Dermatology News

Dermatology researchers have become more transparent when reporting racial and ethnicity data over the last decade, but the diversity of patients enrolled in the trials themselves has not changed significantly, according to literature reviews for 2010-2015 and 2015-2020.

Race and ethnicity were reported in 75.3% of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving dermatologic diseases that were published over the 5-year period from 2015 to 2020, said Vivien Chen, BS, and associates in the department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery at the University of Miami.

In the earlier analysis, conducted by different investigators and published in 2017, race and ethnicity were reported for 59.8% of dermatology RCTs published from 2010 to 2015.

Since that initial evaluation, “there have not been significant changes in representative inclusion for racial and ethnic minority groups,” however, as both analyses produced the same result: The non-White share of the patient population was 20% or more in 38.1% of the exclusively U.S.-based RCTs included during the two time periods analyzed, Ms. Chen and associates said.

Disease type had a noticeable effect on racial/ethnic distribution representation. Among the RCTs focusing on psoriasis, which were the most numerous in 2015-2020 (268 of the total 392), only 12.1% had a 20% or greater non-White representation versus 71.1% for eczema trials (n = 64) and 53.1% for acne (n = 53). “While this finding may reflect the slight predominance of White participants reported by several epidemiologic studies on psoriasis, prevalence among other racial groups may be underestimated and should be represented in studies,” they wrote.

RCT counts were much lower for the other disease types included: vitiligo (two), alopecia areata (three), and seborrheic dermatitis (two), the investigators reported.

Patient sex also was covered in both analyses, with reporting of sex distribution increasing from 85.0% of RCTs in 2010-2015 to 91.6% in 2015-2020 but representation (≥45% women) dropping from 55.8% to 41.3%, Ms. Chen and associates said.

The effect on representation in psoriasis studies was even greater, as the proportion of studies having at least 45% women fell from 87.2% in 2010-2015 to just 29.5% in 2015-2020, although the inclusion of studies outside the United States in the 2010-2015 analysis may have been a factor, they noted. Representation for women declined from 69.4% to 59.4% for eczema RCTs but increased from 41.1% to 75.5% for acne.

Changes in the specialty may have had an effect. “The scope of our study was limited to the dermatological conditions included in the original study, to facilitate direct comparison between time periods. However,dermatologic research has expanded significantly within the last 5 years in other areas including hidradenitis suppurativa, prurigo nodularis, and frontal fibrosing alopecia,” they said.

Dermatology researchers have become more transparent when reporting racial and ethnicity data over the last decade, but the diversity of patients enrolled in the trials themselves has not changed significantly, according to literature reviews for 2010-2015 and 2015-2020.

Race and ethnicity were reported in 75.3% of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving dermatologic diseases that were published over the 5-year period from 2015 to 2020, said Vivien Chen, BS, and associates in the department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery at the University of Miami.

In the earlier analysis, conducted by different investigators and published in 2017, race and ethnicity were reported for 59.8% of dermatology RCTs published from 2010 to 2015.

Since that initial evaluation, “there have not been significant changes in representative inclusion for racial and ethnic minority groups,” however, as both analyses produced the same result: The non-White share of the patient population was 20% or more in 38.1% of the exclusively U.S.-based RCTs included during the two time periods analyzed, Ms. Chen and associates said.

Disease type had a noticeable effect on racial/ethnic distribution representation. Among the RCTs focusing on psoriasis, which were the most numerous in 2015-2020 (268 of the total 392), only 12.1% had a 20% or greater non-White representation versus 71.1% for eczema trials (n = 64) and 53.1% for acne (n = 53). “While this finding may reflect the slight predominance of White participants reported by several epidemiologic studies on psoriasis, prevalence among other racial groups may be underestimated and should be represented in studies,” they wrote.

RCT counts were much lower for the other disease types included: vitiligo (two), alopecia areata (three), and seborrheic dermatitis (two), the investigators reported.

Patient sex also was covered in both analyses, with reporting of sex distribution increasing from 85.0% of RCTs in 2010-2015 to 91.6% in 2015-2020 but representation (≥45% women) dropping from 55.8% to 41.3%, Ms. Chen and associates said.

The effect on representation in psoriasis studies was even greater, as the proportion of studies having at least 45% women fell from 87.2% in 2010-2015 to just 29.5% in 2015-2020, although the inclusion of studies outside the United States in the 2010-2015 analysis may have been a factor, they noted. Representation for women declined from 69.4% to 59.4% for eczema RCTs but increased from 41.1% to 75.5% for acne.

Changes in the specialty may have had an effect. “The scope of our study was limited to the dermatological conditions included in the original study, to facilitate direct comparison between time periods. However,dermatologic research has expanded significantly within the last 5 years in other areas including hidradenitis suppurativa, prurigo nodularis, and frontal fibrosing alopecia,” they said.

Dermatology researchers have become more transparent when reporting racial and ethnicity data over the last decade, but the diversity of patients enrolled in the trials themselves has not changed significantly, according to literature reviews for 2010-2015 and 2015-2020.

Race and ethnicity were reported in 75.3% of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving dermatologic diseases that were published over the 5-year period from 2015 to 2020, said Vivien Chen, BS, and associates in the department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery at the University of Miami.

In the earlier analysis, conducted by different investigators and published in 2017, race and ethnicity were reported for 59.8% of dermatology RCTs published from 2010 to 2015.

Since that initial evaluation, “there have not been significant changes in representative inclusion for racial and ethnic minority groups,” however, as both analyses produced the same result: The non-White share of the patient population was 20% or more in 38.1% of the exclusively U.S.-based RCTs included during the two time periods analyzed, Ms. Chen and associates said.

Disease type had a noticeable effect on racial/ethnic distribution representation. Among the RCTs focusing on psoriasis, which were the most numerous in 2015-2020 (268 of the total 392), only 12.1% had a 20% or greater non-White representation versus 71.1% for eczema trials (n = 64) and 53.1% for acne (n = 53). “While this finding may reflect the slight predominance of White participants reported by several epidemiologic studies on psoriasis, prevalence among other racial groups may be underestimated and should be represented in studies,” they wrote.

RCT counts were much lower for the other disease types included: vitiligo (two), alopecia areata (three), and seborrheic dermatitis (two), the investigators reported.

Patient sex also was covered in both analyses, with reporting of sex distribution increasing from 85.0% of RCTs in 2010-2015 to 91.6% in 2015-2020 but representation (≥45% women) dropping from 55.8% to 41.3%, Ms. Chen and associates said.

The effect on representation in psoriasis studies was even greater, as the proportion of studies having at least 45% women fell from 87.2% in 2010-2015 to just 29.5% in 2015-2020, although the inclusion of studies outside the United States in the 2010-2015 analysis may have been a factor, they noted. Representation for women declined from 69.4% to 59.4% for eczema RCTs but increased from 41.1% to 75.5% for acne.

Changes in the specialty may have had an effect. “The scope of our study was limited to the dermatological conditions included in the original study, to facilitate direct comparison between time periods. However,dermatologic research has expanded significantly within the last 5 years in other areas including hidradenitis suppurativa, prurigo nodularis, and frontal fibrosing alopecia,” they said.

Although the Food and Drug Administration approved isotretinoin for severe recalcitrant acne 40 years ago, many questions about its optimal dosing remain to this day, according to Diane M. Thiboutot, MD.

These include, what is the ideal daily dose of isotretinoin? What is the ideal cumulative dose of isotretinoin to minimize relapse of acne? What is the ideal duration of isotretinoin therapy? How do you define relapse?

“Initially, it was recommended as 1–mg/kg per day dosing,” Dr. Thiboutot, professor of dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “As time went on and we became familiar with flares that some patients can have on that dose, it was recommended to start treatment at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg per day. Then there were trends for low dosing, intermittent dosing, and some of the more recent medical literature is talking about high dosing.”
 

Clinical studies

A multicenter study of 150 patients published in 1984 found that rates of relapse (retreatment needed) were 42% of patients of patients treated with 0.1 mg/kg daily, 20% in patients treated with 0.5 mg/kg daily, and 10% in patients treated with 1.0 mg/kg daily.

In a later study, researchers who followed 299 patients for 5 years post isotretinoin treatment found that there were more relapses in the 0.5-mg/kg group versus those treated with 1.0 mg/kg. Factors that contributed to the need for more treatment courses included lower-dose regimens (0.1 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg), having severe acne, being a female over the age of 25 at the onset of therapy, and having a prolonged history of acne.

More recently, investigators who conducted a single-center study of 1,453 patients treated with isotretinoin defined relapse as the need for a second course of isotretinoin. “They found that neither daily nor cumulative dosages influenced relapse of acne vulgaris in patients treated with varying doses of isotretinoin as long as treatment was continued for 2 or more months after the acne had completely resolved,” said Dr. Thiboutot, a past president of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.

“The current evidence underpinning the 120-150 mg/kg cumulative threshold–dosing regimen is equivocal and is based on two low-grade studies,” she noted. “Cumulative doses required for clearance appear lower for acne of mild to moderate severity and higher for more severe acne. Future investigations should use clinically relevant endpoints as end of treatment criteria and define treatment success in acne accurately.”

Other studies have looked at whether higher doses of isotretinoin could reduce treatment failures in patients with acne, Dr. Thiboutot said. In a retrospective chart review of 102 patients with acne who had been treated with isotretinoin for at least 4 consecutive months and followed for over a year, 45.1% required further treatment and 15.7% received a second course of isotretinoin. Cumulative dose (mg/kg), follow-up period, duration of treatment, and daily dose during the last month of treatment were not significantly different between those who relapsed and those who did not relapse.

However, “while the cumulative dose of isotretinoin did not significantly impact acne relapse, patients who received a higher cumulative dose were less likely to require a second course of treatment,” the authors wrote, adding that “female patients had a higher risk of needing retrial regardless of their cumulative dose.” They commented that “prescribing a higher dose per weight may result in less severe acne recurrences and the need for further isotretinoin therapy.”

Another study evaluated 116 patients who were treated to clearance with dosing at the discretion of the provider and defined relapse as subsequent treatment with an oral or topical agent. In the lower-dose treatment (less than 220 mg/kg; mean of 170 mg/kg) group, the relapse rate was 47.4%, compared with 26.9% in the higher-dose (greater than 220 mg/kg) group (P = .03). Cheilitis and xerosis during treatment was reported in nearly all patients in both treatment groups, but retinoid dermatitis was significantly more common among those in the higher-dose group (53.8% vs. 31.6%; P = .02). There were no significant differences in other adverse events between the two groups.

According to Dr. Thiboutot, variables to consider in selection of a daily dose include the presence of intense inflammation, cysts, nodules, potential difference in side-effect profiles with ethnicity, and an individual’s degree of side effects and their level of comfort. “What are some of the concerns with higher doses? Those of us who have treated a lot of acne patients have had the unfortunate occurrence where you start someone on isotretinoin and their acne explodes, as do their cysts and nodules. Once that happens it’s a bad situation and it takes you a while to get past it.”
 

Acne fulminans

Dr. Thiboutot was part of a panel of experts who assembled guidelines on the classification, management, and prevention of acne fulminans, published in 2017. “Acne fulminans can be induced by isotretinoin or it can occur on its own. If you have someone who has a lot of inflammation, a lot of cysts and nodules, it’s probably best to start them on a lower dose with or without prednisone,” she said.

Age at treatment is another variable that can affect the duration of response to isotretinoin. “If the patient is very young when they need isotretinoin, it’s highly likely that they will need it again,” Dr. Thiboutot said. “Also, adult females often need a repeat dose of isotretinoin. The cumulative dose is important, and the presence of truncal acne is a factor affecting duration of response. Truncal acne takes longer to clear, and it oftentimes needs a longer treatment course.”

Data from the iPledge database indicate that 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds needed a repeat course of isotretinoin, “and as you get older, the need for retreatment is less,” she said.

High-dose versus low-dose isotretinoin

A slow, low-dose approach to the use of isotretinoin in practice can minimize side effects and cystic flares, according to Dr. Thiboutot. “The cons are that you could have a longer treatment duration, you might need more patient visits, and it creates more prolonged drug exposure in patients who can become pregnant,” she said.

“The pros of a high-dose strategy include a shorter treatment duration and potential costs savings. The cons are that there is an increased risk of side effects and a risk of cystic flare. It seems that the general agreement is to treat until clearance and then treat for another 2 months. A clear definition of acne relapse is needed as well as prospective studies to optimize dosing.”

Dr. Thiboutot disclosed that she is a consultant Galderma and Novartis. She has also performed clinical trials for Galderma, Cassiopea, and Foamix.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Isotretinoin has been around for a long time – 40-plus years, to be exact. Despite this cumulative experience, ideal dosing and duration remain uncertain. Many providers have evolved from a “one size fits all” approach (for example, 1 mg/kg of body weight per day for 4-6 months) to a more tailored and nuanced strategy. Dr. Thiboutot validates the need to individualize therapy and helps identify patients at higher risk for relapse. Younger patients are at greater risk for repeat courses of isotretinoin – Dr. Thiboutot cites a study showing 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds required a second course of isotretinoin. This could simply be a proxy for severity, which also augurs a more protracted course. Adult women and those with truncal acne also trend toward longer courses. Knowing these risk factors will help practitioners counsel proper expectations, tailor treatment courses, and thread the always challenging isotretinoin needle: Should one dose “low and slow” and court a longer risk window, or higher and faster, sometimes leading to a dryer disaster?

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/10/22.

Although the Food and Drug Administration approved isotretinoin for severe recalcitrant acne 40 years ago, many questions about its optimal dosing remain to this day, according to Diane M. Thiboutot, MD.

These include, what is the ideal daily dose of isotretinoin? What is the ideal cumulative dose of isotretinoin to minimize relapse of acne? What is the ideal duration of isotretinoin therapy? How do you define relapse?

“Initially, it was recommended as 1–mg/kg per day dosing,” Dr. Thiboutot, professor of dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “As time went on and we became familiar with flares that some patients can have on that dose, it was recommended to start treatment at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg per day. Then there were trends for low dosing, intermittent dosing, and some of the more recent medical literature is talking about high dosing.”
 

Clinical studies

A multicenter study of 150 patients published in 1984 found that rates of relapse (retreatment needed) were 42% of patients of patients treated with 0.1 mg/kg daily, 20% in patients treated with 0.5 mg/kg daily, and 10% in patients treated with 1.0 mg/kg daily.

In a later study, researchers who followed 299 patients for 5 years post isotretinoin treatment found that there were more relapses in the 0.5-mg/kg group versus those treated with 1.0 mg/kg. Factors that contributed to the need for more treatment courses included lower-dose regimens (0.1 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg), having severe acne, being a female over the age of 25 at the onset of therapy, and having a prolonged history of acne.

More recently, investigators who conducted a single-center study of 1,453 patients treated with isotretinoin defined relapse as the need for a second course of isotretinoin. “They found that neither daily nor cumulative dosages influenced relapse of acne vulgaris in patients treated with varying doses of isotretinoin as long as treatment was continued for 2 or more months after the acne had completely resolved,” said Dr. Thiboutot, a past president of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.

“The current evidence underpinning the 120-150 mg/kg cumulative threshold–dosing regimen is equivocal and is based on two low-grade studies,” she noted. “Cumulative doses required for clearance appear lower for acne of mild to moderate severity and higher for more severe acne. Future investigations should use clinically relevant endpoints as end of treatment criteria and define treatment success in acne accurately.”

Other studies have looked at whether higher doses of isotretinoin could reduce treatment failures in patients with acne, Dr. Thiboutot said. In a retrospective chart review of 102 patients with acne who had been treated with isotretinoin for at least 4 consecutive months and followed for over a year, 45.1% required further treatment and 15.7% received a second course of isotretinoin. Cumulative dose (mg/kg), follow-up period, duration of treatment, and daily dose during the last month of treatment were not significantly different between those who relapsed and those who did not relapse.

However, “while the cumulative dose of isotretinoin did not significantly impact acne relapse, patients who received a higher cumulative dose were less likely to require a second course of treatment,” the authors wrote, adding that “female patients had a higher risk of needing retrial regardless of their cumulative dose.” They commented that “prescribing a higher dose per weight may result in less severe acne recurrences and the need for further isotretinoin therapy.”

Another study evaluated 116 patients who were treated to clearance with dosing at the discretion of the provider and defined relapse as subsequent treatment with an oral or topical agent. In the lower-dose treatment (less than 220 mg/kg; mean of 170 mg/kg) group, the relapse rate was 47.4%, compared with 26.9% in the higher-dose (greater than 220 mg/kg) group (P = .03). Cheilitis and xerosis during treatment was reported in nearly all patients in both treatment groups, but retinoid dermatitis was significantly more common among those in the higher-dose group (53.8% vs. 31.6%; P = .02). There were no significant differences in other adverse events between the two groups.

According to Dr. Thiboutot, variables to consider in selection of a daily dose include the presence of intense inflammation, cysts, nodules, potential difference in side-effect profiles with ethnicity, and an individual’s degree of side effects and their level of comfort. “What are some of the concerns with higher doses? Those of us who have treated a lot of acne patients have had the unfortunate occurrence where you start someone on isotretinoin and their acne explodes, as do their cysts and nodules. Once that happens it’s a bad situation and it takes you a while to get past it.”
 

Acne fulminans

Dr. Thiboutot was part of a panel of experts who assembled guidelines on the classification, management, and prevention of acne fulminans, published in 2017. “Acne fulminans can be induced by isotretinoin or it can occur on its own. If you have someone who has a lot of inflammation, a lot of cysts and nodules, it’s probably best to start them on a lower dose with or without prednisone,” she said.

Age at treatment is another variable that can affect the duration of response to isotretinoin. “If the patient is very young when they need isotretinoin, it’s highly likely that they will need it again,” Dr. Thiboutot said. “Also, adult females often need a repeat dose of isotretinoin. The cumulative dose is important, and the presence of truncal acne is a factor affecting duration of response. Truncal acne takes longer to clear, and it oftentimes needs a longer treatment course.”

Data from the iPledge database indicate that 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds needed a repeat course of isotretinoin, “and as you get older, the need for retreatment is less,” she said.

High-dose versus low-dose isotretinoin

A slow, low-dose approach to the use of isotretinoin in practice can minimize side effects and cystic flares, according to Dr. Thiboutot. “The cons are that you could have a longer treatment duration, you might need more patient visits, and it creates more prolonged drug exposure in patients who can become pregnant,” she said.

“The pros of a high-dose strategy include a shorter treatment duration and potential costs savings. The cons are that there is an increased risk of side effects and a risk of cystic flare. It seems that the general agreement is to treat until clearance and then treat for another 2 months. A clear definition of acne relapse is needed as well as prospective studies to optimize dosing.”

Dr. Thiboutot disclosed that she is a consultant Galderma and Novartis. She has also performed clinical trials for Galderma, Cassiopea, and Foamix.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Isotretinoin has been around for a long time – 40-plus years, to be exact. Despite this cumulative experience, ideal dosing and duration remain uncertain. Many providers have evolved from a “one size fits all” approach (for example, 1 mg/kg of body weight per day for 4-6 months) to a more tailored and nuanced strategy. Dr. Thiboutot validates the need to individualize therapy and helps identify patients at higher risk for relapse. Younger patients are at greater risk for repeat courses of isotretinoin – Dr. Thiboutot cites a study showing 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds required a second course of isotretinoin. This could simply be a proxy for severity, which also augurs a more protracted course. Adult women and those with truncal acne also trend toward longer courses. Knowing these risk factors will help practitioners counsel proper expectations, tailor treatment courses, and thread the always challenging isotretinoin needle: Should one dose “low and slow” and court a longer risk window, or higher and faster, sometimes leading to a dryer disaster?

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/10/22.

Although the Food and Drug Administration approved isotretinoin for severe recalcitrant acne 40 years ago, many questions about its optimal dosing remain to this day, according to Diane M. Thiboutot, MD.

These include, what is the ideal daily dose of isotretinoin? What is the ideal cumulative dose of isotretinoin to minimize relapse of acne? What is the ideal duration of isotretinoin therapy? How do you define relapse?

“Initially, it was recommended as 1–mg/kg per day dosing,” Dr. Thiboutot, professor of dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “As time went on and we became familiar with flares that some patients can have on that dose, it was recommended to start treatment at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg per day. Then there were trends for low dosing, intermittent dosing, and some of the more recent medical literature is talking about high dosing.”
 

Clinical studies

A multicenter study of 150 patients published in 1984 found that rates of relapse (retreatment needed) were 42% of patients of patients treated with 0.1 mg/kg daily, 20% in patients treated with 0.5 mg/kg daily, and 10% in patients treated with 1.0 mg/kg daily.

In a later study, researchers who followed 299 patients for 5 years post isotretinoin treatment found that there were more relapses in the 0.5-mg/kg group versus those treated with 1.0 mg/kg. Factors that contributed to the need for more treatment courses included lower-dose regimens (0.1 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg), having severe acne, being a female over the age of 25 at the onset of therapy, and having a prolonged history of acne.

More recently, investigators who conducted a single-center study of 1,453 patients treated with isotretinoin defined relapse as the need for a second course of isotretinoin. “They found that neither daily nor cumulative dosages influenced relapse of acne vulgaris in patients treated with varying doses of isotretinoin as long as treatment was continued for 2 or more months after the acne had completely resolved,” said Dr. Thiboutot, a past president of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.

“The current evidence underpinning the 120-150 mg/kg cumulative threshold–dosing regimen is equivocal and is based on two low-grade studies,” she noted. “Cumulative doses required for clearance appear lower for acne of mild to moderate severity and higher for more severe acne. Future investigations should use clinically relevant endpoints as end of treatment criteria and define treatment success in acne accurately.”

Other studies have looked at whether higher doses of isotretinoin could reduce treatment failures in patients with acne, Dr. Thiboutot said. In a retrospective chart review of 102 patients with acne who had been treated with isotretinoin for at least 4 consecutive months and followed for over a year, 45.1% required further treatment and 15.7% received a second course of isotretinoin. Cumulative dose (mg/kg), follow-up period, duration of treatment, and daily dose during the last month of treatment were not significantly different between those who relapsed and those who did not relapse.

However, “while the cumulative dose of isotretinoin did not significantly impact acne relapse, patients who received a higher cumulative dose were less likely to require a second course of treatment,” the authors wrote, adding that “female patients had a higher risk of needing retrial regardless of their cumulative dose.” They commented that “prescribing a higher dose per weight may result in less severe acne recurrences and the need for further isotretinoin therapy.”

Another study evaluated 116 patients who were treated to clearance with dosing at the discretion of the provider and defined relapse as subsequent treatment with an oral or topical agent. In the lower-dose treatment (less than 220 mg/kg; mean of 170 mg/kg) group, the relapse rate was 47.4%, compared with 26.9% in the higher-dose (greater than 220 mg/kg) group (P = .03). Cheilitis and xerosis during treatment was reported in nearly all patients in both treatment groups, but retinoid dermatitis was significantly more common among those in the higher-dose group (53.8% vs. 31.6%; P = .02). There were no significant differences in other adverse events between the two groups.

According to Dr. Thiboutot, variables to consider in selection of a daily dose include the presence of intense inflammation, cysts, nodules, potential difference in side-effect profiles with ethnicity, and an individual’s degree of side effects and their level of comfort. “What are some of the concerns with higher doses? Those of us who have treated a lot of acne patients have had the unfortunate occurrence where you start someone on isotretinoin and their acne explodes, as do their cysts and nodules. Once that happens it’s a bad situation and it takes you a while to get past it.”
 

Acne fulminans

Dr. Thiboutot was part of a panel of experts who assembled guidelines on the classification, management, and prevention of acne fulminans, published in 2017. “Acne fulminans can be induced by isotretinoin or it can occur on its own. If you have someone who has a lot of inflammation, a lot of cysts and nodules, it’s probably best to start them on a lower dose with or without prednisone,” she said.

Age at treatment is another variable that can affect the duration of response to isotretinoin. “If the patient is very young when they need isotretinoin, it’s highly likely that they will need it again,” Dr. Thiboutot said. “Also, adult females often need a repeat dose of isotretinoin. The cumulative dose is important, and the presence of truncal acne is a factor affecting duration of response. Truncal acne takes longer to clear, and it oftentimes needs a longer treatment course.”

Data from the iPledge database indicate that 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds needed a repeat course of isotretinoin, “and as you get older, the need for retreatment is less,” she said.

High-dose versus low-dose isotretinoin

A slow, low-dose approach to the use of isotretinoin in practice can minimize side effects and cystic flares, according to Dr. Thiboutot. “The cons are that you could have a longer treatment duration, you might need more patient visits, and it creates more prolonged drug exposure in patients who can become pregnant,” she said.

“The pros of a high-dose strategy include a shorter treatment duration and potential costs savings. The cons are that there is an increased risk of side effects and a risk of cystic flare. It seems that the general agreement is to treat until clearance and then treat for another 2 months. A clear definition of acne relapse is needed as well as prospective studies to optimize dosing.”

Dr. Thiboutot disclosed that she is a consultant Galderma and Novartis. She has also performed clinical trials for Galderma, Cassiopea, and Foamix.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Isotretinoin has been around for a long time – 40-plus years, to be exact. Despite this cumulative experience, ideal dosing and duration remain uncertain. Many providers have evolved from a “one size fits all” approach (for example, 1 mg/kg of body weight per day for 4-6 months) to a more tailored and nuanced strategy. Dr. Thiboutot validates the need to individualize therapy and helps identify patients at higher risk for relapse. Younger patients are at greater risk for repeat courses of isotretinoin – Dr. Thiboutot cites a study showing 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds required a second course of isotretinoin. This could simply be a proxy for severity, which also augurs a more protracted course. Adult women and those with truncal acne also trend toward longer courses. Knowing these risk factors will help practitioners counsel proper expectations, tailor treatment courses, and thread the always challenging isotretinoin needle: Should one dose “low and slow” and court a longer risk window, or higher and faster, sometimes leading to a dryer disaster?

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/10/22.

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

The world’s most valuable mouse

You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!

We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.

Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay

BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.

BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.

Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.

If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
 

Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces

Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?

Amandad/Pixabay

For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.

“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.

Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?

And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.

“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.

About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.

As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
 

Raise a glass to delinquency

You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.

PxHere

Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.

The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.

An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!

If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
 

A ‘dirty’ scam

Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.

Nandan/Pixahive

A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.

That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.

“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.

After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.

As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.

The world’s most valuable mouse

You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!

We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.

Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay

BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.

BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.

Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.

If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
 

Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces

Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?

Amandad/Pixabay

For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.

“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.

Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?

And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.

“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.

About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.

As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
 

Raise a glass to delinquency

You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.

PxHere

Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.

The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.

An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!

If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
 

A ‘dirty’ scam

Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.

Nandan/Pixahive

A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.

That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.

“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.

After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.

As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.

The world’s most valuable mouse

You’ve heard of Mighty Mouse. Now say hello to the world’s newest mouse superhero, Crypto-Mouse! After being bitten by a radioactive cryptocurrency investor, Crypto-Mouse can tap directly into the power of the blockchain itself, allowing it to perform incredible, death-defying feats of strength!

We’re going to stop right there before Crypto-Mouse gains entry into the Marvel cinematic universe. Let’s rewind to the beginning, because that’s precisely where this crazy scheme is at. In late January, a new decentralized autonomous organization, BitMouseDAO, launched to enormous … -ly little fanfare, according to Vice. Two investors as of Jan. 31. But what they lack in money they make up for in sheer ambition.

Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay

BitMouseDAO’s $100 million dollar idea is to genetically engineer mice to carry bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency and one of the most valuable. This isn’t as crazy an idea as it sounds since DNA can be modified to store information, potentially even bitcoin information. Their plan is to create a private bitcoin wallet, which will be stored in the mouse DNA, and purchase online bitcoin to store in this wallet.

BitMouseDAO, being a “collection of artists,” plans to partner with a lab to translate its private key into a specific DNA sequence to be encoded into the mice during fertilization; or, if that doesn’t work, inject them with a harmless virus that carries the key.

Since these are artists, their ultimate plan is to use their bitcoin mice to make NFTs (scratch that off your cryptocurrency bingo card) and auction them off to people. Or, as Vice put it, BitMouseDAO essentially plans to send preserved dead mice to people. Artistic dead mice! Artistic dead mice worth millions! Maybe. Even BitMouseDAO admits bitcoin could be worthless by the time the project gets off the ground.

If this all sounds completely insane, that’s because it is. But it also sounds crazy enough to work. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to write a screenplay about a scrappy group of high-tech thieves who steal a group of genetically altered bitcoin mice to sell for millions, only to keep them as their adorable pets. Trust us Hollywood, it’ll make millions!
 

Alcoholic monkeys vs. the future of feces

Which is more important, the journey or the destination? Science is all about the destination, yes? Solving the problem, saving a life, expanding horizons. That’s science. Or is it? The scientific method is a process, so does that make it a journey?

Amandad/Pixabay

For us, today’s journey begins at the University of Iowa, where investigators are trying to reduce alcohol consumption. A worthy goal, and they seem to have made some progress by targeting a liver hormone called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21). But we’re more interested in the process right now, so bring on the alcoholic monkeys. And no, that’s not a death metal/reggae fusion band. Should be, though.

“The vervet monkey population is [composed] of alcohol avoiders, moderate alcohol drinkers, and a group of heavy drinkers,” Matthew Potthoff, PhD, and associates wrote in Cell Metabolism. When this particular bunch of heavy-drinking vervets were given FGF21, they consumed 50% less alcohol than did vehicle-treated controls, so mission accomplished.

Maybe it could be a breakfast cereal. Who wouldn’t enjoy a bowl of alcoholic monkeys in the morning?

And after breakfast, you might be ready for a digitized bowel movement, courtesy of researchers at University of California, San Diego. They’re studying ulcerative colitis (UC) by examining the gut microbiome, and their “most useful biological sample is patient stool,” according to a written statement from the university.

“Once we had all the technology to digitize the stool, the question was, is this going to tell us what’s happening in these patients? The answer turned out to be yes,” co-senior author Rob Knight, PhD, said in the statement. “Digitizing fecal material is the future.” The road to UC treatment, in other words, is paved with digital stool.

About 40% of the UC patients had elevated protease levels, and their high-protease feces were then transplanted into germ-free mice, which subsequently developed colitis and were successfully treated with protease inhibitors. And that is our final destination.

As our revered founder and mentor, Josephine Lotmevich, used to say, an alcoholic monkey in the hand is worth a number 2 in the bush.
 

Raise a glass to delinquency

You wouldn’t think that a glass of water could lead to a life of crime, but a recent study suggests just that.

PxHere

Children exposed to lead in their drinking water during their early years had a 21% higher risk of delinquency after the age of 14 years and a 38% higher risk of having a record for a serious complaint, Jackie MacDonald Gibson and associates said in a statement on Eurekalert.

Data for the study came from Wake County, N.C., which includes rural areas, wealthy exurban developments, and predominantly Black communities. The investigators compared the blood lead levels for children tested between 1998 and 2011 with juvenile delinquency reports of the same children from the N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The main culprit, they found, was well water. Blood lead levels were 11% higher in the children whose water came from private wells, compared with children using community water. About 13% of U.S. households rely on private wells, which are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for their water supply.

The researchers said there is an urgent need for better drinking-water solutions in communities that rely on well water, whether it be through subsidized home filtration or infrastructure redevelopment.

An earlier study had estimated that preventing just one child from entering the adult criminal justice system would save $1.3 to $1.5 million in 1997 dollars. That’s about $2.2 to $2.5 million dollars today!

If you do the math, it’s not hard to see what’s cheaper (and healthier) in the long run.
 

A ‘dirty’ scam

Another one? This is just getting sad. You’ve probably heard of muds and clays being good for the skin and maybe you’ve gone to a spa and sat in a mud bath, but would you believe it if someone told you that mud can cure all your ailments? No? Neither would we. Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke was definitely someone who brought this strange treatment to light, but it seems like this is something that has been going on for years, even before the pandemic.

Nandan/Pixahive

A company called Black Oxygen Organics (BOO) was selling “magic dirt” for $110 per 4-ounce package. It claimed the dirt was high in fulvic acid and humic acid, which are good for many things. They were, however, literally getting this mud from bogs with landfills nearby, Mel magazine reported.

That doesn’t sound appealing at all, but wait, there’s more. People were eating, drinking, bathing, and feeding their families this sludge in hopes that they would be cured of their ailments. A lot of people jumped aboard the magic dirt train when the pandemic arose, but it quickly became clear that this mud was not as helpful as BOO claimed it to be.

“We began to receive inquiries and calls on our website with people having problems and issues. Ultimately, we sent the products out for independent testing, and then when that came back and showed that there were toxic heavy metals [lead, arsenic, and cadmium among them] at an unsafe level, that’s when we knew we had to act,” Atlanta-based attorney Matt Wetherington, who filed a federal lawsuit against BOO, told Mel.

After a very complicated series of events involving an expose by NBC, product recalls, extortion claims, and grassroots activism, BOO was shut down by both the Canadian and U.S. governments.

As always, please listen only to health care professionals when you wish to use natural remedies for illnesses and ailments.

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

A Florida doctor told his patient her test result would be available in 3-4 days. When the patient didn’t hear back, she called the practice several times, but she didn’t receive a return call. So she filed a complaint against the doctor with the medical board.

When the board investigator interviewed the doctor, the physician said he wasn’t aware the patient had called. But his staff said otherwise. Because the doctor had not been truthful, the board sent him a letter of guidance and required him to attend a training program in ethics.

Miami attorney William J. Spratt Jr., who supplied this anecdote about a former client, said that most complaints are dismissed with no action taken, but some complaints don’t go away because doctors mishandle them.

The following are some common mistakes that physicians make when dealing with a board complaint.
 

1. Not responding to the complaint

The complaint you get from the board – which often comes with a subpoena and a response deadline – usually asks for medical records pertinent to the case.

You can’t disregard the board’s letter, said Doug Brocker, an attorney handling board actions in Raleigh, N.C. “It’s amazing to me that some people just ignore a board complaint. Sometimes it’s because the doctor is just burnt out, which may have gotten the doctor into trouble in the first place.”

If you do not respond to a subpoena, “the board can file a court order holding you in contempt and start taking action on your license,” said Jeff Segal, MD, a neurosurgeon and attorney in Greensboro, N.C. Dr. Segal is CEO of Medical Justice Services, which protects physicians’ reputations associated with malpractice suits and board actions. “Not responding is not much different from agreeing to all of the charges.”
 

2. Not recognizing the seriousness of the complaint

“The biggest mistake is not taking a complaint seriously,” said Linda Stimmel, an attorney at Wilson Elser in Dallas. “Physicians who get a complaint often fire off a brief response stating that the complaint has no merit, without offering any evidence.”

According to Ms. Stimmel, “it’s really important to back up your assertions, such as using excerpts from the medical record, citations of peer-reviewed articles, or a letter of support from a colleague.”

“Weigh your answers carefully, because lack of accuracy will complicate your case,” Mr. Brocker said. “Consult the medical record rather than rely on your memory.”

“Present your version of events, in your own words, because that’s almost always better than the board’s version,” said Dr. Segal.

Even if there was a bad clinical outcome, Dr. Segal said you might point out that the patient was at high risk, or you could show that your clinical outcomes are better than the national average.
 

3. Thinking the board is on your side

You may be lulled into a false sense of security because the physicians on the medical board are your peers, but they can be as tough as any medical malpractice judge, said William P. Sullivan, DO, an emergency physician and attorney in Frankfort, Ill.

As per the National Practitioner Data Bank, physicians are three to four times more likely to incur an adverse board action than make a malpractice payout, Dr. Sullivan said.

Also, although a malpractice lawsuit rarely involves more than a monetary payment, a board action, like a monitoring plan, can restrict your ability to practice medicine. In fact, any kind of board action against you can make it harder to find employment.
 

4. Not being honest or forthcoming

“Lying to the board is the fastest way to turn what would have been a minor infraction into putting your license at risk,” Mr. Brocker said. This can happen when doctors update a medical record to support their version of events.

As per Dr. Sullivan, another way to put your license at risk is to withhold adverse information, which the board can detect by obtaining your application for hospital privileges or for licensure to another state, in which you revealed the adverse information.

Dr. Sullivan also advised against claiming you “always” take a certain precautionary measure. “In reality, we doctors don’t always do what we would like to have done. By saying you always do it when you didn’t, you appear less than truthful to the board, and boards have a hard time with that.”

Similarly, “when doctors don’t want to recognize that they could have handled things better, they tend to dance around the issue,” Mr. Brocker said. “This does not sit well with the board.” Insisting that you did everything right when it’s obvious that you didn’t can lead to harsher sanctions. “The board wants to make sure doctors recognize their mistakes and are willing to learn from them.”
 

5. Providing too much information

You may think that providing a great deal of information strengthens your case, but it can actually weaken it, Mr. Brocker said. Irrelevant information makes your response hard to follow, and it may contain evidence that could prompt another line of inquiry.

“Less is more,” Dr. Segal advised. “Present a coherent argument and keep to the most salient points.” Being concise is also good advice if your complaint proceeds to the board and you have to present your case.

Dr. Segal said the board will stop paying attention to long-winded presentations. He tells his clients to imagine the board is watching a movie. “If your presentation is tedious or hard to follow, you will lose them.”
 

6. Trying to contact the complainant

Complaints are kept anonymous, but in many cases, the doctor has an idea who the complainant was and may try to contact that person. “It’s natural to wonder why a patient would file a complaint against you,” Mr. Brocker said, but if you reach out to the patient to ask why, “it could look like you’re trying to persuade the patient to drop the complaint.”

Doctors who are involved in a practice breakup or a divorce can be victims of false and malicious complaints, but Beth Y. Collis, a partner at the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl in Columbus, said boards are onto this tactic and usually reject these complaints.

The doctor may be tempted to sue the complainant, but Mr. Brocker said this won’t stop the complaint and could strengthen it. “Most statements to the medical board are protected from defamation lawsuits, and any lawsuit could appear to be intimidation.”
 

7. Simply signing a consent agreement

A small minority of complaints may result in the board taking action against the doctor. Typically, this involves getting the doctor to sign a consent agreement stating that he or she agrees with the board’s decision and its remedy, such as continuing education, a fine, or being placed under another doctor’s supervision.

“When the board sends you a consent agreement, it’s usually about something fairly minor,” Ms. Collis said. “You can make a counteroffer and see if they accept that. But once you enter into the agreement, you waive any right to appeal the board’s decision.”
 

8. Not hiring an attorney

Although some doctors manage to deal with a board complaint on their own, many will need to get an attorney, Mr. Brocker said. “An experienced attorney can help you navigate the board’s process.”

Clients often look for attorneys at the end of the process, when formal charges have already been filed, Mr. Brocker said. At that point, “it’s harder to get things moving in the right direction. You can’t unring the bell.”

Even if you don’t think you need an attorney throughout the case, “it helps to get advice from an attorney at the beginning,” Dr. Segal said. Doctors may think they can’t afford an attorney, but many malpractice carriers pay attorneys’ fees in medical board investigations.

Mr. Brocker advised finding an attorney who is familiar with licensing boards. “Malpractice attorneys may think they can deal with medical boards, but boards are quite different.” For example, “malpractice cases involve an adversarial approach, but licensing boards normally require working collaboratively.”
 

9. Not requesting a hearing

When the board takes action against you, it can be tempting to just accept the allegations and move on with your life, but it may be possible to undo the action, Dr. Sullivan said. “The board still has to prove its allegations, and it may not have a strong case against you.”

In some states, the medical board has to meet a very high standard of proof, Dr. Sullivan said. In Illinois, for example, the board must show “clear and convincing evidence,” while a malpractice plaintiff must only prove that it’s “more likely than not” that a physician violated the standard of care.

A hearing can especially help doctors facing harsh sanctions for minor offenses. For example, in a case handled by the law firm of Ray & Bishop in Newport Beach, Calif., a doctor who was stopped by police while driving home after having wine at a family gathering was found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.11%. Noting that the physician was on call at the time, the Medical Board of California decided to give him 5 years of probation.

Ray & Bishop asked for a judicial hearing to contest the decision. At the hearing, the physician noted that other physicians were also available to take call that night, and an expert stated that the doctor was not an alcohol abuser. The judge ruled that the board’s action was unduly harsh, and the physician received a public reprimand with no further penalties.
 

10. Getting upset with board officials

A board investigator may show up at your office uninvited and ask you to answer some questions, but you aren’t required to answer then and there, said Ms. Collis.

In fact, she noted, it’s never a good idea to let investigators into your office. “They can walk around, look through your records, and find more things to investigate.” For this reason, Ms. Collis makes it a point to schedule meetings with investigators at her office.

When you have to interact with board officials, such as during hearings, expressing anger is a mistake. “Some board members may raise their voices and make untrue assertions about your medical care,” Dr. Sullivan said. “You may wish you could respond in kind, but that will not help you.” Instead, calmly provide studies or guidelines supporting the care you provided.

Taking board investigators to task is also a mistake, Mr. Brocker pointed out. In his words, “investigators have to follow the rules. Getting mad at them will only make your case more difficult. Even if you believe the complaint against you is totally without merit, the process needs to run its course.”

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

Patients with rosacea are more likely to experience ocular symptoms, including foreign body sensations, itching, dryness, hyperemia, and conjunctival telangiectasia, according to a study recently published in International Ophthalmology.

In the study, investigators compared the right eyes of 76 patients with acne rosacea and 113 age-matched and gender-matched patients without rosacea. The mean age of the patients was 47-48 years, and about 63% were females. Ophthalmologic examinations that included tear breakup time and optical CT-assisted infrared meibography were conducted, and participants were asked to complete the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, which the authors say is widely used to assess aspects of ocular surface diseases.

National Rosacea Society

Compared with controls, significantly more patients with rosacea had itching (35.5% vs. 17.7%), dryness (46.1% vs. 10.6%), hyperemia (10.5% vs. 2.7%), conjunctival telangiectasia (26.3% vs. 1.8%), and meibomitis (52.6% vs. 31%) (P ≤ .05 for all), according to the investigators, from the departments of ophthalmology and dermatology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey. The most common ocular symptom among those with rosacea was having a foreign body sensation (53.9% vs. 24.8%, P < .001).

Ocular surface problems were also more common among those with rosacea, and OSDI scores were significantly higher among those with rosacea, compared with controls.

Estee Williams, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in New York and assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital, also in New York, who was not involved with the study, said the results reinforce the need to keep ocular rosacea in mind when examining a patient.

“The study is a reminder that ocular rosacea is, like its facial counterpart, an inflammatory disease that can manifest in many ways; for this reason, it’s often misdiagnosed or missed altogether,” Dr. Williams told this news organization. “This is unfortunate because it is usually easily managed.”

She added that there is a need for more randomized, controlled studies to determine optimal treatments for ocular rosacea, which is underdiagnosed. Part of the reason she believes it is underdiagnosed is that often “ophthalmologists don’t think about ocular rosacea specifically, unless they are given the information that the patient suffers from rosacea. The patient may not be aware that their skin and eye problems are connected.”

The take-home message of the study, Dr. Williams added, is that dermatologists who treat rosacea should be ready to screen their patients with rosacea for ocular symptoms, as well as have a basic understanding of ocular rosacea and know when to refer patients to an ophthalmologist.

“Preservative-free eye drops are usually well tolerated and a good starting point for those cases that are limited to symptoms only,” she said. “However, once a patient has signs of overt inflammation on exam, such as arcades of blood vessels on the eyelid margin or on the white of the eye, prescription medication is usually needed.”

A limitation of the study is that both eyes of patients were not included, said Dr. Williams, noting that ocular rosacea is usually bilateral.

Also asked to comment on the results, Marc Lupin, MD, a dermatologist in Victoria, B.C., and clinical instructor in the department of dermatology and skin science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, noted that one of the shortcomings of the study is that it did not account for any effect of treatment.

“Were they on treatment for their rosacea either during the study or before the study?” asked Dr. Lupin. “That would affect the ocular findings.” Still, he agreed that the study underlines the need for dermatologists to be aware of the high incidence of ocular rosacea in patients and to appreciate that it can present subtly.

The study authors, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Lupin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with rosacea are more likely to experience ocular symptoms, including foreign body sensations, itching, dryness, hyperemia, and conjunctival telangiectasia, according to a study recently published in International Ophthalmology.

In the study, investigators compared the right eyes of 76 patients with acne rosacea and 113 age-matched and gender-matched patients without rosacea. The mean age of the patients was 47-48 years, and about 63% were females. Ophthalmologic examinations that included tear breakup time and optical CT-assisted infrared meibography were conducted, and participants were asked to complete the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, which the authors say is widely used to assess aspects of ocular surface diseases.

National Rosacea Society

Compared with controls, significantly more patients with rosacea had itching (35.5% vs. 17.7%), dryness (46.1% vs. 10.6%), hyperemia (10.5% vs. 2.7%), conjunctival telangiectasia (26.3% vs. 1.8%), and meibomitis (52.6% vs. 31%) (P ≤ .05 for all), according to the investigators, from the departments of ophthalmology and dermatology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey. The most common ocular symptom among those with rosacea was having a foreign body sensation (53.9% vs. 24.8%, P < .001).

Ocular surface problems were also more common among those with rosacea, and OSDI scores were significantly higher among those with rosacea, compared with controls.

Estee Williams, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in New York and assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital, also in New York, who was not involved with the study, said the results reinforce the need to keep ocular rosacea in mind when examining a patient.

“The study is a reminder that ocular rosacea is, like its facial counterpart, an inflammatory disease that can manifest in many ways; for this reason, it’s often misdiagnosed or missed altogether,” Dr. Williams told this news organization. “This is unfortunate because it is usually easily managed.”

She added that there is a need for more randomized, controlled studies to determine optimal treatments for ocular rosacea, which is underdiagnosed. Part of the reason she believes it is underdiagnosed is that often “ophthalmologists don’t think about ocular rosacea specifically, unless they are given the information that the patient suffers from rosacea. The patient may not be aware that their skin and eye problems are connected.”

The take-home message of the study, Dr. Williams added, is that dermatologists who treat rosacea should be ready to screen their patients with rosacea for ocular symptoms, as well as have a basic understanding of ocular rosacea and know when to refer patients to an ophthalmologist.

“Preservative-free eye drops are usually well tolerated and a good starting point for those cases that are limited to symptoms only,” she said. “However, once a patient has signs of overt inflammation on exam, such as arcades of blood vessels on the eyelid margin or on the white of the eye, prescription medication is usually needed.”

A limitation of the study is that both eyes of patients were not included, said Dr. Williams, noting that ocular rosacea is usually bilateral.

Also asked to comment on the results, Marc Lupin, MD, a dermatologist in Victoria, B.C., and clinical instructor in the department of dermatology and skin science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, noted that one of the shortcomings of the study is that it did not account for any effect of treatment.

“Were they on treatment for their rosacea either during the study or before the study?” asked Dr. Lupin. “That would affect the ocular findings.” Still, he agreed that the study underlines the need for dermatologists to be aware of the high incidence of ocular rosacea in patients and to appreciate that it can present subtly.

The study authors, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Lupin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with rosacea are more likely to experience ocular symptoms, including foreign body sensations, itching, dryness, hyperemia, and conjunctival telangiectasia, according to a study recently published in International Ophthalmology.

In the study, investigators compared the right eyes of 76 patients with acne rosacea and 113 age-matched and gender-matched patients without rosacea. The mean age of the patients was 47-48 years, and about 63% were females. Ophthalmologic examinations that included tear breakup time and optical CT-assisted infrared meibography were conducted, and participants were asked to complete the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, which the authors say is widely used to assess aspects of ocular surface diseases.

National Rosacea Society

Compared with controls, significantly more patients with rosacea had itching (35.5% vs. 17.7%), dryness (46.1% vs. 10.6%), hyperemia (10.5% vs. 2.7%), conjunctival telangiectasia (26.3% vs. 1.8%), and meibomitis (52.6% vs. 31%) (P ≤ .05 for all), according to the investigators, from the departments of ophthalmology and dermatology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey. The most common ocular symptom among those with rosacea was having a foreign body sensation (53.9% vs. 24.8%, P < .001).

Ocular surface problems were also more common among those with rosacea, and OSDI scores were significantly higher among those with rosacea, compared with controls.

Estee Williams, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in New York and assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital, also in New York, who was not involved with the study, said the results reinforce the need to keep ocular rosacea in mind when examining a patient.

“The study is a reminder that ocular rosacea is, like its facial counterpart, an inflammatory disease that can manifest in many ways; for this reason, it’s often misdiagnosed or missed altogether,” Dr. Williams told this news organization. “This is unfortunate because it is usually easily managed.”

She added that there is a need for more randomized, controlled studies to determine optimal treatments for ocular rosacea, which is underdiagnosed. Part of the reason she believes it is underdiagnosed is that often “ophthalmologists don’t think about ocular rosacea specifically, unless they are given the information that the patient suffers from rosacea. The patient may not be aware that their skin and eye problems are connected.”

The take-home message of the study, Dr. Williams added, is that dermatologists who treat rosacea should be ready to screen their patients with rosacea for ocular symptoms, as well as have a basic understanding of ocular rosacea and know when to refer patients to an ophthalmologist.

“Preservative-free eye drops are usually well tolerated and a good starting point for those cases that are limited to symptoms only,” she said. “However, once a patient has signs of overt inflammation on exam, such as arcades of blood vessels on the eyelid margin or on the white of the eye, prescription medication is usually needed.”

A limitation of the study is that both eyes of patients were not included, said Dr. Williams, noting that ocular rosacea is usually bilateral.

Also asked to comment on the results, Marc Lupin, MD, a dermatologist in Victoria, B.C., and clinical instructor in the department of dermatology and skin science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, noted that one of the shortcomings of the study is that it did not account for any effect of treatment.

“Were they on treatment for their rosacea either during the study or before the study?” asked Dr. Lupin. “That would affect the ocular findings.” Still, he agreed that the study underlines the need for dermatologists to be aware of the high incidence of ocular rosacea in patients and to appreciate that it can present subtly.

The study authors, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Lupin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lipedema – a disease that causes excess fat to accumulate primarily in the lower part of the body – is a condition “that most physicians in the U.S. don’t understand,” according to C. William Hanke, MD, MPH.

“This disease is well known in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria, but in this country, I believe most dermatologists have never heard of it,” Dr. Hanke said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.

Clinically, patients with lipedema – also known as “two-body syndrome” – present with a symmetric, bilateral increase in subcutaneous fat, with “cuffs of fat” around the ankles. It usually affects the legs and thighs; the hands and feet are not affected.

“From the waist on up, the body looks like one person, and from the waist on down, it looks like an entirely different person,” said Dr. Hanke, a dermatologist who is program director for the micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology fellowship training program at Ascension St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis. “Just think of the difficulty that the person has with their life in terms of buying clothes or social interactions. This is a devastating problem.”

Lipedema almost always affects women and is progressive from puberty. “Characteristically, patients have pain and bruise easily in the areas of lipedema,” said Dr. Hanke, who has served as president of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, and the International Society for Dermatologic Surgery. The affected areas are painful to touch, making exercise uncomfortable for patients, he said.

Courtesy Dr. C. William Hanke.

Lipedema can be masked by obesity, “so, if you superimpose generalized obesity on lipedema, you have an even more difficult problem,” he added. “A physician who doesn’t understand the disease may perform standard nontumescent liposuction under general anesthesia, with cannulas, which traumatize lipedematous fat. Thereby, a patient with lipedema can then be inadvertently transformed into a patient with lympholipedema. Then you’ve got even an even worse problem.”

One might think that the rate of diabetes would be high among lipedema patients, “but diabetes is essentially nonexistent in this group,” he continued. However, patients with lipedema “may develop hypothyroidism, venous disease, joint pain, and fibrosis in the fat as the disease progresses.”
 

Lipedema stages, treatment

Lipedema is defined by three clinical stages: Stage one is characterized by an enlarged subcutaneous fat department, but the skin surface is smooth. In stage 2, the skin surface becomes wavy with irregularities and dents, and in stage 3, patients develop large deforming nodules and hanging flaps.

“If we can diagnose lipedema in the early stages and perform tumescent liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia, we can prevent the progression of the disease,” Dr. Hanke said. For patients who meet criteria for tumescent liposuction, three to six treatments may be required for stage 3 disease. “Tumescent local anesthesia should be used, because liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia is atraumatic to fat,” he said. “Usually, the most painful areas are treated first.”

In a single-center study from Germany that followed 85 patients who underwent tumescent liposuction for lipedema, researchers found that improvements in pain, bruising, and mobility were sustained at 4 and 8 years following the procedure. Patient quality of life and cosmetic appearance were also sustained.

In terms of liposuction’s cosmetic effects, “the goal of liposuction in lipedema patients is different,” Dr. Hanke said. “The goal is to get these people moving again, stabilize their weight, and minimize progression of the disease. Cosmetic improvement is secondary.”

A more recent follow-up study of 60 patients from the same single-center German study showed that the positive effects of liposuction lasted 12 years postoperatively without relevant progression of disease.

Following the first International Consensus Conference on Lipedema in Vienna in 2017, Dr. Hanke and colleagues published guidelines on preventing progression of lipedema with liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia.

“If patients with lipedema gain weight, the problem becomes even worse,” he said. “A sensible diet and nontraumatic exercise like water aerobics is ideal. If patients pursue yo-yo dieting, more and more fat stays in the legs after each cycle. Sometimes I’ll refer overweight patients with lipedema for a bariatric surgery consult.”

Dr. Hanke noted that Karen Herbst, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who is widely considered an expert on the medical management of lipedema, has a website on lipedema care.

Dr. Hanke reported having no financial conflicts related to his presentation.
 

Lipedema – a disease that causes excess fat to accumulate primarily in the lower part of the body – is a condition “that most physicians in the U.S. don’t understand,” according to C. William Hanke, MD, MPH.

“This disease is well known in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria, but in this country, I believe most dermatologists have never heard of it,” Dr. Hanke said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.

Clinically, patients with lipedema – also known as “two-body syndrome” – present with a symmetric, bilateral increase in subcutaneous fat, with “cuffs of fat” around the ankles. It usually affects the legs and thighs; the hands and feet are not affected.

“From the waist on up, the body looks like one person, and from the waist on down, it looks like an entirely different person,” said Dr. Hanke, a dermatologist who is program director for the micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology fellowship training program at Ascension St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis. “Just think of the difficulty that the person has with their life in terms of buying clothes or social interactions. This is a devastating problem.”

Lipedema almost always affects women and is progressive from puberty. “Characteristically, patients have pain and bruise easily in the areas of lipedema,” said Dr. Hanke, who has served as president of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, and the International Society for Dermatologic Surgery. The affected areas are painful to touch, making exercise uncomfortable for patients, he said.

Courtesy Dr. C. William Hanke.

Lipedema can be masked by obesity, “so, if you superimpose generalized obesity on lipedema, you have an even more difficult problem,” he added. “A physician who doesn’t understand the disease may perform standard nontumescent liposuction under general anesthesia, with cannulas, which traumatize lipedematous fat. Thereby, a patient with lipedema can then be inadvertently transformed into a patient with lympholipedema. Then you’ve got even an even worse problem.”

One might think that the rate of diabetes would be high among lipedema patients, “but diabetes is essentially nonexistent in this group,” he continued. However, patients with lipedema “may develop hypothyroidism, venous disease, joint pain, and fibrosis in the fat as the disease progresses.”
 

Lipedema stages, treatment

Lipedema is defined by three clinical stages: Stage one is characterized by an enlarged subcutaneous fat department, but the skin surface is smooth. In stage 2, the skin surface becomes wavy with irregularities and dents, and in stage 3, patients develop large deforming nodules and hanging flaps.

“If we can diagnose lipedema in the early stages and perform tumescent liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia, we can prevent the progression of the disease,” Dr. Hanke said. For patients who meet criteria for tumescent liposuction, three to six treatments may be required for stage 3 disease. “Tumescent local anesthesia should be used, because liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia is atraumatic to fat,” he said. “Usually, the most painful areas are treated first.”

In a single-center study from Germany that followed 85 patients who underwent tumescent liposuction for lipedema, researchers found that improvements in pain, bruising, and mobility were sustained at 4 and 8 years following the procedure. Patient quality of life and cosmetic appearance were also sustained.

In terms of liposuction’s cosmetic effects, “the goal of liposuction in lipedema patients is different,” Dr. Hanke said. “The goal is to get these people moving again, stabilize their weight, and minimize progression of the disease. Cosmetic improvement is secondary.”

A more recent follow-up study of 60 patients from the same single-center German study showed that the positive effects of liposuction lasted 12 years postoperatively without relevant progression of disease.

Following the first International Consensus Conference on Lipedema in Vienna in 2017, Dr. Hanke and colleagues published guidelines on preventing progression of lipedema with liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia.

“If patients with lipedema gain weight, the problem becomes even worse,” he said. “A sensible diet and nontraumatic exercise like water aerobics is ideal. If patients pursue yo-yo dieting, more and more fat stays in the legs after each cycle. Sometimes I’ll refer overweight patients with lipedema for a bariatric surgery consult.”

Dr. Hanke noted that Karen Herbst, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who is widely considered an expert on the medical management of lipedema, has a website on lipedema care.

Dr. Hanke reported having no financial conflicts related to his presentation.
 

Lipedema – a disease that causes excess fat to accumulate primarily in the lower part of the body – is a condition “that most physicians in the U.S. don’t understand,” according to C. William Hanke, MD, MPH.

“This disease is well known in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria, but in this country, I believe most dermatologists have never heard of it,” Dr. Hanke said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.

Clinically, patients with lipedema – also known as “two-body syndrome” – present with a symmetric, bilateral increase in subcutaneous fat, with “cuffs of fat” around the ankles. It usually affects the legs and thighs; the hands and feet are not affected.

“From the waist on up, the body looks like one person, and from the waist on down, it looks like an entirely different person,” said Dr. Hanke, a dermatologist who is program director for the micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology fellowship training program at Ascension St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis. “Just think of the difficulty that the person has with their life in terms of buying clothes or social interactions. This is a devastating problem.”

Lipedema almost always affects women and is progressive from puberty. “Characteristically, patients have pain and bruise easily in the areas of lipedema,” said Dr. Hanke, who has served as president of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, and the International Society for Dermatologic Surgery. The affected areas are painful to touch, making exercise uncomfortable for patients, he said.

Courtesy Dr. C. William Hanke.

Lipedema can be masked by obesity, “so, if you superimpose generalized obesity on lipedema, you have an even more difficult problem,” he added. “A physician who doesn’t understand the disease may perform standard nontumescent liposuction under general anesthesia, with cannulas, which traumatize lipedematous fat. Thereby, a patient with lipedema can then be inadvertently transformed into a patient with lympholipedema. Then you’ve got even an even worse problem.”

One might think that the rate of diabetes would be high among lipedema patients, “but diabetes is essentially nonexistent in this group,” he continued. However, patients with lipedema “may develop hypothyroidism, venous disease, joint pain, and fibrosis in the fat as the disease progresses.”
 

Lipedema stages, treatment

Lipedema is defined by three clinical stages: Stage one is characterized by an enlarged subcutaneous fat department, but the skin surface is smooth. In stage 2, the skin surface becomes wavy with irregularities and dents, and in stage 3, patients develop large deforming nodules and hanging flaps.

“If we can diagnose lipedema in the early stages and perform tumescent liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia, we can prevent the progression of the disease,” Dr. Hanke said. For patients who meet criteria for tumescent liposuction, three to six treatments may be required for stage 3 disease. “Tumescent local anesthesia should be used, because liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia is atraumatic to fat,” he said. “Usually, the most painful areas are treated first.”

In a single-center study from Germany that followed 85 patients who underwent tumescent liposuction for lipedema, researchers found that improvements in pain, bruising, and mobility were sustained at 4 and 8 years following the procedure. Patient quality of life and cosmetic appearance were also sustained.

In terms of liposuction’s cosmetic effects, “the goal of liposuction in lipedema patients is different,” Dr. Hanke said. “The goal is to get these people moving again, stabilize their weight, and minimize progression of the disease. Cosmetic improvement is secondary.”

A more recent follow-up study of 60 patients from the same single-center German study showed that the positive effects of liposuction lasted 12 years postoperatively without relevant progression of disease.

Following the first International Consensus Conference on Lipedema in Vienna in 2017, Dr. Hanke and colleagues published guidelines on preventing progression of lipedema with liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia.

“If patients with lipedema gain weight, the problem becomes even worse,” he said. “A sensible diet and nontraumatic exercise like water aerobics is ideal. If patients pursue yo-yo dieting, more and more fat stays in the legs after each cycle. Sometimes I’ll refer overweight patients with lipedema for a bariatric surgery consult.”

Dr. Hanke noted that Karen Herbst, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who is widely considered an expert on the medical management of lipedema, has a website on lipedema care.

Dr. Hanke reported having no financial conflicts related to his presentation.
 

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a disability researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, has used a wheelchair for more than 30 years because of multiple sclerosis. When she visits her primary care doctor, she doesn’t get weighed because the scales are not wheelchair accessible.

This failure to weigh her and other patients in wheelchairs could lead to serious medical problems. Weight is used to monitor a person’s overall health and prenatal health and to determine accurate doses for medications such as some chemotherapies, said Dr. Iezzoni.

In another situation, a man who used a wheelchair said that his primary care doctor never got him out of it for a complete physical exam. The patient later developed lymphoma, which first appeared in his groin. The doctor should have accommodated his disability and used a height-adjustable exam table or a portable lift to transfer him onto the table.

When physicians don’t provide access to medical care that patients with disabilities need, they put themselves at greater risk of lawsuits, fines, and settlements.

Yet, a new study in Health Affairs suggests that a large percentage of doctors are not fully aware of what they are legally required to do.

Under federal nondiscrimination laws (Americans With Disabilities Act, American Rehabilitation Act, and ADA Amendments Act), medical practices must provide equal access to people with disabilities, accommodate their disability-related needs, and not refuse them medical services because of their disabilities, say disability experts.
 

Where doctors go wrong with disability laws

What doctors don’t know about providing reasonable accommodations makes them vulnerable to lawsuits, which worries more than two-thirds of the 714 outpatient doctors surveyed.

Not only are they required to provide reasonable accommodations, but they also have to pay for them, the researchers said. One-fifth of the surveyed doctors said they didn’t know that practice owners have to pay.

More than one practice has made patients pay for services needed for their disability, such as sign language interpreters – the patients later complained this violated the ADA to enforcement agencies.

Doctors also don’t know that they have to collaborate with patients to determine what reasonable accommodations they need – over two-thirds of those surveyed said they didn’t know it was a joint responsibility, the study found.

When doctors fail to accommodate patients’ disability needs, they engage in discrimination and violate the ADA, says Elizabeth Pendo, JD, a coauthor of the study and the Joseph J. Simeone Professor of Law at Saint Louis University.

The Department of Justice has investigated several patient complaints of alleged disability discrimination recently and resolved the disputes with agreements and small fines in some cases. “The goal is not to get large financial settlements but to work with practices to get the correct procedures in place to be compliant,” said Ms. Pendo.

Physicians would be wise to check out whether their practices are as accessible as they think. Even if there’s a ramp to the office building, the parking lot may not have a van-accessible space or enough handicapped parking signs, or the exam room may be too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate.

These practices violated the ADA and agreed to make changes:

• Hamden, Conn., has two buildings that patients with physical disabilities couldn’t easily enter. The physician owners agreed to change the buildings’ entrances and access routes and add features to make it easier to use examination rooms and restrooms and the check-in and check-out areas.
• Seven medical offices in Riverside, Calif., failed to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing patients. They should have had a qualified sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, or another appropriate aid or service available to a deaf patient and her family. Instead, the office relied on a video remote interpretation system that often failed to work. The agreement requires the clinic to provide those aids and services to patients and their companions who are deaf or hard of hearing, advertise their availability, assess each patient who is deaf or hard of hearing to determine the best aids and services for their needs, and pay $5,000 in compensation to the complainant and a $1,000 civil penalty to the United States.
• Springfield, Mass., refused to provide full joint replacements to two patients being treated with buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Rather than accommodate the patients, the surgeons referred them elsewhere because they were uncomfortable with the postoperative pain management protocol for patients prescribed buprenorphine. “The Americans With Disabilities Act protects health care access for people under medical treatment for opioid use disorder,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell. “Health care providers must comply with the ADA, even when doing so is inconvenient or makes them uncomfortable.” The agreement requires the practice to adopt a nondiscrimination policy, provide training on the ADA and opioid use disorder, and pay two complainants $15,000 each for pain and suffering.

The DOJ has filed civil lawsuits against medical practices when they failed to resolve the allegations. Recent cases include an ophthalmology practice with 24 facilities in Arizona that refused to help transfer patients in wheelchairs to surgery tables for eye surgery and required them to pay for transfer support services and two obstetricians-gynecologists in Bakersfield, Calif., who refused to provide routine medical care to a patient because of her HIV status.
 

What doctors should know

Many people tend to think of a person with a disability as being in a wheelchair. But the ADA has a very broad definition of disability, which includes any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits any major life activity, said Ms. Pendo.

“It was amended in 2008 to clarify that the definition includes people with chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, cognitive and neurological disorders, substance abuse disorders, vision and hearing loss, and learning and other disabilities,” she said.

That means that doctors have to accommodate many types of disabilities, which can be challenging. The ADA only specifies that fixed structures need to be accessible, such as parking lots, driveways, and buildings, said Dr. Iezzoni.

When it comes to “reasonable accommodations,” doctors should decide that on a case-by-case basis, she said.

“We can say based on our study that 71% of doctors don’t know the right way to think about the accommodations – they don’t know they need to talk to patients so they can explain to them exactly what they need to accommodate their disability,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Doctors are also required to provide effective communication for patients with sensory or cognitive disabilities, which can depend on the severity, said Ms. Pendo. Is the person deaf or hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted – is the dementia mild or severe?

“The requirement is there, but what that looks like will vary by patient. That’s what’s challenging,” said Ms. Pendo.

Dr. Iezzoni recommends that doctor’s offices ask patients whether they need special help or individual assistance when they make appointments and enter their responses in their records. She also suggests that patients be asked at follow-up appointments whether they still need the same help or not.

“Disabilities can change over time – a person with bad arthritis may need help getting onto an exam table, but later get a knee or hip replacement that is effective and no longer need that help,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Benefits outweigh costs

Physicians have made progress in meeting the ADA’s physical accessibility requirements, said Dr. Iezzoni. “The literature suggests that doctors have done a good job at fixing the structural barriers people with mobility issues face, such as ramps and bathrooms.”

However, there are exceptions in rural older buildings which can be harder to retrofit for wheelchair accessibility, she said. “I recall interviewing a rural doctor several years ago who said that he knew his patients well and when a patient visits with mobility problems, he goes down and carries the patient up the steps to his office. My response was that is not respectful of the patient or safe for the patient or you. That doctor has since changed the location of his practice,” said Dr. Iezzoni.

Some doctors may resist paying for accessible medical equipment because of cost, but she said the benefits are worth it. These include preventing staff injuries when they transfer patients and being used by patients with temporary disabilities and aging people with bad knees, backs, hearing and sight. In addition, businesses may be eligible for federal and state tax credits.

Dr. Iezzoni recently visited her doctor where they finally got height-adjustable exam tables. “I asked the assistant, who really likes these tables? She said it’s the elderly ladies of short stature – the table is lowered and they sit down and get on it.”

But, Dr. Iezonni’s main message to doctors is that patients with disabilities deserve equal quality of care. “Just because we have a disability doesn’t mean we should get worse care than other people. It’s a matter of professionalism that doctors should want to give the same quality care to all their patients.”

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

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

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

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

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

The Omicron subvariant, known as BA.2, spreads about 1.5 times faster than the original Omicron strain, known as BA.1, according to CNBC.

The Statens Serum Institut, which monitors infectious diseases in Denmark, said that BA.2 is more contagious, but it doesn’t appear to increase hospitalizations or reduce how well the vaccine works.

BA.2 overtook BA.1 as the primary variant in Denmark within a few weeks, Troels Lillebaek, director of the institute, told CNBC. The subvariant has five unique mutations on a key part of the spike protein, which is what the coronavirus uses to invade human cells. This often means a higher rate of spreading.

The Omicron subvariant has been detected in at least 29 states in the United States and 56 countries, according to the latest update from Outbreak.info. The United States has detected 188 infections, with the worldwide total nearing 25,000.

Denmark has reported the highest number of cases, followed by the United Kingdom and India. Both Denmark and India have reported that BA.2 now accounts for about half of new COVID-19 cases in those countries.

On Jan. 28, the U.K. Health Security Agency said BA.2 has a “substantial” growth advantage over the original Omicron strain. The subvariant has spread faster in all regions of England where there were enough cases to conduct an analysis, the agency said in a report.

A preliminary evaluation found that BA.2 doesn’t appear to change how well the vaccine works compared to the original Omicron strain, the agency said. A booster dose was 70% effective at preventing symptomatic illness for BA.2, compared with 63% for the original Omicron strain.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said on Jan. 28 that, although the subvariant has become more common in some countries, it is currently at a low level in the United States and doesn’t appear to be more serious.

“Currently there is no evidence that the BA.2 lineage is more severe than the BA.1 lineage,” Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson, told CNBC.

The World Health Organization hasn’t labeled BA.2 a “variant of concern” so far but will continue to monitor it. WHO officials have said that new variants will arise as Omicron spreads across the world.

“The next variant of concern will be more fit, and what we mean by that is it will be more transmissible because it will have to overtake what is currently circulating,” Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead, said during a livestream on Jan. 25.

“The big question is whether or not future variants will be more or less severe,” she said.

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