participants had to figure out the better odds – what should they be choosing here? They had to tease out whether they preferred lower cost lower-risk choices – when they are cognitively fatigued, which has been shown in prior studies.

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

Once again, we’re doing an informal journal club to talk about a really interesting study, “A Neuro-metabolic Account of Why Daylong Cognitive Work Alters the Control of Economic Decisions,” that just came out. It tries to answer the question of why our brains wear out. I’m going to put myself in the corner here. Let’s walk through this study, which appears in Current Biology, by lead author Antonius Wiehler from Paris.

The big question is what’s going on with cognitive fatigue. If you look at chess players who are exerting a lot of cognitive effort, it’s well documented that over hours of play, they get worse and make more mistakes. It takes them longer to make decisions. The question is, why?

Why does your brain get tired?

To date, it’s been a little bit hard to tease that out. Now, there is some suggestion of what is responsible for this. The cognitive control center of the brain is probably somewhere in the left lateral prefrontal cortex (LLPC).

The prefrontal cortex is responsible for higher-level thinking. It’s what causes you to be inhibited. It gets shut off by alcohol and leads to impulsive behaviors. The LLPC, according to functional MRI studies, has reduced activity as people become more and more cognitively fatigued. The LLPC helps you think through choices. As you become more fatigued, this area of the brain isn’t working as well. But why would it not work as well? What is going on in that particular part of the brain? It doesn’t seem to be something simple, like glucose levels; that’s been investigated and glucose levels are pretty constant throughout the brain, regardless of cognitive task. This paper seeks to tease out what is actually going on in the LLPC when you are becoming cognitively tired.

They did an experiment where they induced cognitive fatigue, and it sounds like a painful experiment. For more than 6 hours, volunteers completed sessions during which they had to perform cognitive switching tasks. Investigators showed participants a letter, in either red or green, and the participant would respond with whether it was a vowel or a consonant or whether it was a capital or lowercase letter, based on the color. If it’s red, say whether it’s a consonant or vowel. If it’s green, say whether it’s upper- or lowercase.

It’s hard, and doing it for 6 hours is likely to induce a lot of cognitive fatigue. They had a control group as well, which is really important here. The control group also did a task like this for 6 hours, but for them, investigators didn’t change the color as often – perhaps only once per session. For the study group, they were switching colors back and forth quite a lot. They also incorporated a memory challenge that worked in a similar way.

So, what are the readouts of this study? They had a group who went through the hard cognitive challenge and a group who went through the easy cognitive challenge. They looked at a variety of metrics. I’ll describe a few.

The first is performance decrement. Did they get it wrong? What percentage of the time did the participant say “consonant” when they should have said “lowercase?”

• Have a 25% chance of earning $50 OR a 95% chance of earning $17.30?
• Earn $50, but your next task session will be hard or earn $40 and your next task session will be easy?

Participants had to figure out the better odds – what should they be choosing here? They had to tease out whether they preferred lower cost lower-risk choices – when they are cognitively fatigued, which has been shown in prior studies.

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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