A recent study reveals significant changes in medication prescriptions following a White House briefing on September 22, 2025, which raised concerns about the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy and touted leucovorin as a potential treatment for autism. The research conducted by experts from Brown University and Mass General Brigham indicates that prescriptions for leucovorin surged while orders for acetaminophen among pregnant women dropped sharply.
The study, published in The Lancet, analyzed data from the Cosmos database, which encompasses information from over 1,600 hospitals and 37,000 clinics in the United States. Researchers examined weekly prescribing patterns before and after the briefing, comparing observed prescriptions to expected levels based on historical trends.
During the briefing, officials suggested that acetaminophen use in pregnancy might be linked to an increased risk of autism. They also proposed leucovorin, a drug primarily approved for certain cancer treatments and metabolic disorders, as a potential autism therapy. Despite its examination in small clinical trials, leucovorin is not part of standard autism treatment protocols.
In the aftermath of the briefing, acetaminophen prescriptions for pregnant women treated in emergency rooms declined by approximately 10%, with a notable drop of 16% in the first month and a low of 20% below expected levels in the third week. In contrast, outpatient prescriptions for leucovorin among children aged 5 to 17 soared, rising around 71% above anticipated levels after the briefing. In the first month alone, the increase reached 93%, with prescriptions more than doubling in the second week.
The data also revealed that about 72% of the leucovorin prescriptions were for children diagnosed with autism, a demographic that represents only 4% of the pediatric population within the dataset. This shift in prescribing behavior underscores the profound influence of public health communications and how federal messaging can affect clinical practices nationwide.
Dr. Michael Barnett, a physician and professor at Brown University, emphasized the unconventional nature of the White House’s approach to disseminating medical information, which bypassed typical safeguards for ensuring accuracy. He stated, “The results show just how much political leaders can steer health behavior even when there has been no change in the evidence for these therapies.”
While the study’s design does not establish a direct causal relationship between the White House briefing and the observed prescribing changes, the associations are noteworthy. Dr. Jeremy Samuel Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, remarked, “It can take years, even decades, for high-quality research to finally reach clinicians. Here, by using the White House, it was done overnight. Unfortunately, they’re claiming breakthroughs that simply haven’t occurred.”
The findings call attention to the broader implications of how public health messaging shapes clinical decision-making. As the medical community continues to navigate the complexities of treatment guidelines, this study illustrates the potential consequences of high-profile public health communications.
