Clinical Neurology News

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Early reduction of blood pressure has a beneficial effect in hemorrhagic stroke but a detrimental effect in ischemic stroke, new trial data show. The findings could shake up recommendations on control of blood pressure in acute stroke patients. 

“This is the first time that we have randomized evidence of blood pressure control prior to reperfusion in ischemic stroke patients, and our data will challenge the current guidelines that recommend lowering blood pressure to below 180 mm Hg systolic in these patients,” said study coauthor Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. 

“And this study also clearly shows for the first time that getting blood pressure under control in hemorrhagic stroke patients in the first couple of hours has definitive benefits,” he added.

The findings were presented on May 16 at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

A Test of Early BP Control

The trial was conducted to test the strategy of very early blood pressure control during patient transport in an ambulance after acute stroke, which investigators suspected could benefit patients with both types of stroke. 

The hypothesis was that this would reduce bleeding in the brain for those with hemorrhagic stroke. For ischemic stroke patients, it was thought this strategy would speed up administration of thrombolysis, because guidelines recommend bringing blood pressure under control before thrombolysis. 

For the INTERACT4 trial, which was conducted in China, 2404 patients with suspected acute stroke and elevated systolic blood pressure (≥ 150 mm Hg) who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after symptom onset were randomized to receive immediate treatment with intravenous urapidil to lower the systolic blood pressure or usual blood pressure management (usual care group).

The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes, and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. 

Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 46% had a hemorrhagic stroke and 54% an ischemic stroke. 

At the time of arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 158 mm Hg, compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual care group. 

The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. 

Overall, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of functional outcome scores (common odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar. 

But the study showed very different results in patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs those with ischemic stroke. 

Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92) but an increase in poor outcomes among patients with cerebral ischemia (common OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60).

‘Slam-Dunk’ Effect 

Anderson has led several previous trials of blood pressure control in stroke patients, some of which have suggested benefit of lowering blood pressure in those with hemorrhagic stroke, but he says the results of the current trial are more clear-cut.

“We have never seen such a slam-dunk effect as there was in INTERACT4,” Dr. Anderson said. “Not only did we show that early reduction of blood pressure in hemorrhagic stroke patients improved functional outcome, it also reduced bleeding in the brain, improved survival and quality of life, and reduced surgery and infection complications. That’s quite remarkable.”

The findings offer “clear evidence that for patients with hemorrhagic stroke, we must get the blood pressure under control as soon as possible and introduce systems of care to ensure this happens,” he added.

The reason for the clear findings in the current trial is probably the treatment time, Dr. Anderson said. 

“This is the first trial in which blood pressure has been controlled in the ambulance and occurred much earlier than in the previous trials.” 

Challenging Ischemic Stroke Guidelines

The INTERACT4 results in ischemic stroke patients are likely to be more controversial. 

“Our results are clearly challenging longstanding beliefs around blood pressure control in ischemic stroke prior to thrombolysis,” Dr. Anderson said. 

Current guidelines recommend a blood pressure < 185 mm Hg systolic before initiation of thrombolysis because of concerns about intracerebral hemorrhage, he noted. Often, blood pressure is lowered rapidly down to much lower levels in order give thrombolysis quickly. 

“Our results suggest this may not be a good idea,” Dr. Anderson said. “I think these data will shake us up a bit and make us more cautious about reducing blood pressure in these patients. Personally, I wouldn’t touch the blood pressure at all in ischemic stroke patients after these results.” 

He said the mechanisms behind the different stroke types would explain the results. 

“If a patient is bleeding, it makes sense that higher blood pressure would make that worse,” Dr. Anderson said. “But when a patient has a blocked artery and ischemia in the brain, it seems likely that the extra pressure is needed to keep oxygen delivery to the ischemic tissue.”

Accurate Diagnosis Necessary

Because it is not possible to make an accurate diagnosis between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke without a CT scan, Dr. Anderson stressed that at the present time, no action on blood pressure can be taken in the ambulance. 

“There is a lot of interest in developing a lightweight brain scanner to be used in ambulances, but this won’t be routinely available for several years,” he said. “So for now, quick diagnosis of the type of stroke that is occurring on the patient’s arrival at the emergency department and, for hemorrhagic stroke patients, swift action to control blood pressure at this point is critical to preserving brain function.”

Commenting on the INTERACT4 results at the ESOC meeting, Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said this was a very important trial that would impact clinical practice. 

“The data really reinforce that hemorrhagic stroke patients must have their blood pressure reduced as soon as possible,” she stated. 

Dr. Sacco said the trial emphasizes the need to be able to distinguish between a hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in a prehospital setting and supports the introduction of more mobile stroke units carrying CT scanners and calls for the development of biomarkers that can allow rapid differentiation between the two conditions. 

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Edlow, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, points out several aspects of the trial that may potentially limit the generalizability of the findings. These include use of urapidil as the antihypertensive agent, which is unavailable in the United States; all patients being of Han Chinese ethnicity; and an unusually high sensitivity of initial CT scans in detecting visible signs of ischemia or infarction in patients in acute ischemic stroke. 

“These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating, and they make the case for validation of the trial results in other settings,” Dr. Edlow wrote. 

The INTERACT4 trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the George Institute for Global Health, several Chinese healthcare institutions, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals China. Disclosures for study and editorial authors are provided in the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Early reduction of blood pressure has a beneficial effect in hemorrhagic stroke but a detrimental effect in ischemic stroke, new trial data show. The findings could shake up recommendations on control of blood pressure in acute stroke patients. 

“This is the first time that we have randomized evidence of blood pressure control prior to reperfusion in ischemic stroke patients, and our data will challenge the current guidelines that recommend lowering blood pressure to below 180 mm Hg systolic in these patients,” said study coauthor Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. 

“And this study also clearly shows for the first time that getting blood pressure under control in hemorrhagic stroke patients in the first couple of hours has definitive benefits,” he added.

The findings were presented on May 16 at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

A Test of Early BP Control

The trial was conducted to test the strategy of very early blood pressure control during patient transport in an ambulance after acute stroke, which investigators suspected could benefit patients with both types of stroke. 

The hypothesis was that this would reduce bleeding in the brain for those with hemorrhagic stroke. For ischemic stroke patients, it was thought this strategy would speed up administration of thrombolysis, because guidelines recommend bringing blood pressure under control before thrombolysis. 

For the INTERACT4 trial, which was conducted in China, 2404 patients with suspected acute stroke and elevated systolic blood pressure (≥ 150 mm Hg) who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after symptom onset were randomized to receive immediate treatment with intravenous urapidil to lower the systolic blood pressure or usual blood pressure management (usual care group).

The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes, and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. 

Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 46% had a hemorrhagic stroke and 54% an ischemic stroke. 

At the time of arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 158 mm Hg, compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual care group. 

The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. 

Overall, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of functional outcome scores (common odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar. 

But the study showed very different results in patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs those with ischemic stroke. 

Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92) but an increase in poor outcomes among patients with cerebral ischemia (common OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60).

‘Slam-Dunk’ Effect 

Anderson has led several previous trials of blood pressure control in stroke patients, some of which have suggested benefit of lowering blood pressure in those with hemorrhagic stroke, but he says the results of the current trial are more clear-cut.

“We have never seen such a slam-dunk effect as there was in INTERACT4,” Dr. Anderson said. “Not only did we show that early reduction of blood pressure in hemorrhagic stroke patients improved functional outcome, it also reduced bleeding in the brain, improved survival and quality of life, and reduced surgery and infection complications. That’s quite remarkable.”

The findings offer “clear evidence that for patients with hemorrhagic stroke, we must get the blood pressure under control as soon as possible and introduce systems of care to ensure this happens,” he added.

The reason for the clear findings in the current trial is probably the treatment time, Dr. Anderson said. 

“This is the first trial in which blood pressure has been controlled in the ambulance and occurred much earlier than in the previous trials.” 

Challenging Ischemic Stroke Guidelines

The INTERACT4 results in ischemic stroke patients are likely to be more controversial. 

“Our results are clearly challenging longstanding beliefs around blood pressure control in ischemic stroke prior to thrombolysis,” Dr. Anderson said. 

Current guidelines recommend a blood pressure < 185 mm Hg systolic before initiation of thrombolysis because of concerns about intracerebral hemorrhage, he noted. Often, blood pressure is lowered rapidly down to much lower levels in order give thrombolysis quickly. 

“Our results suggest this may not be a good idea,” Dr. Anderson said. “I think these data will shake us up a bit and make us more cautious about reducing blood pressure in these patients. Personally, I wouldn’t touch the blood pressure at all in ischemic stroke patients after these results.” 

He said the mechanisms behind the different stroke types would explain the results. 

“If a patient is bleeding, it makes sense that higher blood pressure would make that worse,” Dr. Anderson said. “But when a patient has a blocked artery and ischemia in the brain, it seems likely that the extra pressure is needed to keep oxygen delivery to the ischemic tissue.”

Accurate Diagnosis Necessary

Because it is not possible to make an accurate diagnosis between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke without a CT scan, Dr. Anderson stressed that at the present time, no action on blood pressure can be taken in the ambulance. 

“There is a lot of interest in developing a lightweight brain scanner to be used in ambulances, but this won’t be routinely available for several years,” he said. “So for now, quick diagnosis of the type of stroke that is occurring on the patient’s arrival at the emergency department and, for hemorrhagic stroke patients, swift action to control blood pressure at this point is critical to preserving brain function.”

Commenting on the INTERACT4 results at the ESOC meeting, Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said this was a very important trial that would impact clinical practice. 

“The data really reinforce that hemorrhagic stroke patients must have their blood pressure reduced as soon as possible,” she stated. 

Dr. Sacco said the trial emphasizes the need to be able to distinguish between a hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in a prehospital setting and supports the introduction of more mobile stroke units carrying CT scanners and calls for the development of biomarkers that can allow rapid differentiation between the two conditions. 

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Edlow, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, points out several aspects of the trial that may potentially limit the generalizability of the findings. These include use of urapidil as the antihypertensive agent, which is unavailable in the United States; all patients being of Han Chinese ethnicity; and an unusually high sensitivity of initial CT scans in detecting visible signs of ischemia or infarction in patients in acute ischemic stroke. 

“These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating, and they make the case for validation of the trial results in other settings,” Dr. Edlow wrote. 

The INTERACT4 trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the George Institute for Global Health, several Chinese healthcare institutions, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals China. Disclosures for study and editorial authors are provided in the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BASEL, SWITZERLAND — Early reduction of blood pressure has a beneficial effect in hemorrhagic stroke but a detrimental effect in ischemic stroke, new trial data show. The findings could shake up recommendations on control of blood pressure in acute stroke patients. 

“This is the first time that we have randomized evidence of blood pressure control prior to reperfusion in ischemic stroke patients, and our data will challenge the current guidelines that recommend lowering blood pressure to below 180 mm Hg systolic in these patients,” said study coauthor Craig Anderson, MD, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia. 

“And this study also clearly shows for the first time that getting blood pressure under control in hemorrhagic stroke patients in the first couple of hours has definitive benefits,” he added.

The findings were presented on May 16 at the European Stroke Organization Conference (ESOC) annual meeting and published online simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

A Test of Early BP Control

The trial was conducted to test the strategy of very early blood pressure control during patient transport in an ambulance after acute stroke, which investigators suspected could benefit patients with both types of stroke. 

The hypothesis was that this would reduce bleeding in the brain for those with hemorrhagic stroke. For ischemic stroke patients, it was thought this strategy would speed up administration of thrombolysis, because guidelines recommend bringing blood pressure under control before thrombolysis. 

For the INTERACT4 trial, which was conducted in China, 2404 patients with suspected acute stroke and elevated systolic blood pressure (≥ 150 mm Hg) who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after symptom onset were randomized to receive immediate treatment with intravenous urapidil to lower the systolic blood pressure or usual blood pressure management (usual care group).

The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes, and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. 

Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 46% had a hemorrhagic stroke and 54% an ischemic stroke. 

At the time of arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 158 mm Hg, compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual care group. 

The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. 

Overall, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of functional outcome scores (common odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar. 

But the study showed very different results in patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs those with ischemic stroke. 

Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92) but an increase in poor outcomes among patients with cerebral ischemia (common OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.60).

‘Slam-Dunk’ Effect 

Anderson has led several previous trials of blood pressure control in stroke patients, some of which have suggested benefit of lowering blood pressure in those with hemorrhagic stroke, but he says the results of the current trial are more clear-cut.

“We have never seen such a slam-dunk effect as there was in INTERACT4,” Dr. Anderson said. “Not only did we show that early reduction of blood pressure in hemorrhagic stroke patients improved functional outcome, it also reduced bleeding in the brain, improved survival and quality of life, and reduced surgery and infection complications. That’s quite remarkable.”

The findings offer “clear evidence that for patients with hemorrhagic stroke, we must get the blood pressure under control as soon as possible and introduce systems of care to ensure this happens,” he added.

The reason for the clear findings in the current trial is probably the treatment time, Dr. Anderson said. 

“This is the first trial in which blood pressure has been controlled in the ambulance and occurred much earlier than in the previous trials.” 

Challenging Ischemic Stroke Guidelines

The INTERACT4 results in ischemic stroke patients are likely to be more controversial. 

“Our results are clearly challenging longstanding beliefs around blood pressure control in ischemic stroke prior to thrombolysis,” Dr. Anderson said. 

Current guidelines recommend a blood pressure < 185 mm Hg systolic before initiation of thrombolysis because of concerns about intracerebral hemorrhage, he noted. Often, blood pressure is lowered rapidly down to much lower levels in order give thrombolysis quickly. 

“Our results suggest this may not be a good idea,” Dr. Anderson said. “I think these data will shake us up a bit and make us more cautious about reducing blood pressure in these patients. Personally, I wouldn’t touch the blood pressure at all in ischemic stroke patients after these results.” 

He said the mechanisms behind the different stroke types would explain the results. 

“If a patient is bleeding, it makes sense that higher blood pressure would make that worse,” Dr. Anderson said. “But when a patient has a blocked artery and ischemia in the brain, it seems likely that the extra pressure is needed to keep oxygen delivery to the ischemic tissue.”

Accurate Diagnosis Necessary

Because it is not possible to make an accurate diagnosis between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke without a CT scan, Dr. Anderson stressed that at the present time, no action on blood pressure can be taken in the ambulance. 

“There is a lot of interest in developing a lightweight brain scanner to be used in ambulances, but this won’t be routinely available for several years,” he said. “So for now, quick diagnosis of the type of stroke that is occurring on the patient’s arrival at the emergency department and, for hemorrhagic stroke patients, swift action to control blood pressure at this point is critical to preserving brain function.”

Commenting on the INTERACT4 results at the ESOC meeting, Simona Sacco, MD, professor of neurology at the University of L’Aquila, Italy, said this was a very important trial that would impact clinical practice. 

“The data really reinforce that hemorrhagic stroke patients must have their blood pressure reduced as soon as possible,” she stated. 

Dr. Sacco said the trial emphasizes the need to be able to distinguish between a hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in a prehospital setting and supports the introduction of more mobile stroke units carrying CT scanners and calls for the development of biomarkers that can allow rapid differentiation between the two conditions. 

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Edlow, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, points out several aspects of the trial that may potentially limit the generalizability of the findings. These include use of urapidil as the antihypertensive agent, which is unavailable in the United States; all patients being of Han Chinese ethnicity; and an unusually high sensitivity of initial CT scans in detecting visible signs of ischemia or infarction in patients in acute ischemic stroke. 

“These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating, and they make the case for validation of the trial results in other settings,” Dr. Edlow wrote. 

The INTERACT4 trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the George Institute for Global Health, several Chinese healthcare institutions, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals China. Disclosures for study and editorial authors are provided in the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

[embed:render:related:node:263583]

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

[embed:render:related:node:263583]

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

[embed:render:related:node:263583]

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel

A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.

I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. As anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows, it is an unknowable, fatal disease. Very few of my patients know my story. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.

Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.

Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.

166939_photo_web.jpg

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel

A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.

I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. As anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows, it is an unknowable, fatal disease. Very few of my patients know my story. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.

Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.

Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.

166939_photo_web.jpg

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel

A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.

I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. As anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows, it is an unknowable, fatal disease. Very few of my patients know my story. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.

Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.

Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.

166939_photo_web.jpg

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

[embed:render:related:node:264732]

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

[embed:render:related:node:264732]

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

[embed:render:related:node:264732]

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

[embed:render:related:node:265422]

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

[embed:render:related:node:265422]

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

[embed:render:related:node:265422]

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Claiming that both cosmetic and therapeutic uses of Botox and related products can lead to systemic iatrogenic botulism, Public Citizen is asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen warnings on the labeling of all approved botulinum toxin products.

The nonprofit watchdog group successfully petitioned the FDA in 2008 to require a warning for Botox and related products regarding the risk of distant spread of the toxin. In its latest petition to the agency, it says that the injectables need additional warnings about the possibility of iatrogenic botulism with initial and repeated doses and that individuals who contract the condition may need botulinum antitoxin to avert temporary muscle paralysis, hospitalization, and death.

The current warning does not contain any information about the potential need for antitoxin and downplays the need for giving antitoxin in the settings of excessive dosing, accidental injection, and oral ingestion, said Public Citizen.

“Our petition is based on clear postmarketing evidence that refutes industry propaganda claiming that Botox and related drugs are ‘always safe’ and that no ‘definitive’ cases of botulism have occurred with recommended doses,” Azza AbuDagga, PhD, health services researcher at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

Public Citizen said that using data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), it found 5414 reports of serious outcomes from botulinum toxin products from January 1989 through March 2021. Almost 22% involved cosmetic indications and about 78% involved therapeutic indications.

Of the 5414 reports, 121 (2%) specified botulism as an adverse reaction; 89 involved therapeutic uses of a botulinum toxin products, and 32 involved cosmetic uses. Many of those 121 reports involved doses within the recommended range for the indication, according to Public Citizen.

[embed:render:related:node:259026]

The group is also asking the FDA to remove what it calls misleading promotional statements in the labeling of Botox and Botox Cosmetic and from the medication guides for those products. The labels state that there have been “no definitive serious adverse event reports of distant spread of toxin effect” with either the cosmetic use or for use in treating chronic migraine, severe underarm sweating, blepharospasm, or strabismus. These statements do not appear in similar labeling in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, said Public Citizen.

“The FDA needs to implement our two requested actions quickly to warn the public in unambiguous terms about the risk of botulism associated with the use of Botox and related drugs,” Dr. AbuDagga said in the Public Citizen statement. “This will allow health care professionals and patients to make more informed decisions about the benefit-risk profile of these widely used drugs.”

The Public Citizen petition would apply to all seven approved botulinum toxin biological products: abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm (Daxxify), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Botox Cosmetic), prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau) and rimabotulinumtoxinB (Myobloc).

An FDA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the citizen petition, and that generally the agency does not comment on pending petitions. “When we respond to the petition, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency docket,” the spokesperson told this news organization. At press time, Botox manufacturer AbbVie had not responded to a request for a comment.

Botulinum toxin is the most-used product for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). The ISAPS reported that there were more than 7 million botulinum toxin procedures performed by plastic surgeons worldwide in 2021.

The American Society of Plastic Surgery reported that its members performed 4.4 million Botox procedures in 2020, while the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) said its members performed 2.3 million wrinkle-relaxing procedures in 2019, a 60% increase since 2012.

Claiming that both cosmetic and therapeutic uses of Botox and related products can lead to systemic iatrogenic botulism, Public Citizen is asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen warnings on the labeling of all approved botulinum toxin products.

The nonprofit watchdog group successfully petitioned the FDA in 2008 to require a warning for Botox and related products regarding the risk of distant spread of the toxin. In its latest petition to the agency, it says that the injectables need additional warnings about the possibility of iatrogenic botulism with initial and repeated doses and that individuals who contract the condition may need botulinum antitoxin to avert temporary muscle paralysis, hospitalization, and death.

The current warning does not contain any information about the potential need for antitoxin and downplays the need for giving antitoxin in the settings of excessive dosing, accidental injection, and oral ingestion, said Public Citizen.

“Our petition is based on clear postmarketing evidence that refutes industry propaganda claiming that Botox and related drugs are ‘always safe’ and that no ‘definitive’ cases of botulism have occurred with recommended doses,” Azza AbuDagga, PhD, health services researcher at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

Public Citizen said that using data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), it found 5414 reports of serious outcomes from botulinum toxin products from January 1989 through March 2021. Almost 22% involved cosmetic indications and about 78% involved therapeutic indications.

Of the 5414 reports, 121 (2%) specified botulism as an adverse reaction; 89 involved therapeutic uses of a botulinum toxin products, and 32 involved cosmetic uses. Many of those 121 reports involved doses within the recommended range for the indication, according to Public Citizen.

[embed:render:related:node:259026]

The group is also asking the FDA to remove what it calls misleading promotional statements in the labeling of Botox and Botox Cosmetic and from the medication guides for those products. The labels state that there have been “no definitive serious adverse event reports of distant spread of toxin effect” with either the cosmetic use or for use in treating chronic migraine, severe underarm sweating, blepharospasm, or strabismus. These statements do not appear in similar labeling in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, said Public Citizen.

“The FDA needs to implement our two requested actions quickly to warn the public in unambiguous terms about the risk of botulism associated with the use of Botox and related drugs,” Dr. AbuDagga said in the Public Citizen statement. “This will allow health care professionals and patients to make more informed decisions about the benefit-risk profile of these widely used drugs.”

The Public Citizen petition would apply to all seven approved botulinum toxin biological products: abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm (Daxxify), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Botox Cosmetic), prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau) and rimabotulinumtoxinB (Myobloc).

An FDA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the citizen petition, and that generally the agency does not comment on pending petitions. “When we respond to the petition, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency docket,” the spokesperson told this news organization. At press time, Botox manufacturer AbbVie had not responded to a request for a comment.

Botulinum toxin is the most-used product for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). The ISAPS reported that there were more than 7 million botulinum toxin procedures performed by plastic surgeons worldwide in 2021.

The American Society of Plastic Surgery reported that its members performed 4.4 million Botox procedures in 2020, while the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) said its members performed 2.3 million wrinkle-relaxing procedures in 2019, a 60% increase since 2012.

Claiming that both cosmetic and therapeutic uses of Botox and related products can lead to systemic iatrogenic botulism, Public Citizen is asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to strengthen warnings on the labeling of all approved botulinum toxin products.

The nonprofit watchdog group successfully petitioned the FDA in 2008 to require a warning for Botox and related products regarding the risk of distant spread of the toxin. In its latest petition to the agency, it says that the injectables need additional warnings about the possibility of iatrogenic botulism with initial and repeated doses and that individuals who contract the condition may need botulinum antitoxin to avert temporary muscle paralysis, hospitalization, and death.

The current warning does not contain any information about the potential need for antitoxin and downplays the need for giving antitoxin in the settings of excessive dosing, accidental injection, and oral ingestion, said Public Citizen.

“Our petition is based on clear postmarketing evidence that refutes industry propaganda claiming that Botox and related drugs are ‘always safe’ and that no ‘definitive’ cases of botulism have occurred with recommended doses,” Azza AbuDagga, PhD, health services researcher at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said in a statement.

Public Citizen said that using data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), it found 5414 reports of serious outcomes from botulinum toxin products from January 1989 through March 2021. Almost 22% involved cosmetic indications and about 78% involved therapeutic indications.

Of the 5414 reports, 121 (2%) specified botulism as an adverse reaction; 89 involved therapeutic uses of a botulinum toxin products, and 32 involved cosmetic uses. Many of those 121 reports involved doses within the recommended range for the indication, according to Public Citizen.

[embed:render:related:node:259026]

The group is also asking the FDA to remove what it calls misleading promotional statements in the labeling of Botox and Botox Cosmetic and from the medication guides for those products. The labels state that there have been “no definitive serious adverse event reports of distant spread of toxin effect” with either the cosmetic use or for use in treating chronic migraine, severe underarm sweating, blepharospasm, or strabismus. These statements do not appear in similar labeling in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, said Public Citizen.

“The FDA needs to implement our two requested actions quickly to warn the public in unambiguous terms about the risk of botulism associated with the use of Botox and related drugs,” Dr. AbuDagga said in the Public Citizen statement. “This will allow health care professionals and patients to make more informed decisions about the benefit-risk profile of these widely used drugs.”

The Public Citizen petition would apply to all seven approved botulinum toxin biological products: abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm (Daxxify), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Botox Cosmetic), prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau) and rimabotulinumtoxinB (Myobloc).

An FDA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the citizen petition, and that generally the agency does not comment on pending petitions. “When we respond to the petition, we will respond directly to the petitioner and post the response in the designated agency docket,” the spokesperson told this news organization. At press time, Botox manufacturer AbbVie had not responded to a request for a comment.

Botulinum toxin is the most-used product for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, according to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS). The ISAPS reported that there were more than 7 million botulinum toxin procedures performed by plastic surgeons worldwide in 2021.

The American Society of Plastic Surgery reported that its members performed 4.4 million Botox procedures in 2020, while the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) said its members performed 2.3 million wrinkle-relaxing procedures in 2019, a 60% increase since 2012.

Delusions of parasitosis is linked to female gender, older age, polypharmacy with more than five drugs, and certain types of drugs (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, gabapentin, and opioids), reported researchers in a small retrospective case-control study.

Delusions of parasitosis (DOP) affects mostly middle-aged women and has associations with renal failure and some medications, wrote corresponding author Colleen Reisz, MD, a dermatologist with the department of internal medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine, and her coauthors. The study was published online December 15, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“We hypothesize that vulnerability to DOP emerges when multiple factors combine, such as age, sex, medications, and changes in [drug] clearance capacity,” Dr. Reisz and her coauthors wrote. “Changes in health care, such as the dramatic increase in stimulant prescriptions and alternatives to opioids in pain management, may be contributing to off target drug effects on the brain.”

[embed:render:related:node:235540]

To test their hypothesis, the researchers conducted a case-control study of biometric and pharmaceutical data from 34 patients with DOP which they compared to an age-matched control group of 53 women presenting with a dermatitis above the clavicle from a general dermatology practice between 2012 and 2020. They de-identified the data and performed statistical analysis on variables that included biometric data and intake of pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. Polypharmacy was defined as five or more drugs.

Of the 34 patients with DOP, 27 were women with a mean age of 58 years and 7 were men with a mean age of 60 years. Dr. Reisz and her colleagues observed statistical significance between cases and controls in terms of polypharmacy (P = .011), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medications (P < .001), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (P = .005), opioids (P = .003), and gabapentin (P = .003).

In other findings, half of DOP cases presented with samples of perceived parasitic material, and four associated the perceived infestation with a single emotion-laden event. This prompted the researchers “to consider that DOP may share mechanisms with fear conditioning and extinction,” they wrote. “Fear conditioning refers to the process of memory acquisition and extinction. This process is essential for survival and has been studied in posttraumatic stress disorder.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective single-center design and the lack of control for factors such as socioeconomic background and level of education.

“Patients with DOP should undergo detailed drug histories and examination of clearance profiles, especially renal function,” the researchers concluded.

Evan A. Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, said that delusional infestation is one of the most difficult medical conditions to treat and study.

Rieder_Evan_NY_web.JPG

“Though the numbers of cases in this research letter are small, they are instructive in demonstrating a high burden of polypharmacy including psychostimulants, opioids, and SSRIs in such patients,” he told this news organization. “Dermatologists should be performing detailed drug histories, obtaining comprehensive lab work, and considering the effects of medications — both illicit and prescribed — on clinical presentations. While in many cases, delusional patients refuse to consent to psychopharmacologic medications (or treatment in general), the elimination or decrease in dose of certain problematic medications may be helpful in and of themselves.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for AbbVie, L’Oréal, Pierre Fabre, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.

Delusions of parasitosis is linked to female gender, older age, polypharmacy with more than five drugs, and certain types of drugs (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, gabapentin, and opioids), reported researchers in a small retrospective case-control study.

Delusions of parasitosis (DOP) affects mostly middle-aged women and has associations with renal failure and some medications, wrote corresponding author Colleen Reisz, MD, a dermatologist with the department of internal medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine, and her coauthors. The study was published online December 15, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“We hypothesize that vulnerability to DOP emerges when multiple factors combine, such as age, sex, medications, and changes in [drug] clearance capacity,” Dr. Reisz and her coauthors wrote. “Changes in health care, such as the dramatic increase in stimulant prescriptions and alternatives to opioids in pain management, may be contributing to off target drug effects on the brain.”

[embed:render:related:node:235540]

To test their hypothesis, the researchers conducted a case-control study of biometric and pharmaceutical data from 34 patients with DOP which they compared to an age-matched control group of 53 women presenting with a dermatitis above the clavicle from a general dermatology practice between 2012 and 2020. They de-identified the data and performed statistical analysis on variables that included biometric data and intake of pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. Polypharmacy was defined as five or more drugs.

Of the 34 patients with DOP, 27 were women with a mean age of 58 years and 7 were men with a mean age of 60 years. Dr. Reisz and her colleagues observed statistical significance between cases and controls in terms of polypharmacy (P = .011), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medications (P < .001), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (P = .005), opioids (P = .003), and gabapentin (P = .003).

In other findings, half of DOP cases presented with samples of perceived parasitic material, and four associated the perceived infestation with a single emotion-laden event. This prompted the researchers “to consider that DOP may share mechanisms with fear conditioning and extinction,” they wrote. “Fear conditioning refers to the process of memory acquisition and extinction. This process is essential for survival and has been studied in posttraumatic stress disorder.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective single-center design and the lack of control for factors such as socioeconomic background and level of education.

“Patients with DOP should undergo detailed drug histories and examination of clearance profiles, especially renal function,” the researchers concluded.

Evan A. Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, said that delusional infestation is one of the most difficult medical conditions to treat and study.

Rieder_Evan_NY_web.JPG

“Though the numbers of cases in this research letter are small, they are instructive in demonstrating a high burden of polypharmacy including psychostimulants, opioids, and SSRIs in such patients,” he told this news organization. “Dermatologists should be performing detailed drug histories, obtaining comprehensive lab work, and considering the effects of medications — both illicit and prescribed — on clinical presentations. While in many cases, delusional patients refuse to consent to psychopharmacologic medications (or treatment in general), the elimination or decrease in dose of certain problematic medications may be helpful in and of themselves.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for AbbVie, L’Oréal, Pierre Fabre, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.

Delusions of parasitosis is linked to female gender, older age, polypharmacy with more than five drugs, and certain types of drugs (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, gabapentin, and opioids), reported researchers in a small retrospective case-control study.

Delusions of parasitosis (DOP) affects mostly middle-aged women and has associations with renal failure and some medications, wrote corresponding author Colleen Reisz, MD, a dermatologist with the department of internal medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine, and her coauthors. The study was published online December 15, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“We hypothesize that vulnerability to DOP emerges when multiple factors combine, such as age, sex, medications, and changes in [drug] clearance capacity,” Dr. Reisz and her coauthors wrote. “Changes in health care, such as the dramatic increase in stimulant prescriptions and alternatives to opioids in pain management, may be contributing to off target drug effects on the brain.”

[embed:render:related:node:235540]

To test their hypothesis, the researchers conducted a case-control study of biometric and pharmaceutical data from 34 patients with DOP which they compared to an age-matched control group of 53 women presenting with a dermatitis above the clavicle from a general dermatology practice between 2012 and 2020. They de-identified the data and performed statistical analysis on variables that included biometric data and intake of pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. Polypharmacy was defined as five or more drugs.

Of the 34 patients with DOP, 27 were women with a mean age of 58 years and 7 were men with a mean age of 60 years. Dr. Reisz and her colleagues observed statistical significance between cases and controls in terms of polypharmacy (P = .011), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medications (P < .001), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (P = .005), opioids (P = .003), and gabapentin (P = .003).

In other findings, half of DOP cases presented with samples of perceived parasitic material, and four associated the perceived infestation with a single emotion-laden event. This prompted the researchers “to consider that DOP may share mechanisms with fear conditioning and extinction,” they wrote. “Fear conditioning refers to the process of memory acquisition and extinction. This process is essential for survival and has been studied in posttraumatic stress disorder.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective single-center design and the lack of control for factors such as socioeconomic background and level of education.

“Patients with DOP should undergo detailed drug histories and examination of clearance profiles, especially renal function,” the researchers concluded.

Evan A. Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, said that delusional infestation is one of the most difficult medical conditions to treat and study.

Rieder_Evan_NY_web.JPG

“Though the numbers of cases in this research letter are small, they are instructive in demonstrating a high burden of polypharmacy including psychostimulants, opioids, and SSRIs in such patients,” he told this news organization. “Dermatologists should be performing detailed drug histories, obtaining comprehensive lab work, and considering the effects of medications — both illicit and prescribed — on clinical presentations. While in many cases, delusional patients refuse to consent to psychopharmacologic medications (or treatment in general), the elimination or decrease in dose of certain problematic medications may be helpful in and of themselves.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for AbbVie, L’Oréal, Pierre Fabre, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

[embed:render:related:node:266599]

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

[embed:render:related:node:266599]

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

[embed:render:related:node:266599]

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.