Thousands of doctors get a shout out every year when they make the “Top Doctor” lists in various magazines. Some may be your colleagues or competitors. Should you be concerned if you’re not on the list?

Best Doctor lists are clearly popular with readers and make money for the magazines.  They can also bring in patient revenue for doctors and their employers who promote them in news releases and on their websites.

For doctors on some of the top lists, the recognition can bring not only patients, but national or international visibility.

But many doctors don’t make it onto these lists. Will they lose business or prestige?

While the dollar value is hard to come by, some doctors say that these lists have attracted new patients to their practice.

Sarah St. Louis, MD, a physician manager of Associates in Urogynecology, is one of Orlando Style magazine’s Doctors of the Year and Orlando Family Magazine’s Top Doctors.

Several new patients have told her that they read about her in the magazines’ Top Doctor lists. “Urogynecology is not a well-known specialty – it’s a helpful way to get the word out about the women’s health specialty and what I do,” said Dr. St. Louis, an early career physician who started her practice in 2017.

The additional patient revenue has been worth the cost of displaying her profile in Orlando Style, which was about $800 for a half-page spread with her photo.

Top Doctor lists also work well for specialty practices whose patients can self-refer, such as plastic surgery, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and geriatric medicine, said Andrea Eliscu, RN, founder and president of Medical Marketing in Orlando.

Being in a competitive market also matters. If a practice is the only one in town, those doctors may not need the publicity as much as doctors in an urban practice that faces stiff competition.
 

How do doctors get on these lists?

In most cases, doctors have to be nominated by their peers, a process that some say is flawed because it may shut out doctors who are less popular or well-connected. 

Forty-eight regional magazines, including Chicago magazine and Philadelphia Magazine , partner with Castle Connolly to use their online Top Doctor database of more than 61,000 physicians in every major metropolitan area, said Steve Leibforth, managing director of Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors.

The company says it sends annual surveys to tens of thousands of practicing doctors asking them to nominate colleagues in their specialty. The nominated doctors are vetted by Castle Connolly’s physician-led research team on several criteria including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history, and outcomes data when available, said Mr. Leibforth.

Washingtonian magazine says it sends annual online surveys to 13,500 physicians in the DC metro area asking them to nominate one colleague in their specialty. The top vote-getters in each of 39 categories are designated Top Doctors.

Orlando Family Magazine  says its annual Top Doctor selections are based on reader polls and doctor nominations.

Consumers’ Research Council of America uses a point system based on each year the doctor has been in practice, education and continuing education, board certification, and membership in professional medical societies. 

Doctors have many ways to promote that they’re listed as a “top” doctor. Dr. St. Louis takes advantage of the magazine’s free reprints, which she puts in her waiting room.

Others buy plaques to hang up in their waiting rooms or offices and announce the distinction on their websites, blogs, or social media. “They have to maximize the magazine distinction or it’s worthless,” said Ms. Eliscu.

Employers also like to spread the word when their doctors make it on “Top Doctor” lists.

“With Emory physicians making up nearly 50 percent of the list, that’s more than any other health system in Atlanta,” said an Emory University press release after nearly half of the university’s doctors made the Top Doctors list in Atlanta magazine.
 

Patients may be impressed: What about your peers?

Dr. St. Louis said that making some of these lists is less impressive than having a peer-reviewed journal article or receiving professional awards.

“Just because a physician is listed in a magazine as a ‘top doctor’ does not mean they are the best. There are far more medical, clinical, and scientific points to consider than just a pretty picture in a style magazine,” she said.  

Wanda Filer, MD, MBA, who practiced family medicine until last year when she became chief medical officer for VaxCare in Orlando, said she ignores the many congratulatory letters in the mail announcing that she’s made one list or another.

“I don’t put much credence in the lists. I get notifications fairly often, and to me it always looks like they’re trying to sell a plaque. I’d rather let my work speak for itself.”

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, president and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs and a paid strategic adviser to RYTE, a data-driven site for “best doctors” and “best hospitals,” said he received several of these “top doctor” awards when he was a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado. 

He has been critical of these awards for some time. “These doctor beauty pageants may be good for business but have little value for patients.”

He would like to see a new approach that is driven by data and what patients value. “If I have a lump in my thyroid, I want to know the best doctor to treat me based on outcomes data.”

He said a good rating system would include a data-driven approach based on treatment outcomes, publicly available data, price transparency, and patient values.

Whether a physician feels honored to be named a top physician or sees little value in it, most doctors are aware of the list’s marketing value for their practices and many choose to make use of it.

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

Thousands of doctors get a shout out every year when they make the “Top Doctor” lists in various magazines. Some may be your colleagues or competitors. Should you be concerned if you’re not on the list?

Best Doctor lists are clearly popular with readers and make money for the magazines.  They can also bring in patient revenue for doctors and their employers who promote them in news releases and on their websites.

For doctors on some of the top lists, the recognition can bring not only patients, but national or international visibility.

But many doctors don’t make it onto these lists. Will they lose business or prestige?

While the dollar value is hard to come by, some doctors say that these lists have attracted new patients to their practice.

Sarah St. Louis, MD, a physician manager of Associates in Urogynecology, is one of Orlando Style magazine’s Doctors of the Year and Orlando Family Magazine’s Top Doctors.

Several new patients have told her that they read about her in the magazines’ Top Doctor lists. “Urogynecology is not a well-known specialty – it’s a helpful way to get the word out about the women’s health specialty and what I do,” said Dr. St. Louis, an early career physician who started her practice in 2017.

The additional patient revenue has been worth the cost of displaying her profile in Orlando Style, which was about $800 for a half-page spread with her photo.

Top Doctor lists also work well for specialty practices whose patients can self-refer, such as plastic surgery, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and geriatric medicine, said Andrea Eliscu, RN, founder and president of Medical Marketing in Orlando.

Being in a competitive market also matters. If a practice is the only one in town, those doctors may not need the publicity as much as doctors in an urban practice that faces stiff competition.
 

How do doctors get on these lists?

In most cases, doctors have to be nominated by their peers, a process that some say is flawed because it may shut out doctors who are less popular or well-connected. 

Forty-eight regional magazines, including Chicago magazine and Philadelphia Magazine , partner with Castle Connolly to use their online Top Doctor database of more than 61,000 physicians in every major metropolitan area, said Steve Leibforth, managing director of Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors.

The company says it sends annual surveys to tens of thousands of practicing doctors asking them to nominate colleagues in their specialty. The nominated doctors are vetted by Castle Connolly’s physician-led research team on several criteria including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history, and outcomes data when available, said Mr. Leibforth.

Washingtonian magazine says it sends annual online surveys to 13,500 physicians in the DC metro area asking them to nominate one colleague in their specialty. The top vote-getters in each of 39 categories are designated Top Doctors.

Orlando Family Magazine  says its annual Top Doctor selections are based on reader polls and doctor nominations.

Consumers’ Research Council of America uses a point system based on each year the doctor has been in practice, education and continuing education, board certification, and membership in professional medical societies. 

Doctors have many ways to promote that they’re listed as a “top” doctor. Dr. St. Louis takes advantage of the magazine’s free reprints, which she puts in her waiting room.

Others buy plaques to hang up in their waiting rooms or offices and announce the distinction on their websites, blogs, or social media. “They have to maximize the magazine distinction or it’s worthless,” said Ms. Eliscu.

Employers also like to spread the word when their doctors make it on “Top Doctor” lists.

“With Emory physicians making up nearly 50 percent of the list, that’s more than any other health system in Atlanta,” said an Emory University press release after nearly half of the university’s doctors made the Top Doctors list in Atlanta magazine.
 

Patients may be impressed: What about your peers?

Dr. St. Louis said that making some of these lists is less impressive than having a peer-reviewed journal article or receiving professional awards.

“Just because a physician is listed in a magazine as a ‘top doctor’ does not mean they are the best. There are far more medical, clinical, and scientific points to consider than just a pretty picture in a style magazine,” she said.  

Wanda Filer, MD, MBA, who practiced family medicine until last year when she became chief medical officer for VaxCare in Orlando, said she ignores the many congratulatory letters in the mail announcing that she’s made one list or another.

“I don’t put much credence in the lists. I get notifications fairly often, and to me it always looks like they’re trying to sell a plaque. I’d rather let my work speak for itself.”

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, president and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs and a paid strategic adviser to RYTE, a data-driven site for “best doctors” and “best hospitals,” said he received several of these “top doctor” awards when he was a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado. 

He has been critical of these awards for some time. “These doctor beauty pageants may be good for business but have little value for patients.”

He would like to see a new approach that is driven by data and what patients value. “If I have a lump in my thyroid, I want to know the best doctor to treat me based on outcomes data.”

He said a good rating system would include a data-driven approach based on treatment outcomes, publicly available data, price transparency, and patient values.

Whether a physician feels honored to be named a top physician or sees little value in it, most doctors are aware of the list’s marketing value for their practices and many choose to make use of it.

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

Thousands of doctors get a shout out every year when they make the “Top Doctor” lists in various magazines. Some may be your colleagues or competitors. Should you be concerned if you’re not on the list?

Best Doctor lists are clearly popular with readers and make money for the magazines.  They can also bring in patient revenue for doctors and their employers who promote them in news releases and on their websites.

For doctors on some of the top lists, the recognition can bring not only patients, but national or international visibility.

But many doctors don’t make it onto these lists. Will they lose business or prestige?

While the dollar value is hard to come by, some doctors say that these lists have attracted new patients to their practice.

Sarah St. Louis, MD, a physician manager of Associates in Urogynecology, is one of Orlando Style magazine’s Doctors of the Year and Orlando Family Magazine’s Top Doctors.

Several new patients have told her that they read about her in the magazines’ Top Doctor lists. “Urogynecology is not a well-known specialty – it’s a helpful way to get the word out about the women’s health specialty and what I do,” said Dr. St. Louis, an early career physician who started her practice in 2017.

The additional patient revenue has been worth the cost of displaying her profile in Orlando Style, which was about $800 for a half-page spread with her photo.

Top Doctor lists also work well for specialty practices whose patients can self-refer, such as plastic surgery, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and geriatric medicine, said Andrea Eliscu, RN, founder and president of Medical Marketing in Orlando.

Being in a competitive market also matters. If a practice is the only one in town, those doctors may not need the publicity as much as doctors in an urban practice that faces stiff competition.
 

How do doctors get on these lists?

In most cases, doctors have to be nominated by their peers, a process that some say is flawed because it may shut out doctors who are less popular or well-connected. 

Forty-eight regional magazines, including Chicago magazine and Philadelphia Magazine , partner with Castle Connolly to use their online Top Doctor database of more than 61,000 physicians in every major metropolitan area, said Steve Leibforth, managing director of Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors.

The company says it sends annual surveys to tens of thousands of practicing doctors asking them to nominate colleagues in their specialty. The nominated doctors are vetted by Castle Connolly’s physician-led research team on several criteria including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history, and outcomes data when available, said Mr. Leibforth.

Washingtonian magazine says it sends annual online surveys to 13,500 physicians in the DC metro area asking them to nominate one colleague in their specialty. The top vote-getters in each of 39 categories are designated Top Doctors.

Orlando Family Magazine  says its annual Top Doctor selections are based on reader polls and doctor nominations.

Consumers’ Research Council of America uses a point system based on each year the doctor has been in practice, education and continuing education, board certification, and membership in professional medical societies. 

Doctors have many ways to promote that they’re listed as a “top” doctor. Dr. St. Louis takes advantage of the magazine’s free reprints, which she puts in her waiting room.

Others buy plaques to hang up in their waiting rooms or offices and announce the distinction on their websites, blogs, or social media. “They have to maximize the magazine distinction or it’s worthless,” said Ms. Eliscu.

Employers also like to spread the word when their doctors make it on “Top Doctor” lists.

“With Emory physicians making up nearly 50 percent of the list, that’s more than any other health system in Atlanta,” said an Emory University press release after nearly half of the university’s doctors made the Top Doctors list in Atlanta magazine.
 

Patients may be impressed: What about your peers?

Dr. St. Louis said that making some of these lists is less impressive than having a peer-reviewed journal article or receiving professional awards.

“Just because a physician is listed in a magazine as a ‘top doctor’ does not mean they are the best. There are far more medical, clinical, and scientific points to consider than just a pretty picture in a style magazine,” she said.  

Wanda Filer, MD, MBA, who practiced family medicine until last year when she became chief medical officer for VaxCare in Orlando, said she ignores the many congratulatory letters in the mail announcing that she’s made one list or another.

“I don’t put much credence in the lists. I get notifications fairly often, and to me it always looks like they’re trying to sell a plaque. I’d rather let my work speak for itself.”

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, president and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs and a paid strategic adviser to RYTE, a data-driven site for “best doctors” and “best hospitals,” said he received several of these “top doctor” awards when he was a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado. 

He has been critical of these awards for some time. “These doctor beauty pageants may be good for business but have little value for patients.”

He would like to see a new approach that is driven by data and what patients value. “If I have a lump in my thyroid, I want to know the best doctor to treat me based on outcomes data.”

He said a good rating system would include a data-driven approach based on treatment outcomes, publicly available data, price transparency, and patient values.

Whether a physician feels honored to be named a top physician or sees little value in it, most doctors are aware of the list’s marketing value for their practices and many choose to make use of it.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with a 37% increase in the relative risk of gallbladder or biliary disease, compared with controls – especially when used at high doses, for a longer time, and for weight loss rather than type 2 diabetes – a new meta-analysis has found.

The results “indicate that physicians and patients should be concerned about the risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases with using GLP-1 agonists,” study authors Liyun He and colleagues from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, summarize.

However, “the overall absolute risk increase for gallbladder and biliary disease with use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was small (an additional 27 cases per 10,000 persons treated per year),” they note.

“This absolute risk increase should be weighed against the benefits of treatment with GLP-1 agonists,” which include glucose control, decreased cardiovascular risk, and weight loss, they add.

The findings are from a meta-analysis of 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists published online March 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Shanzay Haider, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, also characterize the absolute risk of these complications as “modest.”

“The highest risk for these complications,” they add, “occurred among individuals in the weight loss, compared with the type 2 diabetes studies (119 vs. 13 more events per 10,000 persons per year).”

“Ultimately, the decision to start, continue, or change the dose of a GLP-1 agonist should be reached through a collaborative and individualized discussion between a clinician and a patient,” Dr. Haider and Dr. Lipska, from Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., summarize.

The study authors also note that few of the trials reported biliary-related events.

“Future trials [of drugs in this class] should prespecify gallbladder and biliary diseases as potential adverse events, and fully test for and report on these outcomes,” they urge.   

Certain drugs in this class are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss at higher doses than for type 2 diabetes – subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) – “suggesting that GLP-1 agonist drugs will increasingly be used at high doses for weight control,” the authors note.

Controversial link

The association between GLP-1 agonists and gallbladder or biliary disease is controversial, the authors write.

Several randomized controlled trials reported higher rates of gallbladder disorders in patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus placebo, but it is not clear if this is a class effect.

Liraglutide “has drawn the most attention” about this risk, and a post-hoc analysis of the LEADER trial found a significantly increased risk of acute biliary obstruction with liraglutide versus placebo.

To investigate this, the researchers identified 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists in 103,371 patients that had data for the following safety outcomes: cholelithiasis (gallstones, 61 trials), cholecystitis (inflamed gallbladder, 53 trials), biliary disease (21 trials), cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder, seven trials), and biliary cancer (12 trials).

Sixty trials were for type 2 diabetes, 13 were for weight loss, and three were for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and schizophrenia. They were classed as short or long (≤ 26 weeks or > 26 weeks).

The GLP-1 agonists were liraglutide (21 trials), subcutaneous semaglutide (14), dulaglutide (11), exenatide (9), albiglutide (8), oral semaglutide (8), and lixisenatide (6). 

Participants were a mean age of 58 years and 41% were women. They had a mean BMI of 31.6 kg/m² and 36.9 kg/m² in trials of GLP-1 agonists for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively.  

Patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus controls had significantly increased rates of cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; P = .001), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; P < .001), biliary disease (RR, 1.55; P = .02), and cholecystectomy (RR, 1.70; P < .001) but a nonsignificant increased rate of biliary cancer (RR, 1.43; P = .22).

Use of GLP-1 agonists was associated with a greater increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (RR, 2.29) than in trials for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (RR, 1.27; P < .001 for interaction).

Use of these drugs was also associated with higher risks of these complications at higher doses and when given for a longer duration.     

Limitations of the meta-analysis include that the individual studies were not designed to evaluate the risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases associated with GLP-1 agonists.

Also, biliary-related events may have been under-reported, because this was not a predefined safety outcome in most of the trials. The meta-analysis lacked patient-level data, and it may have been underpowered for subgroup analyses.       

The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, the Nonprofit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, and the Training Program for Excellent Talents in Dongcheng District. The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with a 37% increase in the relative risk of gallbladder or biliary disease, compared with controls – especially when used at high doses, for a longer time, and for weight loss rather than type 2 diabetes – a new meta-analysis has found.

The results “indicate that physicians and patients should be concerned about the risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases with using GLP-1 agonists,” study authors Liyun He and colleagues from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, summarize.

However, “the overall absolute risk increase for gallbladder and biliary disease with use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was small (an additional 27 cases per 10,000 persons treated per year),” they note.

“This absolute risk increase should be weighed against the benefits of treatment with GLP-1 agonists,” which include glucose control, decreased cardiovascular risk, and weight loss, they add.

The findings are from a meta-analysis of 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists published online March 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Shanzay Haider, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, also characterize the absolute risk of these complications as “modest.”

“The highest risk for these complications,” they add, “occurred among individuals in the weight loss, compared with the type 2 diabetes studies (119 vs. 13 more events per 10,000 persons per year).”

“Ultimately, the decision to start, continue, or change the dose of a GLP-1 agonist should be reached through a collaborative and individualized discussion between a clinician and a patient,” Dr. Haider and Dr. Lipska, from Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., summarize.

The study authors also note that few of the trials reported biliary-related events.

“Future trials [of drugs in this class] should prespecify gallbladder and biliary diseases as potential adverse events, and fully test for and report on these outcomes,” they urge.   

Certain drugs in this class are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss at higher doses than for type 2 diabetes – subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) – “suggesting that GLP-1 agonist drugs will increasingly be used at high doses for weight control,” the authors note.

Controversial link

The association between GLP-1 agonists and gallbladder or biliary disease is controversial, the authors write.

Several randomized controlled trials reported higher rates of gallbladder disorders in patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus placebo, but it is not clear if this is a class effect.

Liraglutide “has drawn the most attention” about this risk, and a post-hoc analysis of the LEADER trial found a significantly increased risk of acute biliary obstruction with liraglutide versus placebo.

To investigate this, the researchers identified 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists in 103,371 patients that had data for the following safety outcomes: cholelithiasis (gallstones, 61 trials), cholecystitis (inflamed gallbladder, 53 trials), biliary disease (21 trials), cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder, seven trials), and biliary cancer (12 trials).

Sixty trials were for type 2 diabetes, 13 were for weight loss, and three were for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and schizophrenia. They were classed as short or long (≤ 26 weeks or > 26 weeks).

The GLP-1 agonists were liraglutide (21 trials), subcutaneous semaglutide (14), dulaglutide (11), exenatide (9), albiglutide (8), oral semaglutide (8), and lixisenatide (6). 

Participants were a mean age of 58 years and 41% were women. They had a mean BMI of 31.6 kg/m² and 36.9 kg/m² in trials of GLP-1 agonists for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively.  

Patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus controls had significantly increased rates of cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; P = .001), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; P < .001), biliary disease (RR, 1.55; P = .02), and cholecystectomy (RR, 1.70; P < .001) but a nonsignificant increased rate of biliary cancer (RR, 1.43; P = .22).

Use of GLP-1 agonists was associated with a greater increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (RR, 2.29) than in trials for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (RR, 1.27; P < .001 for interaction).

Use of these drugs was also associated with higher risks of these complications at higher doses and when given for a longer duration.     

Limitations of the meta-analysis include that the individual studies were not designed to evaluate the risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases associated with GLP-1 agonists.

Also, biliary-related events may have been under-reported, because this was not a predefined safety outcome in most of the trials. The meta-analysis lacked patient-level data, and it may have been underpowered for subgroup analyses.       

The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, the Nonprofit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, and the Training Program for Excellent Talents in Dongcheng District. The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with a 37% increase in the relative risk of gallbladder or biliary disease, compared with controls – especially when used at high doses, for a longer time, and for weight loss rather than type 2 diabetes – a new meta-analysis has found.

The results “indicate that physicians and patients should be concerned about the risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases with using GLP-1 agonists,” study authors Liyun He and colleagues from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, summarize.

However, “the overall absolute risk increase for gallbladder and biliary disease with use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was small (an additional 27 cases per 10,000 persons treated per year),” they note.

“This absolute risk increase should be weighed against the benefits of treatment with GLP-1 agonists,” which include glucose control, decreased cardiovascular risk, and weight loss, they add.

The findings are from a meta-analysis of 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists published online March 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Shanzay Haider, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, also characterize the absolute risk of these complications as “modest.”

“The highest risk for these complications,” they add, “occurred among individuals in the weight loss, compared with the type 2 diabetes studies (119 vs. 13 more events per 10,000 persons per year).”

“Ultimately, the decision to start, continue, or change the dose of a GLP-1 agonist should be reached through a collaborative and individualized discussion between a clinician and a patient,” Dr. Haider and Dr. Lipska, from Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., summarize.

The study authors also note that few of the trials reported biliary-related events.

“Future trials [of drugs in this class] should prespecify gallbladder and biliary diseases as potential adverse events, and fully test for and report on these outcomes,” they urge.   

Certain drugs in this class are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss at higher doses than for type 2 diabetes – subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) – “suggesting that GLP-1 agonist drugs will increasingly be used at high doses for weight control,” the authors note.

Controversial link

The association between GLP-1 agonists and gallbladder or biliary disease is controversial, the authors write.

Several randomized controlled trials reported higher rates of gallbladder disorders in patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus placebo, but it is not clear if this is a class effect.

Liraglutide “has drawn the most attention” about this risk, and a post-hoc analysis of the LEADER trial found a significantly increased risk of acute biliary obstruction with liraglutide versus placebo.

To investigate this, the researchers identified 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists in 103,371 patients that had data for the following safety outcomes: cholelithiasis (gallstones, 61 trials), cholecystitis (inflamed gallbladder, 53 trials), biliary disease (21 trials), cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder, seven trials), and biliary cancer (12 trials).

Sixty trials were for type 2 diabetes, 13 were for weight loss, and three were for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and schizophrenia. They were classed as short or long (≤ 26 weeks or > 26 weeks).

The GLP-1 agonists were liraglutide (21 trials), subcutaneous semaglutide (14), dulaglutide (11), exenatide (9), albiglutide (8), oral semaglutide (8), and lixisenatide (6). 

Participants were a mean age of 58 years and 41% were women. They had a mean BMI of 31.6 kg/m² and 36.9 kg/m² in trials of GLP-1 agonists for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively.  

Patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus controls had significantly increased rates of cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; P = .001), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; P < .001), biliary disease (RR, 1.55; P = .02), and cholecystectomy (RR, 1.70; P < .001) but a nonsignificant increased rate of biliary cancer (RR, 1.43; P = .22).

Use of GLP-1 agonists was associated with a greater increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (RR, 2.29) than in trials for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (RR, 1.27; P < .001 for interaction).

Use of these drugs was also associated with higher risks of these complications at higher doses and when given for a longer duration.     

Limitations of the meta-analysis include that the individual studies were not designed to evaluate the risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases associated with GLP-1 agonists.

Also, biliary-related events may have been under-reported, because this was not a predefined safety outcome in most of the trials. The meta-analysis lacked patient-level data, and it may have been underpowered for subgroup analyses.       

The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, the Nonprofit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, and the Training Program for Excellent Talents in Dongcheng District. The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

When polio paralyzed a 3-year-old girl in Lilongwe, Malawi, in November 2021, public health experts in Malawi’s Ministry of Health responded quickly. The ministry partnered with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to mobilize a surge team of personnel and resources to vaccinate all 2.9 million Malawian children aged under 5 years, WHO reported in a news release.

The first of four sequential campaigns began on March 20 and expanded on March 24 to neighboring Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. The multinational, multiagency effort aims to include Zimbabwean children as well and deliver over 80 million supplemental doses of bivalent oral polio vaccines to over 23 million children in these five countries by July.

Because it takes multiple polio vaccine doses to become fully immunized, the children are expected to receive four rounds of vaccine regardless of their vaccination history.

“It is important to conduct the campaigns now to boost the immunity of our children,” Annie Chauma-Mwale, MBBS, MPH, the chief medical officer of epidemiology and surveillance in Malawi’s Ministry of Health in Lilongwe, said in an interview. “Polio is not only a medical issue. Polio is also a socioeconomic issue with long-term impacts on the child, the country, and the globe.

“In Malawi, we are using our community health and health care facility structures to ensure we do not miss any eligible child,” explained Dr. Chauma-Mwale, who is also the deputy incident manager of the poliovirus outbreak response. “We aim to play our role in the global eradication of polio by protecting the vulnerable and curtailing any potential transmission as early as possible.”

Of the three variants of wild, naturally occurring poliovirus, types 2 and 3 have been eradicated, but wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As reported recently by this news organization, the girl in Malawi was infected with a WPV1 strain that had been circulating for years in Pakistan’s Sindh Province.

Malawi’s most recent clinically confirmed WPV1 case was reported in 1992, and this is the first WPV1 case detected in Africa since 2016. The continent was declared free of indigenous wild polio in 2020 and is still considered free of wild poliovirus because the child’s illness was imported from elsewhere.

The 3-year-old girl developed acute flaccid paralysis in November 2021. In February 2022, virus from her stool was sequenced by the National Institute of Communicable Disease in South Africa and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On Feb. 16, Malawi was notified of the case, which was genetically linked to a sequence detected in Sindh Province around 2 years earlier.
 

‘Do not ignore polio’

Within 24 hours, the Government of Malawi declared a public health emergency and activated the national Emergency Operations Centre. Within 72 hours, the GPEI rapid response team arrived in the country. The Ministry of Health partnered with GPEI, WHO, and UNICEF to mobilize the campaign and begin vaccinating children on March 20.

‘’We rely on clinicians to support the surveillance of polio through case searches, both active and passive,” Mike Nenani Chisema, MBBS, MPH, the program manager of the expanded program on immunization and the polio response operations manager in Malawi’s Ministry of Health, said in an interview.

He noted that the young girl was diagnosed correctly and millions of children are now being protected against the disease, thanks to the acumen of one hospital clinician.

“Remember, we still have polio in some countries, and every country is at risk,” he cautioned. “Don’t forget to look for the obvious and do not ignore polio, regardless of economic status.’’

According to GPEI, all countries – especially those with weak immunization and other public health programs whose residents trade or travel to and from endemic countries – are at risk for imported polio.

Anita Gupta, DO, MPP, PharmD, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that she welcomes this effort.

“Given the decades of published evidence and understanding on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, this program in Malawi is the right step to take,” Gupta, who is not involved in the campaigns, said in an interview. “Polio is preventable, and acting now will prevent spread later.”

Dr. Chauma-Mwale and Dr. Chisema are employees of Malawi’s Ministry of Health. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When polio paralyzed a 3-year-old girl in Lilongwe, Malawi, in November 2021, public health experts in Malawi’s Ministry of Health responded quickly. The ministry partnered with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to mobilize a surge team of personnel and resources to vaccinate all 2.9 million Malawian children aged under 5 years, WHO reported in a news release.

The first of four sequential campaigns began on March 20 and expanded on March 24 to neighboring Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. The multinational, multiagency effort aims to include Zimbabwean children as well and deliver over 80 million supplemental doses of bivalent oral polio vaccines to over 23 million children in these five countries by July.

Because it takes multiple polio vaccine doses to become fully immunized, the children are expected to receive four rounds of vaccine regardless of their vaccination history.

“It is important to conduct the campaigns now to boost the immunity of our children,” Annie Chauma-Mwale, MBBS, MPH, the chief medical officer of epidemiology and surveillance in Malawi’s Ministry of Health in Lilongwe, said in an interview. “Polio is not only a medical issue. Polio is also a socioeconomic issue with long-term impacts on the child, the country, and the globe.

“In Malawi, we are using our community health and health care facility structures to ensure we do not miss any eligible child,” explained Dr. Chauma-Mwale, who is also the deputy incident manager of the poliovirus outbreak response. “We aim to play our role in the global eradication of polio by protecting the vulnerable and curtailing any potential transmission as early as possible.”

Of the three variants of wild, naturally occurring poliovirus, types 2 and 3 have been eradicated, but wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As reported recently by this news organization, the girl in Malawi was infected with a WPV1 strain that had been circulating for years in Pakistan’s Sindh Province.

Malawi’s most recent clinically confirmed WPV1 case was reported in 1992, and this is the first WPV1 case detected in Africa since 2016. The continent was declared free of indigenous wild polio in 2020 and is still considered free of wild poliovirus because the child’s illness was imported from elsewhere.

The 3-year-old girl developed acute flaccid paralysis in November 2021. In February 2022, virus from her stool was sequenced by the National Institute of Communicable Disease in South Africa and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On Feb. 16, Malawi was notified of the case, which was genetically linked to a sequence detected in Sindh Province around 2 years earlier.
 

‘Do not ignore polio’

Within 24 hours, the Government of Malawi declared a public health emergency and activated the national Emergency Operations Centre. Within 72 hours, the GPEI rapid response team arrived in the country. The Ministry of Health partnered with GPEI, WHO, and UNICEF to mobilize the campaign and begin vaccinating children on March 20.

‘’We rely on clinicians to support the surveillance of polio through case searches, both active and passive,” Mike Nenani Chisema, MBBS, MPH, the program manager of the expanded program on immunization and the polio response operations manager in Malawi’s Ministry of Health, said in an interview.

He noted that the young girl was diagnosed correctly and millions of children are now being protected against the disease, thanks to the acumen of one hospital clinician.

“Remember, we still have polio in some countries, and every country is at risk,” he cautioned. “Don’t forget to look for the obvious and do not ignore polio, regardless of economic status.’’

According to GPEI, all countries – especially those with weak immunization and other public health programs whose residents trade or travel to and from endemic countries – are at risk for imported polio.

Anita Gupta, DO, MPP, PharmD, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that she welcomes this effort.

“Given the decades of published evidence and understanding on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, this program in Malawi is the right step to take,” Gupta, who is not involved in the campaigns, said in an interview. “Polio is preventable, and acting now will prevent spread later.”

Dr. Chauma-Mwale and Dr. Chisema are employees of Malawi’s Ministry of Health. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When polio paralyzed a 3-year-old girl in Lilongwe, Malawi, in November 2021, public health experts in Malawi’s Ministry of Health responded quickly. The ministry partnered with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to mobilize a surge team of personnel and resources to vaccinate all 2.9 million Malawian children aged under 5 years, WHO reported in a news release.

The first of four sequential campaigns began on March 20 and expanded on March 24 to neighboring Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. The multinational, multiagency effort aims to include Zimbabwean children as well and deliver over 80 million supplemental doses of bivalent oral polio vaccines to over 23 million children in these five countries by July.

Because it takes multiple polio vaccine doses to become fully immunized, the children are expected to receive four rounds of vaccine regardless of their vaccination history.

“It is important to conduct the campaigns now to boost the immunity of our children,” Annie Chauma-Mwale, MBBS, MPH, the chief medical officer of epidemiology and surveillance in Malawi’s Ministry of Health in Lilongwe, said in an interview. “Polio is not only a medical issue. Polio is also a socioeconomic issue with long-term impacts on the child, the country, and the globe.

“In Malawi, we are using our community health and health care facility structures to ensure we do not miss any eligible child,” explained Dr. Chauma-Mwale, who is also the deputy incident manager of the poliovirus outbreak response. “We aim to play our role in the global eradication of polio by protecting the vulnerable and curtailing any potential transmission as early as possible.”

Of the three variants of wild, naturally occurring poliovirus, types 2 and 3 have been eradicated, but wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As reported recently by this news organization, the girl in Malawi was infected with a WPV1 strain that had been circulating for years in Pakistan’s Sindh Province.

Malawi’s most recent clinically confirmed WPV1 case was reported in 1992, and this is the first WPV1 case detected in Africa since 2016. The continent was declared free of indigenous wild polio in 2020 and is still considered free of wild poliovirus because the child’s illness was imported from elsewhere.

The 3-year-old girl developed acute flaccid paralysis in November 2021. In February 2022, virus from her stool was sequenced by the National Institute of Communicable Disease in South Africa and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On Feb. 16, Malawi was notified of the case, which was genetically linked to a sequence detected in Sindh Province around 2 years earlier.
 

‘Do not ignore polio’

Within 24 hours, the Government of Malawi declared a public health emergency and activated the national Emergency Operations Centre. Within 72 hours, the GPEI rapid response team arrived in the country. The Ministry of Health partnered with GPEI, WHO, and UNICEF to mobilize the campaign and begin vaccinating children on March 20.

‘’We rely on clinicians to support the surveillance of polio through case searches, both active and passive,” Mike Nenani Chisema, MBBS, MPH, the program manager of the expanded program on immunization and the polio response operations manager in Malawi’s Ministry of Health, said in an interview.

He noted that the young girl was diagnosed correctly and millions of children are now being protected against the disease, thanks to the acumen of one hospital clinician.

“Remember, we still have polio in some countries, and every country is at risk,” he cautioned. “Don’t forget to look for the obvious and do not ignore polio, regardless of economic status.’’

According to GPEI, all countries – especially those with weak immunization and other public health programs whose residents trade or travel to and from endemic countries – are at risk for imported polio.

Anita Gupta, DO, MPP, PharmD, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that she welcomes this effort.

“Given the decades of published evidence and understanding on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, this program in Malawi is the right step to take,” Gupta, who is not involved in the campaigns, said in an interview. “Polio is preventable, and acting now will prevent spread later.”

Dr. Chauma-Mwale and Dr. Chisema are employees of Malawi’s Ministry of Health. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”¹

Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”² that harms the public image of psychiatry.³ Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”⁴ occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.⁵ Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.⁶

Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?

Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.⁷ Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.

Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.

When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.⁸

The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.⁹

Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.¹⁰ Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?

The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.

The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,¹¹ in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.

Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
 

Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.

2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.

3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.

4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.

5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).

6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.

7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.

8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.

9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.

10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.

11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.

Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”¹

Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”² that harms the public image of psychiatry.³ Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”⁴ occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.⁵ Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.⁶

Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?

Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.⁷ Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.

Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.

When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.⁸

The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.⁹

Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.¹⁰ Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?

The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.

The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,¹¹ in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.

Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
 

Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.

2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.

3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.

4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.

5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).

6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.

7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.

8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.

9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.

10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.

11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.

Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”¹

Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”² that harms the public image of psychiatry.³ Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”⁴ occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.⁵ Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.⁶

Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?

Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.⁷ Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.

Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.

When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.⁸

The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.⁹

Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.¹⁰ Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?

The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.

The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,¹¹ in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.

Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
 

Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.

2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.

3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.

4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.

5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).

6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.

7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.

8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.

9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.

10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.

11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.

The Diagnosis: Acquired Lymphangioma Circumscriptum

A skin biopsy of the plaque on the right labium majus showed a proliferation of well-formed, dilated lymphatic vessels lined by benign-appearing endothelial cells in the papillary dermis (Figure). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (ALC) in the setting of severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Image courtesy of Alicia Schnebelen, MD (Dallas, Texas).

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (also known as acquired lymphangiectasia or secondary lymphangioma¹) is a rare skin finding resulting from chronic lymphatic obstruction that leads to dilated lymphatic vessels within the dermis.^2,3 There also is a distinct congenital form of lymphangioma circumscriptum caused by lymphatic malformations present at birth.^2,4 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva is a rare phenomenon.³ Identified causes include radiation or surgery for carcinoma, solid gynecologic tumors, lymphadenectomy, Crohn disease, and tuberculosis and other infections, all of which can disrupt normal lymphatics to cause ALC.^2-4 Hidradenitis suppurativa is not a widely recognized cause of ALC; however, this phenomenon is reported in the literature. A long-standing history of severe HS complicated by lymphedema seems to precede the development of ALC in the reported cases, as in our patient.^5-7

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can appear in women of all ages as frog spawn or cobblestone papules or vesicles, sometimes with a hyperkeratotic or verrucous appearance.^2,4 Associated symptoms include serous drainage, edema, pruritus, and discomfort. The lesions may become eroded, which can predispose patients to secondary infections.^1,2 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can be difficult to diagnose, as the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of skin findings can be years, leading to the misdiagnosis of ALC as other similar-appearing genital skin conditions such as squamous cell carcinoma or condyloma.^4,8 When misidentified as an infection, diagnosis can lead to substantial distress, abstinence from sexual activity, and unnecessary and painful treatments.

Skin biopsy is helpful in distinguishing ALC from other differential diagnoses such as condylomata acuminata, squamous cell carcinoma, and condyloma lata. Histopathology in ALC is notable for dilated lymphatic vessels filled with hypocellular fluid and lined with endothelial cells in the superficial dermis; the epidermis can appear hyperplastic, hyperkeratotic, or eroded.^3-5,9 These lymphatic vessels stain positively for CD31 and D2-40, markers for endothelial cells and lymphatic endothelium, respectively, and negative for CD34, a marker for vascular endothelium.^3,4,9 Features suggestive of condylomata acuminata such as rounded parakeratosis, hypergranulosis, and vacuolated keratinocytes⁹ are not present. The giant condyloma of Buschke-Löwenstein, a clinical variant of verrucous squamous cell carcinoma, also can present as a warty ulcerated papule or plaque in the genital region, but the characteristic rounded eosinophilic keratinocytes pushing down into the dermis⁹ are not seen in ALC. Secondary syphilis is associated with condyloma lata, which are verrucous or fleshy-appearing papules often coalescing into plaques located in the anogenital region. Pathologic features of secondary syphilis include vacuolar interface dermatitis and acanthosis with long slender rete ridges.⁹ Squamous cell carcinoma, which can arise from inflammation associated with long-standing HS, must be ruled out, as it is associated with a high risk of mortality in patients with HS.¹⁰

It is noteworthy to recognize the various, often confusing nomenclature used to describe cutaneous lymphatic conditions. The terms acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum, secondary lymphangioma, and lymphangiectasia are used interchangeably to describe dilated lymphatic vessels in the skin.¹ The term atypical vascular lesion refers to lymphectasias of the skin of the breast due to prior radiation therapy most often used in the treatment of breast carcinoma; clinically, these present as red-brown or flesh-colored papules or telangiectatic plaques on the breast.^11,12 Lymphedema also may occur alongside atypical vascular lesions, as prior radiation or surgical lymph node dissection can predispose patients to impaired lymphatic drainage.¹³ The lymphatic histopathologic subtype of atypical vascular lesions may appear similar to ALC; however, the vascular subtype will demonstrate collections of capillary-sized vessels and extravasated erythrocytes.^11,12 Unlike ALC, the benign nature of atypical vascular lesions has been questioned, as they may be associated with a small risk for progression to angiosarcoma.^11-13 It also is important to distinguish ALC from lymphangiomatosis, a generalized lymphatic anomaly that is characterized by extensive lymphatic malformations involving numerous internal organs, including the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. This condition is associated with notable morbidity and mortality.¹³

Although the suffix of the term lymphangioma suggests a neoplastic process, ALC is not a neoplasm and can be managed expectantly in many cases.^2,3,8 However, due to cosmetic appearance, pain, discomfort, and recurrent bacterial superinfections, many patients pursue treatment. Treatment options for ALC include sclerotherapy, electrocautery, radiofrequency or carbon dioxide laser ablation, and excision, though recurrence can arise.^3-5,7,8 Our patient elected to manage her asymptomatic ALC expectantly.

The Diagnosis: Acquired Lymphangioma Circumscriptum

A skin biopsy of the plaque on the right labium majus showed a proliferation of well-formed, dilated lymphatic vessels lined by benign-appearing endothelial cells in the papillary dermis (Figure). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (ALC) in the setting of severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Image courtesy of Alicia Schnebelen, MD (Dallas, Texas).

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (also known as acquired lymphangiectasia or secondary lymphangioma¹) is a rare skin finding resulting from chronic lymphatic obstruction that leads to dilated lymphatic vessels within the dermis.^2,3 There also is a distinct congenital form of lymphangioma circumscriptum caused by lymphatic malformations present at birth.^2,4 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva is a rare phenomenon.³ Identified causes include radiation or surgery for carcinoma, solid gynecologic tumors, lymphadenectomy, Crohn disease, and tuberculosis and other infections, all of which can disrupt normal lymphatics to cause ALC.^2-4 Hidradenitis suppurativa is not a widely recognized cause of ALC; however, this phenomenon is reported in the literature. A long-standing history of severe HS complicated by lymphedema seems to precede the development of ALC in the reported cases, as in our patient.^5-7

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can appear in women of all ages as frog spawn or cobblestone papules or vesicles, sometimes with a hyperkeratotic or verrucous appearance.^2,4 Associated symptoms include serous drainage, edema, pruritus, and discomfort. The lesions may become eroded, which can predispose patients to secondary infections.^1,2 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can be difficult to diagnose, as the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of skin findings can be years, leading to the misdiagnosis of ALC as other similar-appearing genital skin conditions such as squamous cell carcinoma or condyloma.^4,8 When misidentified as an infection, diagnosis can lead to substantial distress, abstinence from sexual activity, and unnecessary and painful treatments.

Skin biopsy is helpful in distinguishing ALC from other differential diagnoses such as condylomata acuminata, squamous cell carcinoma, and condyloma lata. Histopathology in ALC is notable for dilated lymphatic vessels filled with hypocellular fluid and lined with endothelial cells in the superficial dermis; the epidermis can appear hyperplastic, hyperkeratotic, or eroded.^3-5,9 These lymphatic vessels stain positively for CD31 and D2-40, markers for endothelial cells and lymphatic endothelium, respectively, and negative for CD34, a marker for vascular endothelium.^3,4,9 Features suggestive of condylomata acuminata such as rounded parakeratosis, hypergranulosis, and vacuolated keratinocytes⁹ are not present. The giant condyloma of Buschke-Löwenstein, a clinical variant of verrucous squamous cell carcinoma, also can present as a warty ulcerated papule or plaque in the genital region, but the characteristic rounded eosinophilic keratinocytes pushing down into the dermis⁹ are not seen in ALC. Secondary syphilis is associated with condyloma lata, which are verrucous or fleshy-appearing papules often coalescing into plaques located in the anogenital region. Pathologic features of secondary syphilis include vacuolar interface dermatitis and acanthosis with long slender rete ridges.⁹ Squamous cell carcinoma, which can arise from inflammation associated with long-standing HS, must be ruled out, as it is associated with a high risk of mortality in patients with HS.¹⁰

It is noteworthy to recognize the various, often confusing nomenclature used to describe cutaneous lymphatic conditions. The terms acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum, secondary lymphangioma, and lymphangiectasia are used interchangeably to describe dilated lymphatic vessels in the skin.¹ The term atypical vascular lesion refers to lymphectasias of the skin of the breast due to prior radiation therapy most often used in the treatment of breast carcinoma; clinically, these present as red-brown or flesh-colored papules or telangiectatic plaques on the breast.^11,12 Lymphedema also may occur alongside atypical vascular lesions, as prior radiation or surgical lymph node dissection can predispose patients to impaired lymphatic drainage.¹³ The lymphatic histopathologic subtype of atypical vascular lesions may appear similar to ALC; however, the vascular subtype will demonstrate collections of capillary-sized vessels and extravasated erythrocytes.^11,12 Unlike ALC, the benign nature of atypical vascular lesions has been questioned, as they may be associated with a small risk for progression to angiosarcoma.^11-13 It also is important to distinguish ALC from lymphangiomatosis, a generalized lymphatic anomaly that is characterized by extensive lymphatic malformations involving numerous internal organs, including the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. This condition is associated with notable morbidity and mortality.¹³

Although the suffix of the term lymphangioma suggests a neoplastic process, ALC is not a neoplasm and can be managed expectantly in many cases.^2,3,8 However, due to cosmetic appearance, pain, discomfort, and recurrent bacterial superinfections, many patients pursue treatment. Treatment options for ALC include sclerotherapy, electrocautery, radiofrequency or carbon dioxide laser ablation, and excision, though recurrence can arise.^3-5,7,8 Our patient elected to manage her asymptomatic ALC expectantly.

The Diagnosis: Acquired Lymphangioma Circumscriptum

A skin biopsy of the plaque on the right labium majus showed a proliferation of well-formed, dilated lymphatic vessels lined by benign-appearing endothelial cells in the papillary dermis (Figure). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (ALC) in the setting of severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Image courtesy of Alicia Schnebelen, MD (Dallas, Texas).

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (also known as acquired lymphangiectasia or secondary lymphangioma¹) is a rare skin finding resulting from chronic lymphatic obstruction that leads to dilated lymphatic vessels within the dermis.^2,3 There also is a distinct congenital form of lymphangioma circumscriptum caused by lymphatic malformations present at birth.^2,4 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva is a rare phenomenon.³ Identified causes include radiation or surgery for carcinoma, solid gynecologic tumors, lymphadenectomy, Crohn disease, and tuberculosis and other infections, all of which can disrupt normal lymphatics to cause ALC.^2-4 Hidradenitis suppurativa is not a widely recognized cause of ALC; however, this phenomenon is reported in the literature. A long-standing history of severe HS complicated by lymphedema seems to precede the development of ALC in the reported cases, as in our patient.^5-7

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can appear in women of all ages as frog spawn or cobblestone papules or vesicles, sometimes with a hyperkeratotic or verrucous appearance.^2,4 Associated symptoms include serous drainage, edema, pruritus, and discomfort. The lesions may become eroded, which can predispose patients to secondary infections.^1,2 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can be difficult to diagnose, as the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of skin findings can be years, leading to the misdiagnosis of ALC as other similar-appearing genital skin conditions such as squamous cell carcinoma or condyloma.^4,8 When misidentified as an infection, diagnosis can lead to substantial distress, abstinence from sexual activity, and unnecessary and painful treatments.

Skin biopsy is helpful in distinguishing ALC from other differential diagnoses such as condylomata acuminata, squamous cell carcinoma, and condyloma lata. Histopathology in ALC is notable for dilated lymphatic vessels filled with hypocellular fluid and lined with endothelial cells in the superficial dermis; the epidermis can appear hyperplastic, hyperkeratotic, or eroded.^3-5,9 These lymphatic vessels stain positively for CD31 and D2-40, markers for endothelial cells and lymphatic endothelium, respectively, and negative for CD34, a marker for vascular endothelium.^3,4,9 Features suggestive of condylomata acuminata such as rounded parakeratosis, hypergranulosis, and vacuolated keratinocytes⁹ are not present. The giant condyloma of Buschke-Löwenstein, a clinical variant of verrucous squamous cell carcinoma, also can present as a warty ulcerated papule or plaque in the genital region, but the characteristic rounded eosinophilic keratinocytes pushing down into the dermis⁹ are not seen in ALC. Secondary syphilis is associated with condyloma lata, which are verrucous or fleshy-appearing papules often coalescing into plaques located in the anogenital region. Pathologic features of secondary syphilis include vacuolar interface dermatitis and acanthosis with long slender rete ridges.⁹ Squamous cell carcinoma, which can arise from inflammation associated with long-standing HS, must be ruled out, as it is associated with a high risk of mortality in patients with HS.¹⁰

It is noteworthy to recognize the various, often confusing nomenclature used to describe cutaneous lymphatic conditions. The terms acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum, secondary lymphangioma, and lymphangiectasia are used interchangeably to describe dilated lymphatic vessels in the skin.¹ The term atypical vascular lesion refers to lymphectasias of the skin of the breast due to prior radiation therapy most often used in the treatment of breast carcinoma; clinically, these present as red-brown or flesh-colored papules or telangiectatic plaques on the breast.^11,12 Lymphedema also may occur alongside atypical vascular lesions, as prior radiation or surgical lymph node dissection can predispose patients to impaired lymphatic drainage.¹³ The lymphatic histopathologic subtype of atypical vascular lesions may appear similar to ALC; however, the vascular subtype will demonstrate collections of capillary-sized vessels and extravasated erythrocytes.^11,12 Unlike ALC, the benign nature of atypical vascular lesions has been questioned, as they may be associated with a small risk for progression to angiosarcoma.^11-13 It also is important to distinguish ALC from lymphangiomatosis, a generalized lymphatic anomaly that is characterized by extensive lymphatic malformations involving numerous internal organs, including the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. This condition is associated with notable morbidity and mortality.¹³

Although the suffix of the term lymphangioma suggests a neoplastic process, ALC is not a neoplasm and can be managed expectantly in many cases.^2,3,8 However, due to cosmetic appearance, pain, discomfort, and recurrent bacterial superinfections, many patients pursue treatment. Treatment options for ALC include sclerotherapy, electrocautery, radiofrequency or carbon dioxide laser ablation, and excision, though recurrence can arise.^3-5,7,8 Our patient elected to manage her asymptomatic ALC expectantly.

A New York appeals court has upheld a $1.2 million verdict against an eye surgeon after his patient went blind after cataract removal and lens replacement surgery.

Carola Rozon visited New York ophthalmologic surgeon Edwin Schottenstein, MD, in 2013 to undergo a second eye surgery, according to court documents. As with the previous surgery, Dr. Schottenstein performed phacoemulsification, a technique by which the tip of an ultrasonic machine is inserted into the lens through a small incision in the anterior chamber. The machine’s vibrations break up the hard, inner portion of the nucleus that is affected by the cataract, and the lens is then extracted with irrigation and suction, leaving the capsular bag filled with fluid.

Dr. Schottenstein made a 2.75-mm incision in the anterior chamber and successfully removed most of the nucleus of the cataract lens, according to the appellate decision. However, complications arose during the surgery when the capsular bag tore, and a piece of the lens dropped through the tear into the back of the patient’s eye.

Following the complications, Dr. Schottenstein injected a folded 6-mm intraocular lens (IOL) into the patient’s eye, but it was off center and moved toward the back, according to court documents. He removed it with holding forceps, pulling the unfolded 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision.

Because it was New Years Eve, Dr. Schottenstein did not immediately seek assistance from a vitreoretinal surgeon. Two days later, on Jan. 2, 2014, the patient was referred to a vitreoretinal surgeon for removal of the dropped lens. The vitreoretinal surgeon reported signs of trauma to the patient’s eye, including corneal edema and blood from a vitreous hemorrhage. Neither the ophthalmologist nor the vitreoretinal surgeon reported any injury to the patient’s iris.

Because of the vitreous hemorrhage, the vitreoretinal surgeon could not visualize the back of the eye. He used a B-scan ultrasound to create an image of the back of the eye to determine whether there were any retinal tears. According to court records, the vitreoretinal surgeon reported that the B-scan did not detect any retinal tears, and the vitreoretinal surgeon scheduled the patient for a follow-up the following week.

On Jan. 9, 2014, there was still blood in the patient’s eye from the hemorrhage. The vitreoretinal surgeon did not perform another B scan and stated that, with a fundoscope, he could see the back of the eye and the piece of fallen lens, according to court documents. No retinal tears were seen. Surgery was scheduled for 6 days later.

During the surgery, the vitreoretinal surgeon noted a choroidal effusion, swelling of the blood vessels that feed the retina. After draining it, he saw a giant retinal tear and retinal detachment at the top of the patient’s eye. Over the course of a year, the vitreoretinal surgeon performed five more surgeries to repair the giant retinal tear, but they were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the patient lost sight in her right eye.

The patient sued Dr. Schottenstein for malpractice in 2016, alleging that, as a result of his negligence, she suffered the retinal tear and is now blind in her right eye. A trial took place in November 2019.
 

What did the experts say?

At trial, the plaintiff’s expert, an ophthalmologic surgeon, testified that removing the 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision and the associated manipulations of the patient’s eye caused the retinal tear and the ensuing retinal detachment, according to court documents. The small tear was not immediately seen by the physician because he was not looking at that part of the eye. The tear grew to become the giant tear eventually seen by the vitreoretinal surgeon, the expert testified.

The vitreoretinal surgeon would not have seen the small retinal tear when he first examined the patient because B-scan ultrasounds are not generally used to diagnose retinal tears, he testified.

A vitreoretinal expert for Dr. Schottenstein testified that retinal tears that are tractional in origin tend to have a retinal flap that can be seen as a small indentation on a B-scan ultrasound. However, a tear with no flap would not be visualized by the scan. An ophthalmologic surgeon who testified for Dr. Schottenstein said it’s possible the retinal tear would not have been visible to Dr. Schottenstein or the vitreoretinal surgeon if vitreous fluid that was pulled into the anterior chamber was not a strand but just a blob too small to distort the pupil.

The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding the patient $1.2 million. Dr. Schottenstein requested the trial court to overturn the jury’s verdict and award judgment in his favor or grant a new trial, which was denied.

On March 1, 2022, the Supreme Court Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department affirmed the decision.

“To be against the weight of the evidence, a verdict must be palpably wrong,” the judges wrote in their opinion. “In this case, we cannot say the verdict is palpably wrong. The jury found that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by defendant. They deemed the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, when considered with the documentary evidence and all the other evidence in the case, more credible than the testimony of the vitreoretinal surgeon, and defendant’s expert witnesses. The differing testimony and conclusions on causation given by defendant’s witnesses do not require a different outcome.”

Attorneys for the parties in this case did not return messages seeking comment.

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

A New York appeals court has upheld a $1.2 million verdict against an eye surgeon after his patient went blind after cataract removal and lens replacement surgery.

Carola Rozon visited New York ophthalmologic surgeon Edwin Schottenstein, MD, in 2013 to undergo a second eye surgery, according to court documents. As with the previous surgery, Dr. Schottenstein performed phacoemulsification, a technique by which the tip of an ultrasonic machine is inserted into the lens through a small incision in the anterior chamber. The machine’s vibrations break up the hard, inner portion of the nucleus that is affected by the cataract, and the lens is then extracted with irrigation and suction, leaving the capsular bag filled with fluid.

Dr. Schottenstein made a 2.75-mm incision in the anterior chamber and successfully removed most of the nucleus of the cataract lens, according to the appellate decision. However, complications arose during the surgery when the capsular bag tore, and a piece of the lens dropped through the tear into the back of the patient’s eye.

Following the complications, Dr. Schottenstein injected a folded 6-mm intraocular lens (IOL) into the patient’s eye, but it was off center and moved toward the back, according to court documents. He removed it with holding forceps, pulling the unfolded 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision.

Because it was New Years Eve, Dr. Schottenstein did not immediately seek assistance from a vitreoretinal surgeon. Two days later, on Jan. 2, 2014, the patient was referred to a vitreoretinal surgeon for removal of the dropped lens. The vitreoretinal surgeon reported signs of trauma to the patient’s eye, including corneal edema and blood from a vitreous hemorrhage. Neither the ophthalmologist nor the vitreoretinal surgeon reported any injury to the patient’s iris.

Because of the vitreous hemorrhage, the vitreoretinal surgeon could not visualize the back of the eye. He used a B-scan ultrasound to create an image of the back of the eye to determine whether there were any retinal tears. According to court records, the vitreoretinal surgeon reported that the B-scan did not detect any retinal tears, and the vitreoretinal surgeon scheduled the patient for a follow-up the following week.

On Jan. 9, 2014, there was still blood in the patient’s eye from the hemorrhage. The vitreoretinal surgeon did not perform another B scan and stated that, with a fundoscope, he could see the back of the eye and the piece of fallen lens, according to court documents. No retinal tears were seen. Surgery was scheduled for 6 days later.

During the surgery, the vitreoretinal surgeon noted a choroidal effusion, swelling of the blood vessels that feed the retina. After draining it, he saw a giant retinal tear and retinal detachment at the top of the patient’s eye. Over the course of a year, the vitreoretinal surgeon performed five more surgeries to repair the giant retinal tear, but they were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the patient lost sight in her right eye.

The patient sued Dr. Schottenstein for malpractice in 2016, alleging that, as a result of his negligence, she suffered the retinal tear and is now blind in her right eye. A trial took place in November 2019.
 

What did the experts say?

At trial, the plaintiff’s expert, an ophthalmologic surgeon, testified that removing the 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision and the associated manipulations of the patient’s eye caused the retinal tear and the ensuing retinal detachment, according to court documents. The small tear was not immediately seen by the physician because he was not looking at that part of the eye. The tear grew to become the giant tear eventually seen by the vitreoretinal surgeon, the expert testified.

The vitreoretinal surgeon would not have seen the small retinal tear when he first examined the patient because B-scan ultrasounds are not generally used to diagnose retinal tears, he testified.

A vitreoretinal expert for Dr. Schottenstein testified that retinal tears that are tractional in origin tend to have a retinal flap that can be seen as a small indentation on a B-scan ultrasound. However, a tear with no flap would not be visualized by the scan. An ophthalmologic surgeon who testified for Dr. Schottenstein said it’s possible the retinal tear would not have been visible to Dr. Schottenstein or the vitreoretinal surgeon if vitreous fluid that was pulled into the anterior chamber was not a strand but just a blob too small to distort the pupil.

The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding the patient $1.2 million. Dr. Schottenstein requested the trial court to overturn the jury’s verdict and award judgment in his favor or grant a new trial, which was denied.

On March 1, 2022, the Supreme Court Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department affirmed the decision.

“To be against the weight of the evidence, a verdict must be palpably wrong,” the judges wrote in their opinion. “In this case, we cannot say the verdict is palpably wrong. The jury found that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by defendant. They deemed the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, when considered with the documentary evidence and all the other evidence in the case, more credible than the testimony of the vitreoretinal surgeon, and defendant’s expert witnesses. The differing testimony and conclusions on causation given by defendant’s witnesses do not require a different outcome.”

Attorneys for the parties in this case did not return messages seeking comment.

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

A New York appeals court has upheld a $1.2 million verdict against an eye surgeon after his patient went blind after cataract removal and lens replacement surgery.

Carola Rozon visited New York ophthalmologic surgeon Edwin Schottenstein, MD, in 2013 to undergo a second eye surgery, according to court documents. As with the previous surgery, Dr. Schottenstein performed phacoemulsification, a technique by which the tip of an ultrasonic machine is inserted into the lens through a small incision in the anterior chamber. The machine’s vibrations break up the hard, inner portion of the nucleus that is affected by the cataract, and the lens is then extracted with irrigation and suction, leaving the capsular bag filled with fluid.

Dr. Schottenstein made a 2.75-mm incision in the anterior chamber and successfully removed most of the nucleus of the cataract lens, according to the appellate decision. However, complications arose during the surgery when the capsular bag tore, and a piece of the lens dropped through the tear into the back of the patient’s eye.

Following the complications, Dr. Schottenstein injected a folded 6-mm intraocular lens (IOL) into the patient’s eye, but it was off center and moved toward the back, according to court documents. He removed it with holding forceps, pulling the unfolded 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision.

Because it was New Years Eve, Dr. Schottenstein did not immediately seek assistance from a vitreoretinal surgeon. Two days later, on Jan. 2, 2014, the patient was referred to a vitreoretinal surgeon for removal of the dropped lens. The vitreoretinal surgeon reported signs of trauma to the patient’s eye, including corneal edema and blood from a vitreous hemorrhage. Neither the ophthalmologist nor the vitreoretinal surgeon reported any injury to the patient’s iris.

Because of the vitreous hemorrhage, the vitreoretinal surgeon could not visualize the back of the eye. He used a B-scan ultrasound to create an image of the back of the eye to determine whether there were any retinal tears. According to court records, the vitreoretinal surgeon reported that the B-scan did not detect any retinal tears, and the vitreoretinal surgeon scheduled the patient for a follow-up the following week.

On Jan. 9, 2014, there was still blood in the patient’s eye from the hemorrhage. The vitreoretinal surgeon did not perform another B scan and stated that, with a fundoscope, he could see the back of the eye and the piece of fallen lens, according to court documents. No retinal tears were seen. Surgery was scheduled for 6 days later.

During the surgery, the vitreoretinal surgeon noted a choroidal effusion, swelling of the blood vessels that feed the retina. After draining it, he saw a giant retinal tear and retinal detachment at the top of the patient’s eye. Over the course of a year, the vitreoretinal surgeon performed five more surgeries to repair the giant retinal tear, but they were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the patient lost sight in her right eye.

The patient sued Dr. Schottenstein for malpractice in 2016, alleging that, as a result of his negligence, she suffered the retinal tear and is now blind in her right eye. A trial took place in November 2019.
 

What did the experts say?

At trial, the plaintiff’s expert, an ophthalmologic surgeon, testified that removing the 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision and the associated manipulations of the patient’s eye caused the retinal tear and the ensuing retinal detachment, according to court documents. The small tear was not immediately seen by the physician because he was not looking at that part of the eye. The tear grew to become the giant tear eventually seen by the vitreoretinal surgeon, the expert testified.

The vitreoretinal surgeon would not have seen the small retinal tear when he first examined the patient because B-scan ultrasounds are not generally used to diagnose retinal tears, he testified.

A vitreoretinal expert for Dr. Schottenstein testified that retinal tears that are tractional in origin tend to have a retinal flap that can be seen as a small indentation on a B-scan ultrasound. However, a tear with no flap would not be visualized by the scan. An ophthalmologic surgeon who testified for Dr. Schottenstein said it’s possible the retinal tear would not have been visible to Dr. Schottenstein or the vitreoretinal surgeon if vitreous fluid that was pulled into the anterior chamber was not a strand but just a blob too small to distort the pupil.

The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding the patient $1.2 million. Dr. Schottenstein requested the trial court to overturn the jury’s verdict and award judgment in his favor or grant a new trial, which was denied.

On March 1, 2022, the Supreme Court Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department affirmed the decision.

“To be against the weight of the evidence, a verdict must be palpably wrong,” the judges wrote in their opinion. “In this case, we cannot say the verdict is palpably wrong. The jury found that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by defendant. They deemed the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, when considered with the documentary evidence and all the other evidence in the case, more credible than the testimony of the vitreoretinal surgeon, and defendant’s expert witnesses. The differing testimony and conclusions on causation given by defendant’s witnesses do not require a different outcome.”

Attorneys for the parties in this case did not return messages seeking comment.

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