Commentary

Sound moral principles are essential in the development of all physicians. Given how heavily each clinical encounter is laden with ethical implications, this is taught early in medical school. The medical student and resident physician must be able to make ethical and moral decisions on a consistent basis.

Speaking as a psychiatrist in training, there is an intimate relationship between psychiatry and moral questions.¹ Issues such as determining an individual’s ability to make decisions about their medical care, hospitalizing patients against their will, and involuntarily administering medication are an almost-daily occurrence.² Physicians, especially those who practice psychiatric medicine, must be ethically grounded to properly make these difficult but common decisions. It is also imperative that residents are given proper guidance in ethical practice in structured didactics and hands-on training.

However, many residents may be unfamiliar with ethics in research, more specifically ethical authorship. While some trainees might have participated in scholarly activities before residency, residency is the time to discover one’s interests, and residents are encouraged to engage in research. Unfortunately, many of the considerations surrounding ethical authorship are not emphasized, and questionable practices are common.³ In this article, I summarize the different faces of unethical authorship, and call for a greater emphasis on ethical authorship in medical residency training programs.

What drives unethical authorship practices

One of the main drivers for the increase in unethical practices is the need to publish to advance one’s academic career. The academic principle of “publish or perish” pressures many faculty researchers.³ The impact of this expectation plays a significant role in potentially unethical authorship practices, and also has increased the number of publications of mediocre quality or fraudulent data.⁴ This mindset has also seeped into the clinical world because promotions and financial bonuses are incentives for attending physicians to perform scholarly work. Due to these incentives and pressures, a senior academician might compel a junior researcher to include them as a coauthor on the junior researcher’s paper, even when the senior’s contributions to the paper might be limited.⁵

Most journals have specific criteria for authorship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has 4 core criteria for authorship: 1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; 2) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3) providing final approval of the version to be published, and 4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.^5,6 One survey found that in certain journals, approximately 15% of authors met full ICMJE authorship criteria, while one-half claimed there were substantial contributions but did not state anything more specific.⁷

There are several types of authorship abuse.⁵ Gift authorship is when authorship is awarded to a friend either out of respect or in hopes that friend will return the favor (quid pro quo). Ghost authorship occurs when a third party commissions an author to write or help write a paper (eg, when a pharmaceutical company hires writers to produce a paper about a medication they manufacture) or when legitimate authors are denied recognition on a paper. Honorary authorship occurs when authorship is granted with the hope that the reputation of the honorary author will increase the chances of the paper getting published and possibly boost citations.

While these forms of authorship abuse occur with unsettling frequency, they might not be common among physician trainees who do not engage in full-time research.⁵ Resident authors might be more likely to experience coercive authorship.

Continue to: Coercive authorship is when...

Coercive authorship is when an individual in a superior position (such as an attending physician) forces their name onto a paper of a junior individual (such as a resident). Kwok⁸ called this “The White Bull effect,” based on Greek mythology in which Zeus transformed himself into a white bull to seduce Europa. The White Bull represents the predatory nature of the senior individual who exploits ambiguous institutional research regulations to their benefit.⁸ They stretch out the ICMJE criteria, only superficially satisfying them to justify authorship. In this scenario, the attending physician with promotional incentives notices the work of a resident and demands authorship, given their role as the “supervising” physician (akin to general supervision of a research group). This is not justification for authorship per the ICMJE or any major medical journal criteria. However, a resident with limited research experience may agree to include the attending as a coauthor for a variety of reasons, including fear of a poor performance evaluation or professionalism complaints, or just to maintain a positive working relationship.

Serious implications

While there are countless reasons to be concerned about this behavior, the central issue is the attending physician’s role to train and/or mentor the resident. As previously stated, a physician—especially one practicing psychiatric medicine—must be of morally sound mind. A resident being taught unethical behaviors by their attending physician has dangerous implications. Academic dishonesty does not occur in vacuum. It is likely that dishonest and unethical behavior in research matters can cross over into the clinical arena. One study found that individuals who exhibit dishonest academic behavior are more likely to violate workplace policies.⁹ Also, these behaviors lead to increased moral disengagement in all areas.^10,11 Imagining a morally disengaged attending psychiatrist practicing medicine and training the next generation of psychiatrists is unsettling.

My hope is that residency programs discourage this detrimental conduct in their departments and support those trying to uphold integrity.

Sound moral principles are essential in the development of all physicians. Given how heavily each clinical encounter is laden with ethical implications, this is taught early in medical school. The medical student and resident physician must be able to make ethical and moral decisions on a consistent basis.

Speaking as a psychiatrist in training, there is an intimate relationship between psychiatry and moral questions.¹ Issues such as determining an individual’s ability to make decisions about their medical care, hospitalizing patients against their will, and involuntarily administering medication are an almost-daily occurrence.² Physicians, especially those who practice psychiatric medicine, must be ethically grounded to properly make these difficult but common decisions. It is also imperative that residents are given proper guidance in ethical practice in structured didactics and hands-on training.

However, many residents may be unfamiliar with ethics in research, more specifically ethical authorship. While some trainees might have participated in scholarly activities before residency, residency is the time to discover one’s interests, and residents are encouraged to engage in research. Unfortunately, many of the considerations surrounding ethical authorship are not emphasized, and questionable practices are common.³ In this article, I summarize the different faces of unethical authorship, and call for a greater emphasis on ethical authorship in medical residency training programs.

What drives unethical authorship practices

One of the main drivers for the increase in unethical practices is the need to publish to advance one’s academic career. The academic principle of “publish or perish” pressures many faculty researchers.³ The impact of this expectation plays a significant role in potentially unethical authorship practices, and also has increased the number of publications of mediocre quality or fraudulent data.⁴ This mindset has also seeped into the clinical world because promotions and financial bonuses are incentives for attending physicians to perform scholarly work. Due to these incentives and pressures, a senior academician might compel a junior researcher to include them as a coauthor on the junior researcher’s paper, even when the senior’s contributions to the paper might be limited.⁵

Most journals have specific criteria for authorship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has 4 core criteria for authorship: 1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; 2) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3) providing final approval of the version to be published, and 4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.^5,6 One survey found that in certain journals, approximately 15% of authors met full ICMJE authorship criteria, while one-half claimed there were substantial contributions but did not state anything more specific.⁷

There are several types of authorship abuse.⁵ Gift authorship is when authorship is awarded to a friend either out of respect or in hopes that friend will return the favor (quid pro quo). Ghost authorship occurs when a third party commissions an author to write or help write a paper (eg, when a pharmaceutical company hires writers to produce a paper about a medication they manufacture) or when legitimate authors are denied recognition on a paper. Honorary authorship occurs when authorship is granted with the hope that the reputation of the honorary author will increase the chances of the paper getting published and possibly boost citations.

While these forms of authorship abuse occur with unsettling frequency, they might not be common among physician trainees who do not engage in full-time research.⁵ Resident authors might be more likely to experience coercive authorship.

Continue to: Coercive authorship is when...

Coercive authorship is when an individual in a superior position (such as an attending physician) forces their name onto a paper of a junior individual (such as a resident). Kwok⁸ called this “The White Bull effect,” based on Greek mythology in which Zeus transformed himself into a white bull to seduce Europa. The White Bull represents the predatory nature of the senior individual who exploits ambiguous institutional research regulations to their benefit.⁸ They stretch out the ICMJE criteria, only superficially satisfying them to justify authorship. In this scenario, the attending physician with promotional incentives notices the work of a resident and demands authorship, given their role as the “supervising” physician (akin to general supervision of a research group). This is not justification for authorship per the ICMJE or any major medical journal criteria. However, a resident with limited research experience may agree to include the attending as a coauthor for a variety of reasons, including fear of a poor performance evaluation or professionalism complaints, or just to maintain a positive working relationship.

Serious implications

While there are countless reasons to be concerned about this behavior, the central issue is the attending physician’s role to train and/or mentor the resident. As previously stated, a physician—especially one practicing psychiatric medicine—must be of morally sound mind. A resident being taught unethical behaviors by their attending physician has dangerous implications. Academic dishonesty does not occur in vacuum. It is likely that dishonest and unethical behavior in research matters can cross over into the clinical arena. One study found that individuals who exhibit dishonest academic behavior are more likely to violate workplace policies.⁹ Also, these behaviors lead to increased moral disengagement in all areas.^10,11 Imagining a morally disengaged attending psychiatrist practicing medicine and training the next generation of psychiatrists is unsettling.

My hope is that residency programs discourage this detrimental conduct in their departments and support those trying to uphold integrity.

Sound moral principles are essential in the development of all physicians. Given how heavily each clinical encounter is laden with ethical implications, this is taught early in medical school. The medical student and resident physician must be able to make ethical and moral decisions on a consistent basis.

Speaking as a psychiatrist in training, there is an intimate relationship between psychiatry and moral questions.¹ Issues such as determining an individual’s ability to make decisions about their medical care, hospitalizing patients against their will, and involuntarily administering medication are an almost-daily occurrence.² Physicians, especially those who practice psychiatric medicine, must be ethically grounded to properly make these difficult but common decisions. It is also imperative that residents are given proper guidance in ethical practice in structured didactics and hands-on training.

However, many residents may be unfamiliar with ethics in research, more specifically ethical authorship. While some trainees might have participated in scholarly activities before residency, residency is the time to discover one’s interests, and residents are encouraged to engage in research. Unfortunately, many of the considerations surrounding ethical authorship are not emphasized, and questionable practices are common.³ In this article, I summarize the different faces of unethical authorship, and call for a greater emphasis on ethical authorship in medical residency training programs.

What drives unethical authorship practices

One of the main drivers for the increase in unethical practices is the need to publish to advance one’s academic career. The academic principle of “publish or perish” pressures many faculty researchers.³ The impact of this expectation plays a significant role in potentially unethical authorship practices, and also has increased the number of publications of mediocre quality or fraudulent data.⁴ This mindset has also seeped into the clinical world because promotions and financial bonuses are incentives for attending physicians to perform scholarly work. Due to these incentives and pressures, a senior academician might compel a junior researcher to include them as a coauthor on the junior researcher’s paper, even when the senior’s contributions to the paper might be limited.⁵

Most journals have specific criteria for authorship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has 4 core criteria for authorship: 1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; 2) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3) providing final approval of the version to be published, and 4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.^5,6 One survey found that in certain journals, approximately 15% of authors met full ICMJE authorship criteria, while one-half claimed there were substantial contributions but did not state anything more specific.⁷

There are several types of authorship abuse.⁵ Gift authorship is when authorship is awarded to a friend either out of respect or in hopes that friend will return the favor (quid pro quo). Ghost authorship occurs when a third party commissions an author to write or help write a paper (eg, when a pharmaceutical company hires writers to produce a paper about a medication they manufacture) or when legitimate authors are denied recognition on a paper. Honorary authorship occurs when authorship is granted with the hope that the reputation of the honorary author will increase the chances of the paper getting published and possibly boost citations.

While these forms of authorship abuse occur with unsettling frequency, they might not be common among physician trainees who do not engage in full-time research.⁵ Resident authors might be more likely to experience coercive authorship.

Continue to: Coercive authorship is when...

Coercive authorship is when an individual in a superior position (such as an attending physician) forces their name onto a paper of a junior individual (such as a resident). Kwok⁸ called this “The White Bull effect,” based on Greek mythology in which Zeus transformed himself into a white bull to seduce Europa. The White Bull represents the predatory nature of the senior individual who exploits ambiguous institutional research regulations to their benefit.⁸ They stretch out the ICMJE criteria, only superficially satisfying them to justify authorship. In this scenario, the attending physician with promotional incentives notices the work of a resident and demands authorship, given their role as the “supervising” physician (akin to general supervision of a research group). This is not justification for authorship per the ICMJE or any major medical journal criteria. However, a resident with limited research experience may agree to include the attending as a coauthor for a variety of reasons, including fear of a poor performance evaluation or professionalism complaints, or just to maintain a positive working relationship.

Serious implications

While there are countless reasons to be concerned about this behavior, the central issue is the attending physician’s role to train and/or mentor the resident. As previously stated, a physician—especially one practicing psychiatric medicine—must be of morally sound mind. A resident being taught unethical behaviors by their attending physician has dangerous implications. Academic dishonesty does not occur in vacuum. It is likely that dishonest and unethical behavior in research matters can cross over into the clinical arena. One study found that individuals who exhibit dishonest academic behavior are more likely to violate workplace policies.⁹ Also, these behaviors lead to increased moral disengagement in all areas.^10,11 Imagining a morally disengaged attending psychiatrist practicing medicine and training the next generation of psychiatrists is unsettling.

My hope is that residency programs discourage this detrimental conduct in their departments and support those trying to uphold integrity.

Each May, the gastroenterology community gathers for Digestive Disease Week® to be inspired, meet up with friends and colleagues from across the globe, and learn the latest in scientific advances to inform how we care for our patients in the clinic, on inpatient wards, and in our endoscopy suites. DDW® 2023, held in the Windy City of Chicago, does not disappoint. This year’s conference features a dizzying array of offerings, including 3,500 poster and ePoster presentations and 1,300 abstract lectures, as well as the perennially well-attended AGA Post-Graduate Course and other offerings.

This year’s AGA Presidential Plenary, hosted on May 8 by outgoing AGA President Dr. John M. Carethers, is not to be missed. The session will honor the 125-year history of the AGA and recognizes the barriers overcome in diversifying the practice of gastroenterology. You will learn about individuals such as Alexis St. Martin, MD; Basil Hirschowitz, MD, AGAF; Leonidas Berry, MD; Sadye Curry, MD; and, other barrier-breakers in GI who have been instrumental in shaping the modern practice of gastroenterology. I hope you will join me in attending.

In this month’s issue of GIHN, we introduce the winner of the 2023 AGA Shark Tank innovation competition, which was held during the 2023 AGA Tech Summit. We also report on a landmark phase 4, double-blind randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of vedolizumab in inducing remission in chronic pouchitis, and a new AGA clinical practice update on the role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis.

The AGA Government Affairs Committee also updates us on their advocacy to reform prior authorization policies affecting GI practice, and explains how you can assist in these efforts. In our Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Sharmila Anandasabapthy, MD, who shares her passion for global health and the one piece of career advice she’s glad she ignored.

Finally, GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Avi Ketwaroo presents our quarterly Perspectives column highlighting differing approaches to clinical management of pancreatic cystic lesions. We hope you enjoy all of the exciting content featured in this issue and look forward to seeing you in Chicago (or, virtually) for DDW.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Each May, the gastroenterology community gathers for Digestive Disease Week® to be inspired, meet up with friends and colleagues from across the globe, and learn the latest in scientific advances to inform how we care for our patients in the clinic, on inpatient wards, and in our endoscopy suites. DDW® 2023, held in the Windy City of Chicago, does not disappoint. This year’s conference features a dizzying array of offerings, including 3,500 poster and ePoster presentations and 1,300 abstract lectures, as well as the perennially well-attended AGA Post-Graduate Course and other offerings.

This year’s AGA Presidential Plenary, hosted on May 8 by outgoing AGA President Dr. John M. Carethers, is not to be missed. The session will honor the 125-year history of the AGA and recognizes the barriers overcome in diversifying the practice of gastroenterology. You will learn about individuals such as Alexis St. Martin, MD; Basil Hirschowitz, MD, AGAF; Leonidas Berry, MD; Sadye Curry, MD; and, other barrier-breakers in GI who have been instrumental in shaping the modern practice of gastroenterology. I hope you will join me in attending.

In this month’s issue of GIHN, we introduce the winner of the 2023 AGA Shark Tank innovation competition, which was held during the 2023 AGA Tech Summit. We also report on a landmark phase 4, double-blind randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of vedolizumab in inducing remission in chronic pouchitis, and a new AGA clinical practice update on the role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis.

The AGA Government Affairs Committee also updates us on their advocacy to reform prior authorization policies affecting GI practice, and explains how you can assist in these efforts. In our Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Sharmila Anandasabapthy, MD, who shares her passion for global health and the one piece of career advice she’s glad she ignored.

Finally, GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Avi Ketwaroo presents our quarterly Perspectives column highlighting differing approaches to clinical management of pancreatic cystic lesions. We hope you enjoy all of the exciting content featured in this issue and look forward to seeing you in Chicago (or, virtually) for DDW.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Each May, the gastroenterology community gathers for Digestive Disease Week® to be inspired, meet up with friends and colleagues from across the globe, and learn the latest in scientific advances to inform how we care for our patients in the clinic, on inpatient wards, and in our endoscopy suites. DDW® 2023, held in the Windy City of Chicago, does not disappoint. This year’s conference features a dizzying array of offerings, including 3,500 poster and ePoster presentations and 1,300 abstract lectures, as well as the perennially well-attended AGA Post-Graduate Course and other offerings.

This year’s AGA Presidential Plenary, hosted on May 8 by outgoing AGA President Dr. John M. Carethers, is not to be missed. The session will honor the 125-year history of the AGA and recognizes the barriers overcome in diversifying the practice of gastroenterology. You will learn about individuals such as Alexis St. Martin, MD; Basil Hirschowitz, MD, AGAF; Leonidas Berry, MD; Sadye Curry, MD; and, other barrier-breakers in GI who have been instrumental in shaping the modern practice of gastroenterology. I hope you will join me in attending.

In this month’s issue of GIHN, we introduce the winner of the 2023 AGA Shark Tank innovation competition, which was held during the 2023 AGA Tech Summit. We also report on a landmark phase 4, double-blind randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of vedolizumab in inducing remission in chronic pouchitis, and a new AGA clinical practice update on the role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis.

The AGA Government Affairs Committee also updates us on their advocacy to reform prior authorization policies affecting GI practice, and explains how you can assist in these efforts. In our Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Sharmila Anandasabapthy, MD, who shares her passion for global health and the one piece of career advice she’s glad she ignored.

Finally, GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Avi Ketwaroo presents our quarterly Perspectives column highlighting differing approaches to clinical management of pancreatic cystic lesions. We hope you enjoy all of the exciting content featured in this issue and look forward to seeing you in Chicago (or, virtually) for DDW.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

The field of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) continues to evolve from its first successful birth in 1978 in England, and then in 1981 in the United States. Over the last 6 years, the total number of cycles in the U.S. has increased by 44% to nearly 370,000.

The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, an affiliate of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, maintains standards and provides resources and education to both professionals and patients. SART membership consists of more than 350 clinics throughout the United States, representing 80% of ART clinics. Over 95% of ART cycles in 2021 in the United States were performed in SART-member clinics.

Fertility CARE

SART is an invaluable resource for both patients and physicians. Their website includes a “Predict My Success” calculator that allows patients and physicians to enter individualized data to calculate the chance of having a baby over one or more complete cycles of IVF. To help us understand the pregnancy outcome data from ART – cycles per clinic along with national results – I posed the questions below to Amy Sparks, PhD, HCLD, director of the IVF and Andrology Laboratories and the Center for Advanced Reproductive Care at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. Dr. Sparks is past president of SART and former chairperson of the SART Registry committee when the current Clinic Summary Report format was initially released.
 

Question: The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (FCSRCA) of 1992 mandated that all ART clinics report success rate data to the federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a standardized manner. As ART is the only field in medicine to be required to annually report their patient outcomes, that is, all initiated cycles and live births, why do you believe this law was enacted and is limited to reproductive medicine?

Answer: The FCSRCA of 1992 was enacted in response to the lack of open and reliable pregnancy success rate information for patients seeking infertility care using assisted reproductive technologies. Success rates of 25%-50% were being advertised by independent clinics when, nationally, fewer than 15% of ART procedures led to live births. The Federal Trade Commission said such claims were deceptive and filed charges against five clinics, saying they misrepresented their success in helping women become pregnant. The government won one case by court order and the other four cases were settled out of court.

University of Iowa

This field of medicine was in the spotlight as the majority of patients lacked insurance coverage for their ART cycles, and there was a strong desire to protect consumers paying out of pocket for relatively low success. Recognizing that the FTC’s mission is to ensure truth in advertising and not regulate medical care, Congress passed the FCSRCA, mandating that all centers providing ART services report all initiated cycles and their outcomes. The CDC was appointed as the agency responsible for collecting cycle data and reporting outcomes. Centers not reporting their cycles are listed as nonreporting centers.

This act also established standards for accreditation of embryology laboratories including personnel and traditional clinical laboratory management requirements. These standards serve as the foundation for embryology laboratory accrediting agencies.
 

Q: Why have live-birth rates on SART appeared to be focused on “per IVF cycle” as opposed to the CDC reporting of live births “per embryo transfer?”

A: An ART cycle “start” is defined as the initiation of ovarian stimulation with medication that may or may not include administration of exogenous gonadotropins, followed by oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer. Not every patient beginning a cycle will undergo an oocyte retrieval and not all patients who undergo oocyte retrieval have an embryo transfer. The live-birth rates (LBR) for each of these steps of progression in the ART process are available in the SART and CDC reports.

In 2016, SART recognized that practices were foregoing fresh embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval, opting to cryopreserve all embryos to either accommodate genetic testing of the embryos prior to transfer or to avoid embryo transfer to an unfavorable uterine environment. In response to changes in practice and in an effort to deemphasize live birth per transfer, thereby alleviating a potential motivator or pressure for practitioners to transfer multiple embryos, SART moved to a report that displays the cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval is the chance of live birth from transfers of embryos derived from the oocyte retrieval and performed within 1 year of the oocyte retrieval.

This change in reporting further reduced the pressure to transfer multiple embryos and encouraged elective, single-embryo transfer. The outcome per transfer is no longer the report’s primary focus.
 

Q: The latest pregnancy outcomes statistics are from the year 2020 and are finalized by the CDC. Why does the SART website have this same year labeled “preliminary” outcomes?

A: Shortly after the 2016 SART report change, the CDC made similar changes to their report. The difference is that SART provides a “preliminary” report of outcomes within the year of the cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative outcome is not “finalized” until the following year as transfers may be performed as late as 12 months after the oocyte retrieval.

SART has opted to report both the “preliminary” or interim outcome and the “final” outcome a year later. The CDC has opted to limit their report to “final” outcomes. I’m happy to report that SART recently released the final report for 2021 cycles.
 

Q: Have national success rates in the United States continued to rise or have they plateaued?

A: It appears that success rates have plateaued; however, we find ourselves at another point where practice patterns and patients’ approach to using ART for family building have changed.

Recognizing the impact of maternal aging on reproductive potential, patients are opting to undergo multiple ART cycles to cryopreserve embryos for family building before they attempt to get pregnant. This family-building path reduces the value of measuring the LBR per cycle start as we may not know the outcome for many years. SART leaders are deliberating intently as to how to best represent this growing patient population in outcome reporting.
 

Q: Can you comment on the reduction of multiple gestations with the increasing use of single-embryo transfer?

A: The reduction in emphasis on live births per transfer, emphasis on singleton live-birth rates in both the SART and CDC reports, and American Society for Reproductive Medicine practice committee guidelines strongly supporting single embryo transfer have significantly reduced the rate of multiple gestations.

A decade ago, only a third of the transfers were single-embryo transfers and over 25% of live births resulted in a multiple birth. Today, the majority of embryo transfers are elective, single-embryo transfers, and the multiple birth rate has been reduced by nearly 80%. In 2020, 93% of live births from IVF were singletons.
 

Q: SART offers an online IVF calculator so both patients and physicians can plug in data for an approximate cumulative success rate for up to three IVF cycles. The calculator pools data from all U.S.-reporting IVF centers. Can you explain what an “IVF cycle” is and what patient information is required? Why do success rates increase over time?

A: Each “IVF cycle” is a cycle start for an oocyte retrieval and all transfers of embryos from that cycle within a year of the oocyte retrieval. If the first cycle and subsequent transfers do not lead to a live birth, patients still have a chance to achieve a live birth with a second or third cycle. The success rate increases over time as it reflects the chance of success for a population of patients, with some achieving a live birth after the first cycle and additional patients who achieve success following their third cycle.

Q: The SART IVF calculator can be used with no prior IVF cycles or following an unsuccessful cycle. Are there data to support an estimation of outcome following two or even more unsuccessful cycles?

A: The variables in the SART IVF calculator are based upon the cycle-specific data from patients seeking care at SART member clinics. The current predictor was built with data from cycles performed in 2015-2016. SART is adjusting the predictor and developing a calculator that will be routinely updated, accordingly.

Q: Only approximately 40% of states have some form of infertility coverage law in place; however the number of IVF cycles in the United States continues to increase on an annual basis. What do you think are the driving factors behind this?

A: Advocacy efforts to improve patients’ access to infertility care have included giving patients tools to encourage their employers to include infertility care in their health care benefits package. More recently, the “Great Resignation” has led to the “Great Recruitment” and employers are recognizing that the addition of infertility care to health care benefits is a powerful recruitment tool.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

The field of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) continues to evolve from its first successful birth in 1978 in England, and then in 1981 in the United States. Over the last 6 years, the total number of cycles in the U.S. has increased by 44% to nearly 370,000.

The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, an affiliate of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, maintains standards and provides resources and education to both professionals and patients. SART membership consists of more than 350 clinics throughout the United States, representing 80% of ART clinics. Over 95% of ART cycles in 2021 in the United States were performed in SART-member clinics.

Fertility CARE

SART is an invaluable resource for both patients and physicians. Their website includes a “Predict My Success” calculator that allows patients and physicians to enter individualized data to calculate the chance of having a baby over one or more complete cycles of IVF. To help us understand the pregnancy outcome data from ART – cycles per clinic along with national results – I posed the questions below to Amy Sparks, PhD, HCLD, director of the IVF and Andrology Laboratories and the Center for Advanced Reproductive Care at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. Dr. Sparks is past president of SART and former chairperson of the SART Registry committee when the current Clinic Summary Report format was initially released.
 

Question: The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (FCSRCA) of 1992 mandated that all ART clinics report success rate data to the federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a standardized manner. As ART is the only field in medicine to be required to annually report their patient outcomes, that is, all initiated cycles and live births, why do you believe this law was enacted and is limited to reproductive medicine?

Answer: The FCSRCA of 1992 was enacted in response to the lack of open and reliable pregnancy success rate information for patients seeking infertility care using assisted reproductive technologies. Success rates of 25%-50% were being advertised by independent clinics when, nationally, fewer than 15% of ART procedures led to live births. The Federal Trade Commission said such claims were deceptive and filed charges against five clinics, saying they misrepresented their success in helping women become pregnant. The government won one case by court order and the other four cases were settled out of court.

University of Iowa

This field of medicine was in the spotlight as the majority of patients lacked insurance coverage for their ART cycles, and there was a strong desire to protect consumers paying out of pocket for relatively low success. Recognizing that the FTC’s mission is to ensure truth in advertising and not regulate medical care, Congress passed the FCSRCA, mandating that all centers providing ART services report all initiated cycles and their outcomes. The CDC was appointed as the agency responsible for collecting cycle data and reporting outcomes. Centers not reporting their cycles are listed as nonreporting centers.

This act also established standards for accreditation of embryology laboratories including personnel and traditional clinical laboratory management requirements. These standards serve as the foundation for embryology laboratory accrediting agencies.
 

Q: Why have live-birth rates on SART appeared to be focused on “per IVF cycle” as opposed to the CDC reporting of live births “per embryo transfer?”

A: An ART cycle “start” is defined as the initiation of ovarian stimulation with medication that may or may not include administration of exogenous gonadotropins, followed by oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer. Not every patient beginning a cycle will undergo an oocyte retrieval and not all patients who undergo oocyte retrieval have an embryo transfer. The live-birth rates (LBR) for each of these steps of progression in the ART process are available in the SART and CDC reports.

In 2016, SART recognized that practices were foregoing fresh embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval, opting to cryopreserve all embryos to either accommodate genetic testing of the embryos prior to transfer or to avoid embryo transfer to an unfavorable uterine environment. In response to changes in practice and in an effort to deemphasize live birth per transfer, thereby alleviating a potential motivator or pressure for practitioners to transfer multiple embryos, SART moved to a report that displays the cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval is the chance of live birth from transfers of embryos derived from the oocyte retrieval and performed within 1 year of the oocyte retrieval.

This change in reporting further reduced the pressure to transfer multiple embryos and encouraged elective, single-embryo transfer. The outcome per transfer is no longer the report’s primary focus.
 

Q: The latest pregnancy outcomes statistics are from the year 2020 and are finalized by the CDC. Why does the SART website have this same year labeled “preliminary” outcomes?

A: Shortly after the 2016 SART report change, the CDC made similar changes to their report. The difference is that SART provides a “preliminary” report of outcomes within the year of the cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative outcome is not “finalized” until the following year as transfers may be performed as late as 12 months after the oocyte retrieval.

SART has opted to report both the “preliminary” or interim outcome and the “final” outcome a year later. The CDC has opted to limit their report to “final” outcomes. I’m happy to report that SART recently released the final report for 2021 cycles.
 

Q: Have national success rates in the United States continued to rise or have they plateaued?

A: It appears that success rates have plateaued; however, we find ourselves at another point where practice patterns and patients’ approach to using ART for family building have changed.

Recognizing the impact of maternal aging on reproductive potential, patients are opting to undergo multiple ART cycles to cryopreserve embryos for family building before they attempt to get pregnant. This family-building path reduces the value of measuring the LBR per cycle start as we may not know the outcome for many years. SART leaders are deliberating intently as to how to best represent this growing patient population in outcome reporting.
 

Q: Can you comment on the reduction of multiple gestations with the increasing use of single-embryo transfer?

A: The reduction in emphasis on live births per transfer, emphasis on singleton live-birth rates in both the SART and CDC reports, and American Society for Reproductive Medicine practice committee guidelines strongly supporting single embryo transfer have significantly reduced the rate of multiple gestations.

A decade ago, only a third of the transfers were single-embryo transfers and over 25% of live births resulted in a multiple birth. Today, the majority of embryo transfers are elective, single-embryo transfers, and the multiple birth rate has been reduced by nearly 80%. In 2020, 93% of live births from IVF were singletons.
 

Q: SART offers an online IVF calculator so both patients and physicians can plug in data for an approximate cumulative success rate for up to three IVF cycles. The calculator pools data from all U.S.-reporting IVF centers. Can you explain what an “IVF cycle” is and what patient information is required? Why do success rates increase over time?

A: Each “IVF cycle” is a cycle start for an oocyte retrieval and all transfers of embryos from that cycle within a year of the oocyte retrieval. If the first cycle and subsequent transfers do not lead to a live birth, patients still have a chance to achieve a live birth with a second or third cycle. The success rate increases over time as it reflects the chance of success for a population of patients, with some achieving a live birth after the first cycle and additional patients who achieve success following their third cycle.

Q: The SART IVF calculator can be used with no prior IVF cycles or following an unsuccessful cycle. Are there data to support an estimation of outcome following two or even more unsuccessful cycles?

A: The variables in the SART IVF calculator are based upon the cycle-specific data from patients seeking care at SART member clinics. The current predictor was built with data from cycles performed in 2015-2016. SART is adjusting the predictor and developing a calculator that will be routinely updated, accordingly.

Q: Only approximately 40% of states have some form of infertility coverage law in place; however the number of IVF cycles in the United States continues to increase on an annual basis. What do you think are the driving factors behind this?

A: Advocacy efforts to improve patients’ access to infertility care have included giving patients tools to encourage their employers to include infertility care in their health care benefits package. More recently, the “Great Resignation” has led to the “Great Recruitment” and employers are recognizing that the addition of infertility care to health care benefits is a powerful recruitment tool.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

The field of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) continues to evolve from its first successful birth in 1978 in England, and then in 1981 in the United States. Over the last 6 years, the total number of cycles in the U.S. has increased by 44% to nearly 370,000.

The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, an affiliate of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, maintains standards and provides resources and education to both professionals and patients. SART membership consists of more than 350 clinics throughout the United States, representing 80% of ART clinics. Over 95% of ART cycles in 2021 in the United States were performed in SART-member clinics.

Fertility CARE

SART is an invaluable resource for both patients and physicians. Their website includes a “Predict My Success” calculator that allows patients and physicians to enter individualized data to calculate the chance of having a baby over one or more complete cycles of IVF. To help us understand the pregnancy outcome data from ART – cycles per clinic along with national results – I posed the questions below to Amy Sparks, PhD, HCLD, director of the IVF and Andrology Laboratories and the Center for Advanced Reproductive Care at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City. Dr. Sparks is past president of SART and former chairperson of the SART Registry committee when the current Clinic Summary Report format was initially released.
 

Question: The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act (FCSRCA) of 1992 mandated that all ART clinics report success rate data to the federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a standardized manner. As ART is the only field in medicine to be required to annually report their patient outcomes, that is, all initiated cycles and live births, why do you believe this law was enacted and is limited to reproductive medicine?

Answer: The FCSRCA of 1992 was enacted in response to the lack of open and reliable pregnancy success rate information for patients seeking infertility care using assisted reproductive technologies. Success rates of 25%-50% were being advertised by independent clinics when, nationally, fewer than 15% of ART procedures led to live births. The Federal Trade Commission said such claims were deceptive and filed charges against five clinics, saying they misrepresented their success in helping women become pregnant. The government won one case by court order and the other four cases were settled out of court.

University of Iowa

This field of medicine was in the spotlight as the majority of patients lacked insurance coverage for their ART cycles, and there was a strong desire to protect consumers paying out of pocket for relatively low success. Recognizing that the FTC’s mission is to ensure truth in advertising and not regulate medical care, Congress passed the FCSRCA, mandating that all centers providing ART services report all initiated cycles and their outcomes. The CDC was appointed as the agency responsible for collecting cycle data and reporting outcomes. Centers not reporting their cycles are listed as nonreporting centers.

This act also established standards for accreditation of embryology laboratories including personnel and traditional clinical laboratory management requirements. These standards serve as the foundation for embryology laboratory accrediting agencies.
 

Q: Why have live-birth rates on SART appeared to be focused on “per IVF cycle” as opposed to the CDC reporting of live births “per embryo transfer?”

A: An ART cycle “start” is defined as the initiation of ovarian stimulation with medication that may or may not include administration of exogenous gonadotropins, followed by oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer. Not every patient beginning a cycle will undergo an oocyte retrieval and not all patients who undergo oocyte retrieval have an embryo transfer. The live-birth rates (LBR) for each of these steps of progression in the ART process are available in the SART and CDC reports.

In 2016, SART recognized that practices were foregoing fresh embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval, opting to cryopreserve all embryos to either accommodate genetic testing of the embryos prior to transfer or to avoid embryo transfer to an unfavorable uterine environment. In response to changes in practice and in an effort to deemphasize live birth per transfer, thereby alleviating a potential motivator or pressure for practitioners to transfer multiple embryos, SART moved to a report that displays the cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative live-birth rate per cycle start for oocyte retrieval is the chance of live birth from transfers of embryos derived from the oocyte retrieval and performed within 1 year of the oocyte retrieval.

This change in reporting further reduced the pressure to transfer multiple embryos and encouraged elective, single-embryo transfer. The outcome per transfer is no longer the report’s primary focus.
 

Q: The latest pregnancy outcomes statistics are from the year 2020 and are finalized by the CDC. Why does the SART website have this same year labeled “preliminary” outcomes?

A: Shortly after the 2016 SART report change, the CDC made similar changes to their report. The difference is that SART provides a “preliminary” report of outcomes within the year of the cycle start for oocyte retrieval. The cumulative outcome is not “finalized” until the following year as transfers may be performed as late as 12 months after the oocyte retrieval.

SART has opted to report both the “preliminary” or interim outcome and the “final” outcome a year later. The CDC has opted to limit their report to “final” outcomes. I’m happy to report that SART recently released the final report for 2021 cycles.
 

Q: Have national success rates in the United States continued to rise or have they plateaued?

A: It appears that success rates have plateaued; however, we find ourselves at another point where practice patterns and patients’ approach to using ART for family building have changed.

Recognizing the impact of maternal aging on reproductive potential, patients are opting to undergo multiple ART cycles to cryopreserve embryos for family building before they attempt to get pregnant. This family-building path reduces the value of measuring the LBR per cycle start as we may not know the outcome for many years. SART leaders are deliberating intently as to how to best represent this growing patient population in outcome reporting.
 

Q: Can you comment on the reduction of multiple gestations with the increasing use of single-embryo transfer?

A: The reduction in emphasis on live births per transfer, emphasis on singleton live-birth rates in both the SART and CDC reports, and American Society for Reproductive Medicine practice committee guidelines strongly supporting single embryo transfer have significantly reduced the rate of multiple gestations.

A decade ago, only a third of the transfers were single-embryo transfers and over 25% of live births resulted in a multiple birth. Today, the majority of embryo transfers are elective, single-embryo transfers, and the multiple birth rate has been reduced by nearly 80%. In 2020, 93% of live births from IVF were singletons.
 

Q: SART offers an online IVF calculator so both patients and physicians can plug in data for an approximate cumulative success rate for up to three IVF cycles. The calculator pools data from all U.S.-reporting IVF centers. Can you explain what an “IVF cycle” is and what patient information is required? Why do success rates increase over time?

A: Each “IVF cycle” is a cycle start for an oocyte retrieval and all transfers of embryos from that cycle within a year of the oocyte retrieval. If the first cycle and subsequent transfers do not lead to a live birth, patients still have a chance to achieve a live birth with a second or third cycle. The success rate increases over time as it reflects the chance of success for a population of patients, with some achieving a live birth after the first cycle and additional patients who achieve success following their third cycle.

Q: The SART IVF calculator can be used with no prior IVF cycles or following an unsuccessful cycle. Are there data to support an estimation of outcome following two or even more unsuccessful cycles?

A: The variables in the SART IVF calculator are based upon the cycle-specific data from patients seeking care at SART member clinics. The current predictor was built with data from cycles performed in 2015-2016. SART is adjusting the predictor and developing a calculator that will be routinely updated, accordingly.

Q: Only approximately 40% of states have some form of infertility coverage law in place; however the number of IVF cycles in the United States continues to increase on an annual basis. What do you think are the driving factors behind this?

A: Advocacy efforts to improve patients’ access to infertility care have included giving patients tools to encourage their employers to include infertility care in their health care benefits package. More recently, the “Great Resignation” has led to the “Great Recruitment” and employers are recognizing that the addition of infertility care to health care benefits is a powerful recruitment tool.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

Narcissists appear to be everywhere. A few minutes on the Internet shows the dangers of narcissistic romantic partners, friends, and employers. Identifying and limiting the reach of their manipulative and self-centered endeavors is cast as both urgent and necessary. The destructive powers of the narcissistic mother are viewed as especially in need of remedy, and any bookstore can reveal the risks they pose: “Will I Ever Be Good Enough? Healing the Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers;” “You’re Not Crazy – It’s Your Mother: Freedom for Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers;” “Healing for Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers: A Practical Guide on How to Recover from the Childhood Trauma of Toxic Relationship with Your Mother and How You Can Handle Her Abuse Now As An Adult” – to name just a few (there are more).

As a psychologist specializing in parental estrangement, I (Dr. Coleman) regularly see letters from adult children explaining their discovery-through-therapy that their mother is a narcissist. The proclamation often comes when the therapist has never met the mother. Typically, the discovery is presented as a justification for ending the relationship with the parent. While these mothers could rightly be accused of being anxious, over-involved, depressed, or hurt by the lack of gratitude or reciprocity, the vast majority are not narcissists.

Blaming mothers has a long reach. Mothers have been blamed for causing schizophrenia, autism, homosexuality, and effeminacy in men. While we used to call people selfish and “controlling,” narcissism is a more consequential label as it confers diagnostic validity from the mental health profession. Worse, it suggests an individual beyond reach, where the only answer is distance, containment, or estrangement.

The rise of the narcissistic mother comes during a time when, for the past 4 decades, the average working mother spends more time with her children than stay-at-home moms did in the supposed halcyon days of the 1960s’ middle class, before “parenting” was a common term. A variety of economists and sociologists observed that an increase in parental effort became necessary to launch children into adulthood given the retreat of governmental and corporate support for parents that began in the 1980s.

“The financial and emotional burden on families has grown in ways that were almost unimaginable just a half-century ago,” writes the University of Pennsylvania sociologist Frank Furstenberg in “On a New Schedule: Transitions to Adulthood and Family Change.” In addition, a view of children as vulnerable and in need of intense parental investment gained momentum over the course of the 20th century and has continued unabated into the present. As a result, an environment of intense maternal preoccupation, worry, guilt, and involvement with children’s grades, safety, health, and emotional states – referred to as “helicopter” and “tiger” mothering – grew into the norm across the classes.

While prior generations of parents could, by today’s standards, be viewed as being insufficiently involved, today’s parents have become “over-involved” – aided by the ability of parents to be in constant contact with their adult children through technology. While this shift to a more hands-on, more conscientious parenting has been a boon to parent–adult child relationships in the main, the downside has meant, for some, too much of a good thing. From that perspective, pathologizing a mother’s involvement or her expressions of hurt for that child’s lack of availability provides a shield against the child’s feelings of guilt or obligation.

Diagnoses can serve a social purpose: They can allow individuals to use the authority of our profession to decide who to be close to and who to let go. They can provide insulation against feelings of obligation or guilt. They create a way to label behavior as dysfunctional that in other eras or cultures would be considered normal, even valued. To that extent, diagnoses don’t occur in a cultural void. They are inextricably tied to larger ideals, be they individualistic – as exists in the United States – or collectivist, as exists in many other parts of the world.

While we have decided what parents owe our children, it is unclear what parents might ask in return. To that end, mothers who want more interest, availability, or gratitude today are vulnerable to being cast as selfish, uncaring, needy, and controlling. They can now be viewed as failing in their task of selfless devotion. Their desires for closeness or repair can be regarded as incompatible with the quest for the adult child’s self-fulfillment and identity; her identification with her children too great a barrier to their individuation.

There may well be good reasons to estrange family members for their intolerable behaviors, especially ones who have threatened personal safety. Yet, while there are plenty of problematic parents, few meet the diagnostic criteria of narcissistic personality disorder. More important, such labels can discourage a discussion of boundaries that both the parents and the adult children might find acceptable – which sometimes means asking family members to tolerate behavior or individuals not to their liking.

Diagnoses carry enormous social weight and can facilitate estrangements or negativity to mothers that are far more workable than our patients’ characterization of them might lead them or us to believe. Wrongly labeling mothers as narcissists greatly oversimplifies their lives and struggles; it devalues their years of love and dedication, however flawed; and it weakens the fabric of connection that could otherwise exist. Rather than provide a path toward compassion or understanding, “narcissistic mother” just becomes the latest form of mommy shaming.

Dr. Coleman is a clinical psychologist and author of “Rules of Estrangement: Why Adult Children Cut Ties and How to Heal the Conflict” (New York: Penguin Random House, 2021). Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Narcissists appear to be everywhere. A few minutes on the Internet shows the dangers of narcissistic romantic partners, friends, and employers. Identifying and limiting the reach of their manipulative and self-centered endeavors is cast as both urgent and necessary. The destructive powers of the narcissistic mother are viewed as especially in need of remedy, and any bookstore can reveal the risks they pose: “Will I Ever Be Good Enough? Healing the Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers;” “You’re Not Crazy – It’s Your Mother: Freedom for Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers;” “Healing for Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers: A Practical Guide on How to Recover from the Childhood Trauma of Toxic Relationship with Your Mother and How You Can Handle Her Abuse Now As An Adult” – to name just a few (there are more).

As a psychologist specializing in parental estrangement, I (Dr. Coleman) regularly see letters from adult children explaining their discovery-through-therapy that their mother is a narcissist. The proclamation often comes when the therapist has never met the mother. Typically, the discovery is presented as a justification for ending the relationship with the parent. While these mothers could rightly be accused of being anxious, over-involved, depressed, or hurt by the lack of gratitude or reciprocity, the vast majority are not narcissists.

Blaming mothers has a long reach. Mothers have been blamed for causing schizophrenia, autism, homosexuality, and effeminacy in men. While we used to call people selfish and “controlling,” narcissism is a more consequential label as it confers diagnostic validity from the mental health profession. Worse, it suggests an individual beyond reach, where the only answer is distance, containment, or estrangement.

The rise of the narcissistic mother comes during a time when, for the past 4 decades, the average working mother spends more time with her children than stay-at-home moms did in the supposed halcyon days of the 1960s’ middle class, before “parenting” was a common term. A variety of economists and sociologists observed that an increase in parental effort became necessary to launch children into adulthood given the retreat of governmental and corporate support for parents that began in the 1980s.

“The financial and emotional burden on families has grown in ways that were almost unimaginable just a half-century ago,” writes the University of Pennsylvania sociologist Frank Furstenberg in “On a New Schedule: Transitions to Adulthood and Family Change.” In addition, a view of children as vulnerable and in need of intense parental investment gained momentum over the course of the 20th century and has continued unabated into the present. As a result, an environment of intense maternal preoccupation, worry, guilt, and involvement with children’s grades, safety, health, and emotional states – referred to as “helicopter” and “tiger” mothering – grew into the norm across the classes.

While prior generations of parents could, by today’s standards, be viewed as being insufficiently involved, today’s parents have become “over-involved” – aided by the ability of parents to be in constant contact with their adult children through technology. While this shift to a more hands-on, more conscientious parenting has been a boon to parent–adult child relationships in the main, the downside has meant, for some, too much of a good thing. From that perspective, pathologizing a mother’s involvement or her expressions of hurt for that child’s lack of availability provides a shield against the child’s feelings of guilt or obligation.

Diagnoses can serve a social purpose: They can allow individuals to use the authority of our profession to decide who to be close to and who to let go. They can provide insulation against feelings of obligation or guilt. They create a way to label behavior as dysfunctional that in other eras or cultures would be considered normal, even valued. To that extent, diagnoses don’t occur in a cultural void. They are inextricably tied to larger ideals, be they individualistic – as exists in the United States – or collectivist, as exists in many other parts of the world.

While we have decided what parents owe our children, it is unclear what parents might ask in return. To that end, mothers who want more interest, availability, or gratitude today are vulnerable to being cast as selfish, uncaring, needy, and controlling. They can now be viewed as failing in their task of selfless devotion. Their desires for closeness or repair can be regarded as incompatible with the quest for the adult child’s self-fulfillment and identity; her identification with her children too great a barrier to their individuation.

There may well be good reasons to estrange family members for their intolerable behaviors, especially ones who have threatened personal safety. Yet, while there are plenty of problematic parents, few meet the diagnostic criteria of narcissistic personality disorder. More important, such labels can discourage a discussion of boundaries that both the parents and the adult children might find acceptable – which sometimes means asking family members to tolerate behavior or individuals not to their liking.

Diagnoses carry enormous social weight and can facilitate estrangements or negativity to mothers that are far more workable than our patients’ characterization of them might lead them or us to believe. Wrongly labeling mothers as narcissists greatly oversimplifies their lives and struggles; it devalues their years of love and dedication, however flawed; and it weakens the fabric of connection that could otherwise exist. Rather than provide a path toward compassion or understanding, “narcissistic mother” just becomes the latest form of mommy shaming.

Dr. Coleman is a clinical psychologist and author of “Rules of Estrangement: Why Adult Children Cut Ties and How to Heal the Conflict” (New York: Penguin Random House, 2021). Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Narcissists appear to be everywhere. A few minutes on the Internet shows the dangers of narcissistic romantic partners, friends, and employers. Identifying and limiting the reach of their manipulative and self-centered endeavors is cast as both urgent and necessary. The destructive powers of the narcissistic mother are viewed as especially in need of remedy, and any bookstore can reveal the risks they pose: “Will I Ever Be Good Enough? Healing the Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers;” “You’re Not Crazy – It’s Your Mother: Freedom for Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers;” “Healing for Daughters of Narcissistic Mothers: A Practical Guide on How to Recover from the Childhood Trauma of Toxic Relationship with Your Mother and How You Can Handle Her Abuse Now As An Adult” – to name just a few (there are more).

As a psychologist specializing in parental estrangement, I (Dr. Coleman) regularly see letters from adult children explaining their discovery-through-therapy that their mother is a narcissist. The proclamation often comes when the therapist has never met the mother. Typically, the discovery is presented as a justification for ending the relationship with the parent. While these mothers could rightly be accused of being anxious, over-involved, depressed, or hurt by the lack of gratitude or reciprocity, the vast majority are not narcissists.

Blaming mothers has a long reach. Mothers have been blamed for causing schizophrenia, autism, homosexuality, and effeminacy in men. While we used to call people selfish and “controlling,” narcissism is a more consequential label as it confers diagnostic validity from the mental health profession. Worse, it suggests an individual beyond reach, where the only answer is distance, containment, or estrangement.

The rise of the narcissistic mother comes during a time when, for the past 4 decades, the average working mother spends more time with her children than stay-at-home moms did in the supposed halcyon days of the 1960s’ middle class, before “parenting” was a common term. A variety of economists and sociologists observed that an increase in parental effort became necessary to launch children into adulthood given the retreat of governmental and corporate support for parents that began in the 1980s.

“The financial and emotional burden on families has grown in ways that were almost unimaginable just a half-century ago,” writes the University of Pennsylvania sociologist Frank Furstenberg in “On a New Schedule: Transitions to Adulthood and Family Change.” In addition, a view of children as vulnerable and in need of intense parental investment gained momentum over the course of the 20th century and has continued unabated into the present. As a result, an environment of intense maternal preoccupation, worry, guilt, and involvement with children’s grades, safety, health, and emotional states – referred to as “helicopter” and “tiger” mothering – grew into the norm across the classes.

While prior generations of parents could, by today’s standards, be viewed as being insufficiently involved, today’s parents have become “over-involved” – aided by the ability of parents to be in constant contact with their adult children through technology. While this shift to a more hands-on, more conscientious parenting has been a boon to parent–adult child relationships in the main, the downside has meant, for some, too much of a good thing. From that perspective, pathologizing a mother’s involvement or her expressions of hurt for that child’s lack of availability provides a shield against the child’s feelings of guilt or obligation.

Diagnoses can serve a social purpose: They can allow individuals to use the authority of our profession to decide who to be close to and who to let go. They can provide insulation against feelings of obligation or guilt. They create a way to label behavior as dysfunctional that in other eras or cultures would be considered normal, even valued. To that extent, diagnoses don’t occur in a cultural void. They are inextricably tied to larger ideals, be they individualistic – as exists in the United States – or collectivist, as exists in many other parts of the world.

While we have decided what parents owe our children, it is unclear what parents might ask in return. To that end, mothers who want more interest, availability, or gratitude today are vulnerable to being cast as selfish, uncaring, needy, and controlling. They can now be viewed as failing in their task of selfless devotion. Their desires for closeness or repair can be regarded as incompatible with the quest for the adult child’s self-fulfillment and identity; her identification with her children too great a barrier to their individuation.

There may well be good reasons to estrange family members for their intolerable behaviors, especially ones who have threatened personal safety. Yet, while there are plenty of problematic parents, few meet the diagnostic criteria of narcissistic personality disorder. More important, such labels can discourage a discussion of boundaries that both the parents and the adult children might find acceptable – which sometimes means asking family members to tolerate behavior or individuals not to their liking.

Diagnoses carry enormous social weight and can facilitate estrangements or negativity to mothers that are far more workable than our patients’ characterization of them might lead them or us to believe. Wrongly labeling mothers as narcissists greatly oversimplifies their lives and struggles; it devalues their years of love and dedication, however flawed; and it weakens the fabric of connection that could otherwise exist. Rather than provide a path toward compassion or understanding, “narcissistic mother” just becomes the latest form of mommy shaming.

Dr. Coleman is a clinical psychologist and author of “Rules of Estrangement: Why Adult Children Cut Ties and How to Heal the Conflict” (New York: Penguin Random House, 2021). Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

This discussion was recorded on April 6, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining us today is Dr. Lewis Nelson, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and a certified medical toxicologist.

Today, we will be discussing an important and disturbing Gen Z trend circulating on social media, known as blackout rage gallon, or BORG.

Welcome, Lewis.

Lewis S. Nelson, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Thanks so much for joining us. This trend that’s been circulating on social media is really disturbing. It has elements that focus on binge drinking: Talking about taking a jug; emptying half of it out; and putting one fifth of vodka and some electrolytes, caffeine, or other things too is just incredibly disturbing. Teens and parents are looking at this. I’ll let you jump into the discussion.

Dr. Nelson: You’re totally right, it is disturbing. Binge drinking is a huge problem in this country in general. It’s a particular problem with young people – teenagers and young adults. I don’t think people appreciate the dangers associated with binge drinking, such as the amount of alcohol they consume and some of the unintended consequences of doing that.

To frame things quickly, we think there are probably around six people a day in the United States who die of alcohol poisoning. Alcohol poisoning basically is binge drinking to such an extent that you die of the alcohol itself. You’re not dying of a car crash or doing something that injures you. You’re dying of the alcohol. You’re drinking so much that your breathing slows, it stops, you have heart rhythm disturbances, and so on. It totals about 2,200 people a year in the United States.

Dr. Glatter: That’s alarming. For this trend, their argument is that half of the gallon is water. Therefore, I’m fine. I can drink it over 8-12 hours and it’s not an issue. How would you respond to that?

Dr. Nelson: Well, alcohol is alcohol. It’s all about how much you take in over what time period. I guess, in concept, it could be safer if you do it right. That’s not the way it’s been, so to speak, marketed on the various social media platforms. It’s meant to be a way to protect yourself from having your drink spiked or eating or ingesting contaminants from other people’s mouths when you share glasses or dip cups into communal pots like jungle juice or something.

Clearly, if you’re going to drink a large amount of alcohol over a short or long period of time, you do run the risk of having significant consequences, including bad decision-making if you’re just a little drunk all the way down to that of the complications you described about alcohol poisoning.

Dr. Glatter: There has been a comment made that this could be a form of harm reduction. The point of harm reduction is that we run trials, we validate it, and we test it. This, certainly in my mind, is no form of true harm reduction. I think you would agree.

Dr. Nelson: Many things that are marketed as harm reduction aren’t. There could be some aspects of this that could be considered harm reduction. You may believe – and there’s no reason not to – that protecting your drink is a good idea. If you’re at a bar and you leave your glass open and somebody put something in it, you can be drugged. Drug-facilitated sexual assault, for example, is a big issue. That means you have to leave your glass unattended. If you tend to your glass, it’s probably fine. One of the ways of harm reduction they mention is that by having a cap and having this bottle with you at all times, that can’t happen.

Now, in fairness, by far the drug most commonly associated with sexual assault is alcohol. It’s not gamma-hydroxybutyrate or ketamine. It’s not the other things that people are concerned about. Those happen, but those are small problems in the big picture. It’s drinking too much.

A form of harm reduction that you can comment on perhaps is that you make this drink concoction yourself, so you know what is in there. You can take that bottle, pour out half the water, and fill up the other half with water and nobody’s going to know. More likely, the way they say you should do it is you take your gallon jug, you pour it out, and you fill it up with one fifth of vodka.

One fifth of vodka is the same amount of volume as a bottle of wine. At 750 mL, that’s a huge amount of alcohol. If you measure the number of shots in that bottle, it’s about 17 shots. Even if you drink that over 6 hours, that’s still several shots an hour. That’s a large amount of alcohol. You might do two or three shots once and then not drink for a few hours. To sit and drink two or three shots an hour for 6 hours, that’s just an exceptional amount of alcohol.

They flavorize it and add caffeine, which only adds to the risk. It doesn’t make it in any way safer. With the volume, 1 gal of water or equivalent over a short period of time in and of itself could be a problem. There’s a large amount of mismessaging here. Whether something’s harm reduction, it could flip around to be easily construed or understood as being harmful.

Not to mention, the idea that when you make something safer, one of the unintended consequences of harm reduction is what we call risk compensation. This is best probably described as what’s called the Peltzman effect. The way that we think about airbags and seatbelts is that they’re going to reduce car crash deaths; and they do, but people drive faster and more recklessly because they know they’re safe.

This is a well-described problem in epidemiology: You expect a certain amount of harm reduction through some implemented process, but you don’t meet that because people take increased risks.

Dr. Glatter: Right. The idea of not developing a hangover is common among many teens and 20-somethings, thinking that because there’s hydration there, because half of it is water, it’s just not going to happen. There’s your “harm reduction,” but your judgment’s impaired. It’s day drinking at its best, all day long. Then someone has the idea to get behind the wheel. These are the disastrous consequences that we all fear.

Dr. Nelson: There is a great example, perhaps of an unintended consequence of harm reduction. By putting caffeine in it, depending on how much caffeine you put in, some of these mixtures can have up to 1,000 mg of caffeine. Remember, a cup of coffee is about 1-200 mg, so you’re talking about several cups of coffee. The idea is that you will not be able to sense, as you normally do, how drunk you are. You’re not going to be a sleepy drunk, you’re going to be an awake drunk.

The idea that you’re going to have to drive so you’re going to drink a strong cup of black coffee before you go driving, you’re not going to drive any better. I can assure you that. You’re going to be more awake, perhaps, and not fall asleep at the wheel, but you’re still going to have psychomotor impairment. Your judgment is going to be impaired. There’s nothing good that comes with adding caffeine except that you’re going to be awake.

From a hangover perspective, there are many things that we’ve guessed at or suggested as either prevention or cures for hangovers. I don’t doubt that you’re going to have some volume depletion if you drink a large amount of alcohol. Alcohol’s a diuretic, so you’re going to lose more volume than you bring in.

Hydrating is probably always a good idea, but there is hydrating and then there’s overhydrating. We don’t need volumes like that. If you drink a cup or two of water, you’re probably fine. You don’t need to drink half a gallon of water. That can lead to problems like delusional hyponatremia, and so forth. There’s not any clear benefit to doing it.

If you want to prevent a hangover, one of the ways you might do it is by using vodka. There are nice data that show that clear alcohols typically, particularly vodka, don’t have many of the congeners that make the specific forms of alcohol what they are. Bourbon smells and tastes like bourbon because of these little molecules, these alkalis and ketones and amino acids and things that make it taste and smell the way it does. That’s true for all the other alcohols.

Vodka has the least amount of that. Even wine and beer have those in them, but vodka is basically alcohol mixed with water. It’s probably the least hangover-prone of all the alcohols; but still, if you drink a lot of vodka, you’re going to have a hangover. It’s just a dose-response curve to how much alcohol you drink, to how drunk you get, and to how much of a hangover you’re going to have.

Dr. Glatter: The hangover is really what it’s about because people want to be functional the next day. There are many companies out there that market hangover remedies, but people are using this as the hangover remedy in a way that’s socially accepted. That’s a good point you make.

The question is how do we get the message out to parents and teens? What’s the best way you feel to really sound the alarm here?

Dr. Nelson: These are challenging issues. We face this all the time with all the sorts of social media in particular. Most parents are not as savvy on social media as their kids are. You have to know what your children are doing. You should know what they’re listening to and watching. You do have to pay attention to the media directed at parents that will inform you a little bit about what your kids are doing. You have to talk with your kids and make sure they understand what it is that they’re doing.

We do this with our kids for some things. Hopefully, we talk about drinking, smoking, sex, and other things with our children (like driving if they get to that stage) and make sure they understand what the risks are and how to mitigate those risks. Being an attentive parent is part of it.

Sometimes you need outside messengers to do it. We’d like to believe that these social media companies are able to police themselves – at least they pay lip service to the fact they do. They have warnings that they’ll take things down that aren’t socially appropriate. Whether they do or not, I don’t know, because you keep seeing things about BORG on these media sites. If they are doing it, they’re not doing it efficiently or quickly enough.

Dr. Glatter: There has to be some censorship. These are young persons who are impressionable, who have developing brains, who are looking at this, thinking that if it’s out there on social media, such as TikTok or Instagram, then it’s okay to do so. That message has to be driven home.

Dr. Nelson: That’s a great point, and it’s tough. We know there’s been debate over the liability of social media or what they post, and whether or not they should be held liable like a more conventional media company or not. That’s politics and philosophy, and we’re probably not going to solve it here.

All these things wind up going viral and there’s probably got to be some filter on things that go viral. Maybe they need to have a bit more attentiveness to that when those things start happening. Now, clearly not every one of these is viral. When you think about some of the challenges we’ve seen in the past, such as the Tide Pod challenge and cinnamon challenge, some of these things could be quickly figured out to be dangerous.

I remember that the ice bucket challenge for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis was pretty benign. You pour a bucket of water over your head, and people aren’t really getting hurt. That’s fun and good, and let people go out and do that. That could pass through the filter. When you start to see people drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, it doesn’t take an emergency physician to know that’s not a good thing. Any parent should know that if my kid drinks half a bottle or a bottle of vodka over a short period of time, that just can’t be okay.

Dr. Glatter: It’s a public health issue. That’s what we need to elevate it to because ultimately that’s what it impacts: welfare and safety.

Speaking of buckets, there’s a new bucket challenge, wherein unsuspecting people have a bucket put on their head, can’t breathe, and then pass out. There’s been a number of these reported and actually filmed on social media. Here’s another example of dangerous types of behavior that essentially are a form of assault. Unsuspecting people suffer injuries from young children and teens trying to play pranks.

Again, had there not been this medium, we wouldn’t necessarily see the extent of the injuries. I guess going forward, the next step would be to send a message to colleges that there should be some form of warning if this trend is seen, at least from a public health standpoint.

Dr. Nelson: Education is a necessary thing to do, but it’s almost never the real solution to a problem. We can educate people as best we can that they need to do things right. At some point, we’re going to need to regulate it or manage it somehow.

Whether it’s through a carrot or a stick approach, or whether you want to give people kudos for doing the right thing or punish them for doing something wrong, that’s a tough decision to make and one that is going to be made by a parent or guardian, a school official, or law enforcement. Somehow, we have to figure out how to make this happen.

There’s not going to be a single size that fits all for this. At some level, we have to do something to educate and regulate. The balance between those two things is going to be political and philosophical in nature.

Dr. Glatter: Right, and the element of peer pressure and conformity in this is really part of the element. If we try to remove that aspect of it, then often these trends would go away. That aspect of conformity and peer pressure is instrumental in fueling these trends. Maybe we can make a full gallon of water be the trend without any alcohol in there.

Dr. Nelson: We say water is only water, but as a medical toxicologist, I can tell you that one of the foundations in medical toxicology is that everything is toxic. It’s just the dose that determines the toxicity. Oxygen is toxic, water is toxic. Everything’s toxic if you take enough of it.

We know that whether it’s psychogenic or intentional, polydipsia by drinking excessive amounts of water, especially without electrolytes, is one of the reasons they say you should add electrolytes. That’s all relative as well, because depending on the electrolyte and how much you put in and things like that, that could also become dangerous. Drinking excessive amounts of water like they’re suggesting, which sounds like a good thing to prevent hangover and so on, can in and of itself be a problem too.

Dr. Glatter: Right, and we know that there’s no magic bullet for a hangover. Obviously, abstinence is the only thing that truly works.

Dr. Nelson: Or moderation.

Dr. Glatter: Until research proves further.

Thank you so much. You’ve made some really important points. Thank you for talking about the BORG phenomenon, how it relates to society in general, and what we can do to try to change people’s perception of alcohol and the bigger picture of binge drinking. I really appreciate it.

Dr. Nelson: Thanks, Rob, for having me. It’s an important topic and hopefully we can get a handle on this. I appreciate your time.

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Nelson is professor and chair of the department of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark. He is a member of the board of directors of the American Board of Emergency Medicine, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, and Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine and is past-president of the American College of Medical Toxicology. Dr. Glatter and Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This discussion was recorded on April 6, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining us today is Dr. Lewis Nelson, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and a certified medical toxicologist.

Today, we will be discussing an important and disturbing Gen Z trend circulating on social media, known as blackout rage gallon, or BORG.

Welcome, Lewis.

Lewis S. Nelson, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Thanks so much for joining us. This trend that’s been circulating on social media is really disturbing. It has elements that focus on binge drinking: Talking about taking a jug; emptying half of it out; and putting one fifth of vodka and some electrolytes, caffeine, or other things too is just incredibly disturbing. Teens and parents are looking at this. I’ll let you jump into the discussion.

Dr. Nelson: You’re totally right, it is disturbing. Binge drinking is a huge problem in this country in general. It’s a particular problem with young people – teenagers and young adults. I don’t think people appreciate the dangers associated with binge drinking, such as the amount of alcohol they consume and some of the unintended consequences of doing that.

To frame things quickly, we think there are probably around six people a day in the United States who die of alcohol poisoning. Alcohol poisoning basically is binge drinking to such an extent that you die of the alcohol itself. You’re not dying of a car crash or doing something that injures you. You’re dying of the alcohol. You’re drinking so much that your breathing slows, it stops, you have heart rhythm disturbances, and so on. It totals about 2,200 people a year in the United States.

Dr. Glatter: That’s alarming. For this trend, their argument is that half of the gallon is water. Therefore, I’m fine. I can drink it over 8-12 hours and it’s not an issue. How would you respond to that?

Dr. Nelson: Well, alcohol is alcohol. It’s all about how much you take in over what time period. I guess, in concept, it could be safer if you do it right. That’s not the way it’s been, so to speak, marketed on the various social media platforms. It’s meant to be a way to protect yourself from having your drink spiked or eating or ingesting contaminants from other people’s mouths when you share glasses or dip cups into communal pots like jungle juice or something.

Clearly, if you’re going to drink a large amount of alcohol over a short or long period of time, you do run the risk of having significant consequences, including bad decision-making if you’re just a little drunk all the way down to that of the complications you described about alcohol poisoning.

Dr. Glatter: There has been a comment made that this could be a form of harm reduction. The point of harm reduction is that we run trials, we validate it, and we test it. This, certainly in my mind, is no form of true harm reduction. I think you would agree.

Dr. Nelson: Many things that are marketed as harm reduction aren’t. There could be some aspects of this that could be considered harm reduction. You may believe – and there’s no reason not to – that protecting your drink is a good idea. If you’re at a bar and you leave your glass open and somebody put something in it, you can be drugged. Drug-facilitated sexual assault, for example, is a big issue. That means you have to leave your glass unattended. If you tend to your glass, it’s probably fine. One of the ways of harm reduction they mention is that by having a cap and having this bottle with you at all times, that can’t happen.

Now, in fairness, by far the drug most commonly associated with sexual assault is alcohol. It’s not gamma-hydroxybutyrate or ketamine. It’s not the other things that people are concerned about. Those happen, but those are small problems in the big picture. It’s drinking too much.

A form of harm reduction that you can comment on perhaps is that you make this drink concoction yourself, so you know what is in there. You can take that bottle, pour out half the water, and fill up the other half with water and nobody’s going to know. More likely, the way they say you should do it is you take your gallon jug, you pour it out, and you fill it up with one fifth of vodka.

One fifth of vodka is the same amount of volume as a bottle of wine. At 750 mL, that’s a huge amount of alcohol. If you measure the number of shots in that bottle, it’s about 17 shots. Even if you drink that over 6 hours, that’s still several shots an hour. That’s a large amount of alcohol. You might do two or three shots once and then not drink for a few hours. To sit and drink two or three shots an hour for 6 hours, that’s just an exceptional amount of alcohol.

They flavorize it and add caffeine, which only adds to the risk. It doesn’t make it in any way safer. With the volume, 1 gal of water or equivalent over a short period of time in and of itself could be a problem. There’s a large amount of mismessaging here. Whether something’s harm reduction, it could flip around to be easily construed or understood as being harmful.

Not to mention, the idea that when you make something safer, one of the unintended consequences of harm reduction is what we call risk compensation. This is best probably described as what’s called the Peltzman effect. The way that we think about airbags and seatbelts is that they’re going to reduce car crash deaths; and they do, but people drive faster and more recklessly because they know they’re safe.

This is a well-described problem in epidemiology: You expect a certain amount of harm reduction through some implemented process, but you don’t meet that because people take increased risks.

Dr. Glatter: Right. The idea of not developing a hangover is common among many teens and 20-somethings, thinking that because there’s hydration there, because half of it is water, it’s just not going to happen. There’s your “harm reduction,” but your judgment’s impaired. It’s day drinking at its best, all day long. Then someone has the idea to get behind the wheel. These are the disastrous consequences that we all fear.

Dr. Nelson: There is a great example, perhaps of an unintended consequence of harm reduction. By putting caffeine in it, depending on how much caffeine you put in, some of these mixtures can have up to 1,000 mg of caffeine. Remember, a cup of coffee is about 1-200 mg, so you’re talking about several cups of coffee. The idea is that you will not be able to sense, as you normally do, how drunk you are. You’re not going to be a sleepy drunk, you’re going to be an awake drunk.

The idea that you’re going to have to drive so you’re going to drink a strong cup of black coffee before you go driving, you’re not going to drive any better. I can assure you that. You’re going to be more awake, perhaps, and not fall asleep at the wheel, but you’re still going to have psychomotor impairment. Your judgment is going to be impaired. There’s nothing good that comes with adding caffeine except that you’re going to be awake.

From a hangover perspective, there are many things that we’ve guessed at or suggested as either prevention or cures for hangovers. I don’t doubt that you’re going to have some volume depletion if you drink a large amount of alcohol. Alcohol’s a diuretic, so you’re going to lose more volume than you bring in.

Hydrating is probably always a good idea, but there is hydrating and then there’s overhydrating. We don’t need volumes like that. If you drink a cup or two of water, you’re probably fine. You don’t need to drink half a gallon of water. That can lead to problems like delusional hyponatremia, and so forth. There’s not any clear benefit to doing it.

If you want to prevent a hangover, one of the ways you might do it is by using vodka. There are nice data that show that clear alcohols typically, particularly vodka, don’t have many of the congeners that make the specific forms of alcohol what they are. Bourbon smells and tastes like bourbon because of these little molecules, these alkalis and ketones and amino acids and things that make it taste and smell the way it does. That’s true for all the other alcohols.

Vodka has the least amount of that. Even wine and beer have those in them, but vodka is basically alcohol mixed with water. It’s probably the least hangover-prone of all the alcohols; but still, if you drink a lot of vodka, you’re going to have a hangover. It’s just a dose-response curve to how much alcohol you drink, to how drunk you get, and to how much of a hangover you’re going to have.

Dr. Glatter: The hangover is really what it’s about because people want to be functional the next day. There are many companies out there that market hangover remedies, but people are using this as the hangover remedy in a way that’s socially accepted. That’s a good point you make.

The question is how do we get the message out to parents and teens? What’s the best way you feel to really sound the alarm here?

Dr. Nelson: These are challenging issues. We face this all the time with all the sorts of social media in particular. Most parents are not as savvy on social media as their kids are. You have to know what your children are doing. You should know what they’re listening to and watching. You do have to pay attention to the media directed at parents that will inform you a little bit about what your kids are doing. You have to talk with your kids and make sure they understand what it is that they’re doing.

We do this with our kids for some things. Hopefully, we talk about drinking, smoking, sex, and other things with our children (like driving if they get to that stage) and make sure they understand what the risks are and how to mitigate those risks. Being an attentive parent is part of it.

Sometimes you need outside messengers to do it. We’d like to believe that these social media companies are able to police themselves – at least they pay lip service to the fact they do. They have warnings that they’ll take things down that aren’t socially appropriate. Whether they do or not, I don’t know, because you keep seeing things about BORG on these media sites. If they are doing it, they’re not doing it efficiently or quickly enough.

Dr. Glatter: There has to be some censorship. These are young persons who are impressionable, who have developing brains, who are looking at this, thinking that if it’s out there on social media, such as TikTok or Instagram, then it’s okay to do so. That message has to be driven home.

Dr. Nelson: That’s a great point, and it’s tough. We know there’s been debate over the liability of social media or what they post, and whether or not they should be held liable like a more conventional media company or not. That’s politics and philosophy, and we’re probably not going to solve it here.

All these things wind up going viral and there’s probably got to be some filter on things that go viral. Maybe they need to have a bit more attentiveness to that when those things start happening. Now, clearly not every one of these is viral. When you think about some of the challenges we’ve seen in the past, such as the Tide Pod challenge and cinnamon challenge, some of these things could be quickly figured out to be dangerous.

I remember that the ice bucket challenge for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis was pretty benign. You pour a bucket of water over your head, and people aren’t really getting hurt. That’s fun and good, and let people go out and do that. That could pass through the filter. When you start to see people drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, it doesn’t take an emergency physician to know that’s not a good thing. Any parent should know that if my kid drinks half a bottle or a bottle of vodka over a short period of time, that just can’t be okay.

Dr. Glatter: It’s a public health issue. That’s what we need to elevate it to because ultimately that’s what it impacts: welfare and safety.

Speaking of buckets, there’s a new bucket challenge, wherein unsuspecting people have a bucket put on their head, can’t breathe, and then pass out. There’s been a number of these reported and actually filmed on social media. Here’s another example of dangerous types of behavior that essentially are a form of assault. Unsuspecting people suffer injuries from young children and teens trying to play pranks.

Again, had there not been this medium, we wouldn’t necessarily see the extent of the injuries. I guess going forward, the next step would be to send a message to colleges that there should be some form of warning if this trend is seen, at least from a public health standpoint.

Dr. Nelson: Education is a necessary thing to do, but it’s almost never the real solution to a problem. We can educate people as best we can that they need to do things right. At some point, we’re going to need to regulate it or manage it somehow.

Whether it’s through a carrot or a stick approach, or whether you want to give people kudos for doing the right thing or punish them for doing something wrong, that’s a tough decision to make and one that is going to be made by a parent or guardian, a school official, or law enforcement. Somehow, we have to figure out how to make this happen.

There’s not going to be a single size that fits all for this. At some level, we have to do something to educate and regulate. The balance between those two things is going to be political and philosophical in nature.

Dr. Glatter: Right, and the element of peer pressure and conformity in this is really part of the element. If we try to remove that aspect of it, then often these trends would go away. That aspect of conformity and peer pressure is instrumental in fueling these trends. Maybe we can make a full gallon of water be the trend without any alcohol in there.

Dr. Nelson: We say water is only water, but as a medical toxicologist, I can tell you that one of the foundations in medical toxicology is that everything is toxic. It’s just the dose that determines the toxicity. Oxygen is toxic, water is toxic. Everything’s toxic if you take enough of it.

We know that whether it’s psychogenic or intentional, polydipsia by drinking excessive amounts of water, especially without electrolytes, is one of the reasons they say you should add electrolytes. That’s all relative as well, because depending on the electrolyte and how much you put in and things like that, that could also become dangerous. Drinking excessive amounts of water like they’re suggesting, which sounds like a good thing to prevent hangover and so on, can in and of itself be a problem too.

Dr. Glatter: Right, and we know that there’s no magic bullet for a hangover. Obviously, abstinence is the only thing that truly works.

Dr. Nelson: Or moderation.

Dr. Glatter: Until research proves further.

Thank you so much. You’ve made some really important points. Thank you for talking about the BORG phenomenon, how it relates to society in general, and what we can do to try to change people’s perception of alcohol and the bigger picture of binge drinking. I really appreciate it.

Dr. Nelson: Thanks, Rob, for having me. It’s an important topic and hopefully we can get a handle on this. I appreciate your time.

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Nelson is professor and chair of the department of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark. He is a member of the board of directors of the American Board of Emergency Medicine, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, and Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine and is past-president of the American College of Medical Toxicology. Dr. Glatter and Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This discussion was recorded on April 6, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining us today is Dr. Lewis Nelson, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and a certified medical toxicologist.

Today, we will be discussing an important and disturbing Gen Z trend circulating on social media, known as blackout rage gallon, or BORG.

Welcome, Lewis.

Lewis S. Nelson, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Thanks so much for joining us. This trend that’s been circulating on social media is really disturbing. It has elements that focus on binge drinking: Talking about taking a jug; emptying half of it out; and putting one fifth of vodka and some electrolytes, caffeine, or other things too is just incredibly disturbing. Teens and parents are looking at this. I’ll let you jump into the discussion.

Dr. Nelson: You’re totally right, it is disturbing. Binge drinking is a huge problem in this country in general. It’s a particular problem with young people – teenagers and young adults. I don’t think people appreciate the dangers associated with binge drinking, such as the amount of alcohol they consume and some of the unintended consequences of doing that.

To frame things quickly, we think there are probably around six people a day in the United States who die of alcohol poisoning. Alcohol poisoning basically is binge drinking to such an extent that you die of the alcohol itself. You’re not dying of a car crash or doing something that injures you. You’re dying of the alcohol. You’re drinking so much that your breathing slows, it stops, you have heart rhythm disturbances, and so on. It totals about 2,200 people a year in the United States.

Dr. Glatter: That’s alarming. For this trend, their argument is that half of the gallon is water. Therefore, I’m fine. I can drink it over 8-12 hours and it’s not an issue. How would you respond to that?

Dr. Nelson: Well, alcohol is alcohol. It’s all about how much you take in over what time period. I guess, in concept, it could be safer if you do it right. That’s not the way it’s been, so to speak, marketed on the various social media platforms. It’s meant to be a way to protect yourself from having your drink spiked or eating or ingesting contaminants from other people’s mouths when you share glasses or dip cups into communal pots like jungle juice or something.

Clearly, if you’re going to drink a large amount of alcohol over a short or long period of time, you do run the risk of having significant consequences, including bad decision-making if you’re just a little drunk all the way down to that of the complications you described about alcohol poisoning.

Dr. Glatter: There has been a comment made that this could be a form of harm reduction. The point of harm reduction is that we run trials, we validate it, and we test it. This, certainly in my mind, is no form of true harm reduction. I think you would agree.

Dr. Nelson: Many things that are marketed as harm reduction aren’t. There could be some aspects of this that could be considered harm reduction. You may believe – and there’s no reason not to – that protecting your drink is a good idea. If you’re at a bar and you leave your glass open and somebody put something in it, you can be drugged. Drug-facilitated sexual assault, for example, is a big issue. That means you have to leave your glass unattended. If you tend to your glass, it’s probably fine. One of the ways of harm reduction they mention is that by having a cap and having this bottle with you at all times, that can’t happen.

Now, in fairness, by far the drug most commonly associated with sexual assault is alcohol. It’s not gamma-hydroxybutyrate or ketamine. It’s not the other things that people are concerned about. Those happen, but those are small problems in the big picture. It’s drinking too much.

A form of harm reduction that you can comment on perhaps is that you make this drink concoction yourself, so you know what is in there. You can take that bottle, pour out half the water, and fill up the other half with water and nobody’s going to know. More likely, the way they say you should do it is you take your gallon jug, you pour it out, and you fill it up with one fifth of vodka.

One fifth of vodka is the same amount of volume as a bottle of wine. At 750 mL, that’s a huge amount of alcohol. If you measure the number of shots in that bottle, it’s about 17 shots. Even if you drink that over 6 hours, that’s still several shots an hour. That’s a large amount of alcohol. You might do two or three shots once and then not drink for a few hours. To sit and drink two or three shots an hour for 6 hours, that’s just an exceptional amount of alcohol.

They flavorize it and add caffeine, which only adds to the risk. It doesn’t make it in any way safer. With the volume, 1 gal of water or equivalent over a short period of time in and of itself could be a problem. There’s a large amount of mismessaging here. Whether something’s harm reduction, it could flip around to be easily construed or understood as being harmful.

Not to mention, the idea that when you make something safer, one of the unintended consequences of harm reduction is what we call risk compensation. This is best probably described as what’s called the Peltzman effect. The way that we think about airbags and seatbelts is that they’re going to reduce car crash deaths; and they do, but people drive faster and more recklessly because they know they’re safe.

This is a well-described problem in epidemiology: You expect a certain amount of harm reduction through some implemented process, but you don’t meet that because people take increased risks.

Dr. Glatter: Right. The idea of not developing a hangover is common among many teens and 20-somethings, thinking that because there’s hydration there, because half of it is water, it’s just not going to happen. There’s your “harm reduction,” but your judgment’s impaired. It’s day drinking at its best, all day long. Then someone has the idea to get behind the wheel. These are the disastrous consequences that we all fear.

Dr. Nelson: There is a great example, perhaps of an unintended consequence of harm reduction. By putting caffeine in it, depending on how much caffeine you put in, some of these mixtures can have up to 1,000 mg of caffeine. Remember, a cup of coffee is about 1-200 mg, so you’re talking about several cups of coffee. The idea is that you will not be able to sense, as you normally do, how drunk you are. You’re not going to be a sleepy drunk, you’re going to be an awake drunk.

The idea that you’re going to have to drive so you’re going to drink a strong cup of black coffee before you go driving, you’re not going to drive any better. I can assure you that. You’re going to be more awake, perhaps, and not fall asleep at the wheel, but you’re still going to have psychomotor impairment. Your judgment is going to be impaired. There’s nothing good that comes with adding caffeine except that you’re going to be awake.

From a hangover perspective, there are many things that we’ve guessed at or suggested as either prevention or cures for hangovers. I don’t doubt that you’re going to have some volume depletion if you drink a large amount of alcohol. Alcohol’s a diuretic, so you’re going to lose more volume than you bring in.

Hydrating is probably always a good idea, but there is hydrating and then there’s overhydrating. We don’t need volumes like that. If you drink a cup or two of water, you’re probably fine. You don’t need to drink half a gallon of water. That can lead to problems like delusional hyponatremia, and so forth. There’s not any clear benefit to doing it.

If you want to prevent a hangover, one of the ways you might do it is by using vodka. There are nice data that show that clear alcohols typically, particularly vodka, don’t have many of the congeners that make the specific forms of alcohol what they are. Bourbon smells and tastes like bourbon because of these little molecules, these alkalis and ketones and amino acids and things that make it taste and smell the way it does. That’s true for all the other alcohols.

Vodka has the least amount of that. Even wine and beer have those in them, but vodka is basically alcohol mixed with water. It’s probably the least hangover-prone of all the alcohols; but still, if you drink a lot of vodka, you’re going to have a hangover. It’s just a dose-response curve to how much alcohol you drink, to how drunk you get, and to how much of a hangover you’re going to have.

Dr. Glatter: The hangover is really what it’s about because people want to be functional the next day. There are many companies out there that market hangover remedies, but people are using this as the hangover remedy in a way that’s socially accepted. That’s a good point you make.

The question is how do we get the message out to parents and teens? What’s the best way you feel to really sound the alarm here?

Dr. Nelson: These are challenging issues. We face this all the time with all the sorts of social media in particular. Most parents are not as savvy on social media as their kids are. You have to know what your children are doing. You should know what they’re listening to and watching. You do have to pay attention to the media directed at parents that will inform you a little bit about what your kids are doing. You have to talk with your kids and make sure they understand what it is that they’re doing.

We do this with our kids for some things. Hopefully, we talk about drinking, smoking, sex, and other things with our children (like driving if they get to that stage) and make sure they understand what the risks are and how to mitigate those risks. Being an attentive parent is part of it.

Sometimes you need outside messengers to do it. We’d like to believe that these social media companies are able to police themselves – at least they pay lip service to the fact they do. They have warnings that they’ll take things down that aren’t socially appropriate. Whether they do or not, I don’t know, because you keep seeing things about BORG on these media sites. If they are doing it, they’re not doing it efficiently or quickly enough.

Dr. Glatter: There has to be some censorship. These are young persons who are impressionable, who have developing brains, who are looking at this, thinking that if it’s out there on social media, such as TikTok or Instagram, then it’s okay to do so. That message has to be driven home.

Dr. Nelson: That’s a great point, and it’s tough. We know there’s been debate over the liability of social media or what they post, and whether or not they should be held liable like a more conventional media company or not. That’s politics and philosophy, and we’re probably not going to solve it here.

All these things wind up going viral and there’s probably got to be some filter on things that go viral. Maybe they need to have a bit more attentiveness to that when those things start happening. Now, clearly not every one of these is viral. When you think about some of the challenges we’ve seen in the past, such as the Tide Pod challenge and cinnamon challenge, some of these things could be quickly figured out to be dangerous.

I remember that the ice bucket challenge for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis was pretty benign. You pour a bucket of water over your head, and people aren’t really getting hurt. That’s fun and good, and let people go out and do that. That could pass through the filter. When you start to see people drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, it doesn’t take an emergency physician to know that’s not a good thing. Any parent should know that if my kid drinks half a bottle or a bottle of vodka over a short period of time, that just can’t be okay.

Dr. Glatter: It’s a public health issue. That’s what we need to elevate it to because ultimately that’s what it impacts: welfare and safety.

Speaking of buckets, there’s a new bucket challenge, wherein unsuspecting people have a bucket put on their head, can’t breathe, and then pass out. There’s been a number of these reported and actually filmed on social media. Here’s another example of dangerous types of behavior that essentially are a form of assault. Unsuspecting people suffer injuries from young children and teens trying to play pranks.

Again, had there not been this medium, we wouldn’t necessarily see the extent of the injuries. I guess going forward, the next step would be to send a message to colleges that there should be some form of warning if this trend is seen, at least from a public health standpoint.

Dr. Nelson: Education is a necessary thing to do, but it’s almost never the real solution to a problem. We can educate people as best we can that they need to do things right. At some point, we’re going to need to regulate it or manage it somehow.

Whether it’s through a carrot or a stick approach, or whether you want to give people kudos for doing the right thing or punish them for doing something wrong, that’s a tough decision to make and one that is going to be made by a parent or guardian, a school official, or law enforcement. Somehow, we have to figure out how to make this happen.

There’s not going to be a single size that fits all for this. At some level, we have to do something to educate and regulate. The balance between those two things is going to be political and philosophical in nature.

Dr. Glatter: Right, and the element of peer pressure and conformity in this is really part of the element. If we try to remove that aspect of it, then often these trends would go away. That aspect of conformity and peer pressure is instrumental in fueling these trends. Maybe we can make a full gallon of water be the trend without any alcohol in there.

Dr. Nelson: We say water is only water, but as a medical toxicologist, I can tell you that one of the foundations in medical toxicology is that everything is toxic. It’s just the dose that determines the toxicity. Oxygen is toxic, water is toxic. Everything’s toxic if you take enough of it.

We know that whether it’s psychogenic or intentional, polydipsia by drinking excessive amounts of water, especially without electrolytes, is one of the reasons they say you should add electrolytes. That’s all relative as well, because depending on the electrolyte and how much you put in and things like that, that could also become dangerous. Drinking excessive amounts of water like they’re suggesting, which sounds like a good thing to prevent hangover and so on, can in and of itself be a problem too.

Dr. Glatter: Right, and we know that there’s no magic bullet for a hangover. Obviously, abstinence is the only thing that truly works.

Dr. Nelson: Or moderation.

Dr. Glatter: Until research proves further.

Thank you so much. You’ve made some really important points. Thank you for talking about the BORG phenomenon, how it relates to society in general, and what we can do to try to change people’s perception of alcohol and the bigger picture of binge drinking. I really appreciate it.

Dr. Nelson: Thanks, Rob, for having me. It’s an important topic and hopefully we can get a handle on this. I appreciate your time.

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Nelson is professor and chair of the department of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark. He is a member of the board of directors of the American Board of Emergency Medicine, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, and Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine and is past-president of the American College of Medical Toxicology. Dr. Glatter and Dr. Nelson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

We have long recognized that our environment has a significant impact on our general health. Air pollution is known to contribute to respiratory conditions, poor cardiovascular outcomes, and certain kinds of cancer. Less well-known (or studied) is the potential impact of such fumes on bone health.

It’s increasingly important to identify factors that might contribute to suboptimal bone density and associated fracture risk in the population as a whole, and particularly in older adults. Aging is associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis and fractures, with their attendant morbidity, but individuals differ in their extent of bone loss and risk for fractures.

Known factors affecting bone health include genetics, age, sex, nutrition, physical activity, and hormonal factors. Certain medications, diseases, and lifestyle choices – such as smoking and alcohol intake – can also have deleterious effects on bone.

More recently, researchers have started examining the impact of air pollution on bone health.

As we know, the degree of pollution varies greatly from one region to another and can potentially significantly affect life in many parts of the world. In fact, the World Health Organization indicates that 99% of the world’s population breathes air exceeding the WHO guideline limits for pollutants.

Air pollutants include particulate matter (PM) as well as gases, such as nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and certain volatile organic compounds. Particulate pollutants include a variety of substances produced from mostly human activities (such as vehicle emissions, biofuel combustion, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing, and also forest fires). They are classified not by their composition, but by their size (for example, PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 indicate PM with a diameter < 1.0, 2.5, and 10 microns, respectively). The finer the particle, the more likely it is to cross into the systemic circulation from the respiratory tract, with the potential to induce oxidative, inflammatory, and other changes in the body.

Many studies report that air pollution is a risk factor for osteoporosis. Some have found associations of lower bone density, osteoporosis, and fracture risk with higher concentrations of PM1.0, PM2.5, or PM10, even after controlling for other factors that could affect bone health. Some researchers have reported that although they didn’t find a significant association between PM and bone health, they did find an association between distance from the freeway and bone health – thus, exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and black carbon from vehicle emissions needs to be studied as a contributor to fracture risk.

Importantly, a prospective, observational study from the Women’s Health Initiative (which included more than 9,000 ethnically diverse women from three sites in the United States) reported a significant negative impact of PM10, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide over 1, 3, and 5 years on bone density at multiple sites, and particularly at the lumbar spine, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors. This study reported that nitrogen dioxide exposure may be a key determinant of bone density at the lumbar spine and in the whole body. Similarly, other studies have reported associations between atmospheric nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide and risk for osteoporotic fractures.
 

Why the impact on bones?

The potential negative impact of pollution on bone has been attributed to many factors. PM induces systemic inflammation and an increase in cytokines that stimulate bone cells (osteoclasts) that cause bone loss. Other pollutants (gases and metal compounds) can cause oxidative damage to bone cells, whereas others act as endocrine disrupters and affect the functioning of these cells.

Pollution might also affect the synthesis and metabolism of vitamin D, which is necessary for absorption of calcium from the gut. High rates of pollution can reduce the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth which is important because certain wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation are necessary for vitamin D synthesis in our skin. Reduced vitamin D synthesis in skin can lead to poorly mineralized bone unless there is sufficient intake of vitamin D in diet or as supplements. Also, the conversion of vitamin D to its active form happens in the kidneys, and PM can be harmful to renal function. PM is also believed to cause increased breakdown of vitamin D into its inactive form.

Conversely, some studies have reported no association between pollution and bone density or osteoporosis risk, and two meta-analyses indicated that the association between the two is inconsistent. Some factors explaining variances in results include the number of individuals included in the study (larger studies are generally considered to be more reproducible), the fact that most studies are cross-sectional and not prospective, many do not control for other factors that might be deleterious to bone, and prediction models for the extent of PM or other exposure may not be completely accurate.

However, another recent meta-analysis reported an increased risk for lower total-body bone density and hip fracture after exposure to air pollution, particularly PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide, but not to PM10, nitric oxide, or ozone. More studies are needed to confirm, or refute, the association between air pollution and impaired bone health. But accumulating evidence suggests that air pollution very likely has a deleterious effect on bone.

When feasible, it’s important to avoid living or working in areas with poor air quality and high pollution rates. However, this isn’t always possible based on one’s occupation, geography, circumstances, or economic status. Therefore, attention to a cleaner environment is critical at both the individual and the macro level.

As an example of the latter, the city of London extended its ultralow emission zone (ULEZ) farther out of the city in October 2021, and a further expansion is planned to include all of the city’s boroughs in August 2023.

We can do our bit by driving less and walking, biking, or using public transportation more often. We can also turn off the car engine when it’s not running, maintain our vehicles, switch to electric or hand-powered yard equipment, and not burn household garbage and limit backyard fires. We can also switch from gas to solar energy or wind, use efficient appliances and heating, and avoid unnecessary energy use. And we can choose sustainable products when possible.

For optimal bone health, we should remind patients to eat a healthy diet with the requisite amount of protein, calcium, and vitamin D. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation may be necessary for people whose intake of dairy and dairy products is low. Other important strategies to optimize bone health include engaging in healthy physical activity; avoiding smoking or excessive alcohol intake; and treating underlying gastrointestinal, endocrine, or other conditions that can reduce bone density.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is the chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children; the associate director of the Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; and the director of the Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital, Boston.

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

We have long recognized that our environment has a significant impact on our general health. Air pollution is known to contribute to respiratory conditions, poor cardiovascular outcomes, and certain kinds of cancer. Less well-known (or studied) is the potential impact of such fumes on bone health.

It’s increasingly important to identify factors that might contribute to suboptimal bone density and associated fracture risk in the population as a whole, and particularly in older adults. Aging is associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis and fractures, with their attendant morbidity, but individuals differ in their extent of bone loss and risk for fractures.

Known factors affecting bone health include genetics, age, sex, nutrition, physical activity, and hormonal factors. Certain medications, diseases, and lifestyle choices – such as smoking and alcohol intake – can also have deleterious effects on bone.

More recently, researchers have started examining the impact of air pollution on bone health.

As we know, the degree of pollution varies greatly from one region to another and can potentially significantly affect life in many parts of the world. In fact, the World Health Organization indicates that 99% of the world’s population breathes air exceeding the WHO guideline limits for pollutants.

Air pollutants include particulate matter (PM) as well as gases, such as nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and certain volatile organic compounds. Particulate pollutants include a variety of substances produced from mostly human activities (such as vehicle emissions, biofuel combustion, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing, and also forest fires). They are classified not by their composition, but by their size (for example, PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 indicate PM with a diameter < 1.0, 2.5, and 10 microns, respectively). The finer the particle, the more likely it is to cross into the systemic circulation from the respiratory tract, with the potential to induce oxidative, inflammatory, and other changes in the body.

Many studies report that air pollution is a risk factor for osteoporosis. Some have found associations of lower bone density, osteoporosis, and fracture risk with higher concentrations of PM1.0, PM2.5, or PM10, even after controlling for other factors that could affect bone health. Some researchers have reported that although they didn’t find a significant association between PM and bone health, they did find an association between distance from the freeway and bone health – thus, exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and black carbon from vehicle emissions needs to be studied as a contributor to fracture risk.

Importantly, a prospective, observational study from the Women’s Health Initiative (which included more than 9,000 ethnically diverse women from three sites in the United States) reported a significant negative impact of PM10, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide over 1, 3, and 5 years on bone density at multiple sites, and particularly at the lumbar spine, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors. This study reported that nitrogen dioxide exposure may be a key determinant of bone density at the lumbar spine and in the whole body. Similarly, other studies have reported associations between atmospheric nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide and risk for osteoporotic fractures.
 

Why the impact on bones?

The potential negative impact of pollution on bone has been attributed to many factors. PM induces systemic inflammation and an increase in cytokines that stimulate bone cells (osteoclasts) that cause bone loss. Other pollutants (gases and metal compounds) can cause oxidative damage to bone cells, whereas others act as endocrine disrupters and affect the functioning of these cells.

Pollution might also affect the synthesis and metabolism of vitamin D, which is necessary for absorption of calcium from the gut. High rates of pollution can reduce the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth which is important because certain wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation are necessary for vitamin D synthesis in our skin. Reduced vitamin D synthesis in skin can lead to poorly mineralized bone unless there is sufficient intake of vitamin D in diet or as supplements. Also, the conversion of vitamin D to its active form happens in the kidneys, and PM can be harmful to renal function. PM is also believed to cause increased breakdown of vitamin D into its inactive form.

Conversely, some studies have reported no association between pollution and bone density or osteoporosis risk, and two meta-analyses indicated that the association between the two is inconsistent. Some factors explaining variances in results include the number of individuals included in the study (larger studies are generally considered to be more reproducible), the fact that most studies are cross-sectional and not prospective, many do not control for other factors that might be deleterious to bone, and prediction models for the extent of PM or other exposure may not be completely accurate.

However, another recent meta-analysis reported an increased risk for lower total-body bone density and hip fracture after exposure to air pollution, particularly PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide, but not to PM10, nitric oxide, or ozone. More studies are needed to confirm, or refute, the association between air pollution and impaired bone health. But accumulating evidence suggests that air pollution very likely has a deleterious effect on bone.

When feasible, it’s important to avoid living or working in areas with poor air quality and high pollution rates. However, this isn’t always possible based on one’s occupation, geography, circumstances, or economic status. Therefore, attention to a cleaner environment is critical at both the individual and the macro level.

As an example of the latter, the city of London extended its ultralow emission zone (ULEZ) farther out of the city in October 2021, and a further expansion is planned to include all of the city’s boroughs in August 2023.

We can do our bit by driving less and walking, biking, or using public transportation more often. We can also turn off the car engine when it’s not running, maintain our vehicles, switch to electric or hand-powered yard equipment, and not burn household garbage and limit backyard fires. We can also switch from gas to solar energy or wind, use efficient appliances and heating, and avoid unnecessary energy use. And we can choose sustainable products when possible.

For optimal bone health, we should remind patients to eat a healthy diet with the requisite amount of protein, calcium, and vitamin D. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation may be necessary for people whose intake of dairy and dairy products is low. Other important strategies to optimize bone health include engaging in healthy physical activity; avoiding smoking or excessive alcohol intake; and treating underlying gastrointestinal, endocrine, or other conditions that can reduce bone density.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is the chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children; the associate director of the Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; and the director of the Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital, Boston.

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

We have long recognized that our environment has a significant impact on our general health. Air pollution is known to contribute to respiratory conditions, poor cardiovascular outcomes, and certain kinds of cancer. Less well-known (or studied) is the potential impact of such fumes on bone health.

It’s increasingly important to identify factors that might contribute to suboptimal bone density and associated fracture risk in the population as a whole, and particularly in older adults. Aging is associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis and fractures, with their attendant morbidity, but individuals differ in their extent of bone loss and risk for fractures.

Known factors affecting bone health include genetics, age, sex, nutrition, physical activity, and hormonal factors. Certain medications, diseases, and lifestyle choices – such as smoking and alcohol intake – can also have deleterious effects on bone.

More recently, researchers have started examining the impact of air pollution on bone health.

As we know, the degree of pollution varies greatly from one region to another and can potentially significantly affect life in many parts of the world. In fact, the World Health Organization indicates that 99% of the world’s population breathes air exceeding the WHO guideline limits for pollutants.

Air pollutants include particulate matter (PM) as well as gases, such as nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and certain volatile organic compounds. Particulate pollutants include a variety of substances produced from mostly human activities (such as vehicle emissions, biofuel combustion, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing, and also forest fires). They are classified not by their composition, but by their size (for example, PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 indicate PM with a diameter < 1.0, 2.5, and 10 microns, respectively). The finer the particle, the more likely it is to cross into the systemic circulation from the respiratory tract, with the potential to induce oxidative, inflammatory, and other changes in the body.

Many studies report that air pollution is a risk factor for osteoporosis. Some have found associations of lower bone density, osteoporosis, and fracture risk with higher concentrations of PM1.0, PM2.5, or PM10, even after controlling for other factors that could affect bone health. Some researchers have reported that although they didn’t find a significant association between PM and bone health, they did find an association between distance from the freeway and bone health – thus, exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and black carbon from vehicle emissions needs to be studied as a contributor to fracture risk.

Importantly, a prospective, observational study from the Women’s Health Initiative (which included more than 9,000 ethnically diverse women from three sites in the United States) reported a significant negative impact of PM10, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide over 1, 3, and 5 years on bone density at multiple sites, and particularly at the lumbar spine, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors. This study reported that nitrogen dioxide exposure may be a key determinant of bone density at the lumbar spine and in the whole body. Similarly, other studies have reported associations between atmospheric nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide and risk for osteoporotic fractures.
 

Why the impact on bones?

The potential negative impact of pollution on bone has been attributed to many factors. PM induces systemic inflammation and an increase in cytokines that stimulate bone cells (osteoclasts) that cause bone loss. Other pollutants (gases and metal compounds) can cause oxidative damage to bone cells, whereas others act as endocrine disrupters and affect the functioning of these cells.

Pollution might also affect the synthesis and metabolism of vitamin D, which is necessary for absorption of calcium from the gut. High rates of pollution can reduce the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth which is important because certain wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation are necessary for vitamin D synthesis in our skin. Reduced vitamin D synthesis in skin can lead to poorly mineralized bone unless there is sufficient intake of vitamin D in diet or as supplements. Also, the conversion of vitamin D to its active form happens in the kidneys, and PM can be harmful to renal function. PM is also believed to cause increased breakdown of vitamin D into its inactive form.

Conversely, some studies have reported no association between pollution and bone density or osteoporosis risk, and two meta-analyses indicated that the association between the two is inconsistent. Some factors explaining variances in results include the number of individuals included in the study (larger studies are generally considered to be more reproducible), the fact that most studies are cross-sectional and not prospective, many do not control for other factors that might be deleterious to bone, and prediction models for the extent of PM or other exposure may not be completely accurate.

However, another recent meta-analysis reported an increased risk for lower total-body bone density and hip fracture after exposure to air pollution, particularly PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide, but not to PM10, nitric oxide, or ozone. More studies are needed to confirm, or refute, the association between air pollution and impaired bone health. But accumulating evidence suggests that air pollution very likely has a deleterious effect on bone.

When feasible, it’s important to avoid living or working in areas with poor air quality and high pollution rates. However, this isn’t always possible based on one’s occupation, geography, circumstances, or economic status. Therefore, attention to a cleaner environment is critical at both the individual and the macro level.

As an example of the latter, the city of London extended its ultralow emission zone (ULEZ) farther out of the city in October 2021, and a further expansion is planned to include all of the city’s boroughs in August 2023.

We can do our bit by driving less and walking, biking, or using public transportation more often. We can also turn off the car engine when it’s not running, maintain our vehicles, switch to electric or hand-powered yard equipment, and not burn household garbage and limit backyard fires. We can also switch from gas to solar energy or wind, use efficient appliances and heating, and avoid unnecessary energy use. And we can choose sustainable products when possible.

For optimal bone health, we should remind patients to eat a healthy diet with the requisite amount of protein, calcium, and vitamin D. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation may be necessary for people whose intake of dairy and dairy products is low. Other important strategies to optimize bone health include engaging in healthy physical activity; avoiding smoking or excessive alcohol intake; and treating underlying gastrointestinal, endocrine, or other conditions that can reduce bone density.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is the chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children; the associate director of the Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; and the director of the Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital, Boston.

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