Internal Medicine News

TOPLINE:

In a consensus survey study, participants with atopic dermatitis (AD) agreed on a patient-centered definition of AD flare, which most agreed would help when communicating with their healthcare providers (HCPs).

METHODOLOGY:

• To develop a patient-centered definition of AD flare, researchers used a modified eDelphi method, which involved a focus group and survey to reach consensus on key aspects of an AD flare.
• The focus group included 26 US adults aged ≥ 18 years with AD who had experienced a flare within the past 12 months. The survey was conducted among 631 adults with AD to validate the identified concepts and assess their agreement with the consensus statements.
• Participants rated 98 statements on a scale from 1 to 9, with consensus defined as at least 70% rating a statement as 7-9 and less than 15% rating it as 1-3.
• In focus groups, participants identified six key concepts for a patient-centered definition of flare, including changes from baseline, mental and emotional consequences, and physical changes in skin.

TAKEAWAY:

• The focus group reached consensus on 15 statements, and survey participants reached consensus on 12 of those statements defining an AD flare, with the highest agreement on symptoms taking more attention than normal, worsening of physical symptoms associated with AD, and worsening of itching associated with AD.
• The statement “acute worsening of symptoms of AD” was ranked as the most important, while “a worsening of physical symptoms” was ranked the least important.
• Most participants (79.7%) reported that prior definitions of AD flare did not resonate with them.
• More than half (52.9%) agreed with their HCP on what constitutes an AD flare, and the majority (77.6%) indicated that a patient-centered definition would be useful for communication with their HCP and for self-management.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this consensus survey study, we identified statements that are critical to the definition of an AD flare from the patient perspective,” the authors wrote. These findings, they added, “may be useful in clinical practice to improve communication between patients and HCPs who may be using the term flare without a mutual understanding of its meaning” and “may also be applied to the development of outcome measures focused on AD flares, which is an important treatment outcome for people with AD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron M. Drucker, MD, ScM, of the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and was published online September 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants had higher-than-average knowledge about AD, and the study’s findings may not be generalizable to all people with AD. The study included a higher proportion of moderate to severe AD cases than the general population, which may introduce responder bias. The findings may not be applicable to children, caregivers, or individuals in other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by a grant to the National Eczema Association from Pfizer. Dr. Drucker disclosed received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology, American Academy of Dermatology, and Canadian Dermatology Today, and consultant fees from the National Eczema Association and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Another author reported receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a consensus survey study, participants with atopic dermatitis (AD) agreed on a patient-centered definition of AD flare, which most agreed would help when communicating with their healthcare providers (HCPs).

METHODOLOGY:

• To develop a patient-centered definition of AD flare, researchers used a modified eDelphi method, which involved a focus group and survey to reach consensus on key aspects of an AD flare.
• The focus group included 26 US adults aged ≥ 18 years with AD who had experienced a flare within the past 12 months. The survey was conducted among 631 adults with AD to validate the identified concepts and assess their agreement with the consensus statements.
• Participants rated 98 statements on a scale from 1 to 9, with consensus defined as at least 70% rating a statement as 7-9 and less than 15% rating it as 1-3.
• In focus groups, participants identified six key concepts for a patient-centered definition of flare, including changes from baseline, mental and emotional consequences, and physical changes in skin.

TAKEAWAY:

• The focus group reached consensus on 15 statements, and survey participants reached consensus on 12 of those statements defining an AD flare, with the highest agreement on symptoms taking more attention than normal, worsening of physical symptoms associated with AD, and worsening of itching associated with AD.
• The statement “acute worsening of symptoms of AD” was ranked as the most important, while “a worsening of physical symptoms” was ranked the least important.
• Most participants (79.7%) reported that prior definitions of AD flare did not resonate with them.
• More than half (52.9%) agreed with their HCP on what constitutes an AD flare, and the majority (77.6%) indicated that a patient-centered definition would be useful for communication with their HCP and for self-management.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this consensus survey study, we identified statements that are critical to the definition of an AD flare from the patient perspective,” the authors wrote. These findings, they added, “may be useful in clinical practice to improve communication between patients and HCPs who may be using the term flare without a mutual understanding of its meaning” and “may also be applied to the development of outcome measures focused on AD flares, which is an important treatment outcome for people with AD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron M. Drucker, MD, ScM, of the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and was published online September 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants had higher-than-average knowledge about AD, and the study’s findings may not be generalizable to all people with AD. The study included a higher proportion of moderate to severe AD cases than the general population, which may introduce responder bias. The findings may not be applicable to children, caregivers, or individuals in other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by a grant to the National Eczema Association from Pfizer. Dr. Drucker disclosed received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology, American Academy of Dermatology, and Canadian Dermatology Today, and consultant fees from the National Eczema Association and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Another author reported receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a consensus survey study, participants with atopic dermatitis (AD) agreed on a patient-centered definition of AD flare, which most agreed would help when communicating with their healthcare providers (HCPs).

METHODOLOGY:

• To develop a patient-centered definition of AD flare, researchers used a modified eDelphi method, which involved a focus group and survey to reach consensus on key aspects of an AD flare.
• The focus group included 26 US adults aged ≥ 18 years with AD who had experienced a flare within the past 12 months. The survey was conducted among 631 adults with AD to validate the identified concepts and assess their agreement with the consensus statements.
• Participants rated 98 statements on a scale from 1 to 9, with consensus defined as at least 70% rating a statement as 7-9 and less than 15% rating it as 1-3.
• In focus groups, participants identified six key concepts for a patient-centered definition of flare, including changes from baseline, mental and emotional consequences, and physical changes in skin.

TAKEAWAY:

• The focus group reached consensus on 15 statements, and survey participants reached consensus on 12 of those statements defining an AD flare, with the highest agreement on symptoms taking more attention than normal, worsening of physical symptoms associated with AD, and worsening of itching associated with AD.
• The statement “acute worsening of symptoms of AD” was ranked as the most important, while “a worsening of physical symptoms” was ranked the least important.
• Most participants (79.7%) reported that prior definitions of AD flare did not resonate with them.
• More than half (52.9%) agreed with their HCP on what constitutes an AD flare, and the majority (77.6%) indicated that a patient-centered definition would be useful for communication with their HCP and for self-management.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this consensus survey study, we identified statements that are critical to the definition of an AD flare from the patient perspective,” the authors wrote. These findings, they added, “may be useful in clinical practice to improve communication between patients and HCPs who may be using the term flare without a mutual understanding of its meaning” and “may also be applied to the development of outcome measures focused on AD flares, which is an important treatment outcome for people with AD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron M. Drucker, MD, ScM, of the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and was published online September 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants had higher-than-average knowledge about AD, and the study’s findings may not be generalizable to all people with AD. The study included a higher proportion of moderate to severe AD cases than the general population, which may introduce responder bias. The findings may not be applicable to children, caregivers, or individuals in other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by a grant to the National Eczema Association from Pfizer. Dr. Drucker disclosed received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology, American Academy of Dermatology, and Canadian Dermatology Today, and consultant fees from the National Eczema Association and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Another author reported receiving personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nailfold capillaroscopy identifies distinct changes in capillary density, length, and morphology in patients with conditions such as nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, and retronychia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The single-center, observational cross-sectional pilot study evaluated patients aged ≥ 7 years with newly diagnosed nail disorders between January 2022 and May 2023.
• A total of 128 patients (average age, 46.1 years; range, 8-84 years) with nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, idiopathic/traumatic onycholysis, brittle nail syndrome, nail lichen planus, retronychia, and other nail conditions and those with no nail findings (controls) were enrolled.
• Researchers performed nailfold capillaroscopy imaging and compared capillary features between patients with nail conditions and the controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with nail psoriasis had decreased capillary density and length (P < .001), more crossed and tortuous capillaries (P < .02), and increased abnormal capillary morphology (P = .03) compared with controls. Specific abnormalities, such as branching and meandering capillaries, were more common among those with nail psoriasis (both 26.5%).
• Patients with fingernail and toenail onychomycosis had a higher frequency of abnormal capillary morphology (P < .02), particularly meandering capillaries (75.0% for fingernails and 76.9% for toenails). However, other abnormalities were less frequently observed.
• Patients with nail lichen planus (P < .01), onychopapilloma (P = .01), and retronychia (P = .03) showed significantly shorter capillaries than controls. Retronychia was also associated with increased disorganized polymorphic capillaries (P = .02).
• Patients with brittle nail syndrome and eczema showed no significant differences compared with controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight nailfold capillaroscopy as a potentially quick, cost-effective, and noninvasive imaging modality as an adjunct for diagnosis and treatment initiation for patients with onychodystrophies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jonathan K. Hwang, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, and was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size for certain nail conditions and the single-center design, which limited generalizability. Additionally, the uneven surface, scaling, onycholysis, and thickening of toenails made some capillaroscopy images difficult to capture and interpret.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. One author reported serving as a consultant for Eli Lilly, Ortho-Dermatologics, BelleTorus, and Moberg Pharma.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nailfold capillaroscopy identifies distinct changes in capillary density, length, and morphology in patients with conditions such as nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, and retronychia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The single-center, observational cross-sectional pilot study evaluated patients aged ≥ 7 years with newly diagnosed nail disorders between January 2022 and May 2023.
• A total of 128 patients (average age, 46.1 years; range, 8-84 years) with nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, idiopathic/traumatic onycholysis, brittle nail syndrome, nail lichen planus, retronychia, and other nail conditions and those with no nail findings (controls) were enrolled.
• Researchers performed nailfold capillaroscopy imaging and compared capillary features between patients with nail conditions and the controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with nail psoriasis had decreased capillary density and length (P < .001), more crossed and tortuous capillaries (P < .02), and increased abnormal capillary morphology (P = .03) compared with controls. Specific abnormalities, such as branching and meandering capillaries, were more common among those with nail psoriasis (both 26.5%).
• Patients with fingernail and toenail onychomycosis had a higher frequency of abnormal capillary morphology (P < .02), particularly meandering capillaries (75.0% for fingernails and 76.9% for toenails). However, other abnormalities were less frequently observed.
• Patients with nail lichen planus (P < .01), onychopapilloma (P = .01), and retronychia (P = .03) showed significantly shorter capillaries than controls. Retronychia was also associated with increased disorganized polymorphic capillaries (P = .02).
• Patients with brittle nail syndrome and eczema showed no significant differences compared with controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight nailfold capillaroscopy as a potentially quick, cost-effective, and noninvasive imaging modality as an adjunct for diagnosis and treatment initiation for patients with onychodystrophies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jonathan K. Hwang, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, and was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size for certain nail conditions and the single-center design, which limited generalizability. Additionally, the uneven surface, scaling, onycholysis, and thickening of toenails made some capillaroscopy images difficult to capture and interpret.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. One author reported serving as a consultant for Eli Lilly, Ortho-Dermatologics, BelleTorus, and Moberg Pharma.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nailfold capillaroscopy identifies distinct changes in capillary density, length, and morphology in patients with conditions such as nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, and retronychia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The single-center, observational cross-sectional pilot study evaluated patients aged ≥ 7 years with newly diagnosed nail disorders between January 2022 and May 2023.
• A total of 128 patients (average age, 46.1 years; range, 8-84 years) with nail psoriasis, onychomycosis, idiopathic/traumatic onycholysis, brittle nail syndrome, nail lichen planus, retronychia, and other nail conditions and those with no nail findings (controls) were enrolled.
• Researchers performed nailfold capillaroscopy imaging and compared capillary features between patients with nail conditions and the controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with nail psoriasis had decreased capillary density and length (P < .001), more crossed and tortuous capillaries (P < .02), and increased abnormal capillary morphology (P = .03) compared with controls. Specific abnormalities, such as branching and meandering capillaries, were more common among those with nail psoriasis (both 26.5%).
• Patients with fingernail and toenail onychomycosis had a higher frequency of abnormal capillary morphology (P < .02), particularly meandering capillaries (75.0% for fingernails and 76.9% for toenails). However, other abnormalities were less frequently observed.
• Patients with nail lichen planus (P < .01), onychopapilloma (P = .01), and retronychia (P = .03) showed significantly shorter capillaries than controls. Retronychia was also associated with increased disorganized polymorphic capillaries (P = .02).
• Patients with brittle nail syndrome and eczema showed no significant differences compared with controls.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight nailfold capillaroscopy as a potentially quick, cost-effective, and noninvasive imaging modality as an adjunct for diagnosis and treatment initiation for patients with onychodystrophies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jonathan K. Hwang, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, and was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size for certain nail conditions and the single-center design, which limited generalizability. Additionally, the uneven surface, scaling, onycholysis, and thickening of toenails made some capillaroscopy images difficult to capture and interpret.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. One author reported serving as a consultant for Eli Lilly, Ortho-Dermatologics, BelleTorus, and Moberg Pharma.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

In a groundbreaking procedure, a team of surgeons from New York University Langone Health successfully performed the first combined face and eye transplant on a patient with extensive craniofacial tissue loss after an electrical accident.

The highly complex surgery lasted for 21 hours and involved more than 140 surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals under the leadership of Eduardo D. Rodriguez. MD. It not only restored the patient’s facial features, but also integrated a functional eyeball, potentially setting a new standard for future treatments in similar cases.

The transplant took place in May 2023, and the case report was published on September 5 this year in JAMA.

The 46-year-old man lost a large part of his craniofacial tissue and his left eyeball. The approach was highly specialized. Advanced microsurgical techniques such as anastomoses of microscopic vessels and delicate suturing techniques were crucial for the transplant’s success.

Moreover, customized surgical devices, specific implants, and tissue manipulation tools were developed specifically for this case, thus ensuring the viability of the transplant and adequate perfusion of the transplanted ocular tissue.

The initial results are encouraging. Retinal arterial perfusion has been maintained, and retinal architecture has been preserved, as demonstrated by optical coherence tomography. Electroretinography confirmed retinal responses to light, suggesting that the transplanted eye may eventually contribute to the patient’s visual perception. These results are comparable to those of previous facial tissue transplants, but with the significant addition of ocular functionality, which is a notable advance.

“The successful revascularization of the transplanted eye achieved in this study may serve as a step toward the goal of globe transplant for restoration of vision,” wrote the authors.

The complexity of the combined transplant required a deep understanding of facial and ocular anatomy, as well as tissue preservation techniques. The surgical team reported significant challenges, including the need to align delicate anatomical structures and ensure immunological compatibility between the donor and recipient. Meticulous planning from donor selection to postoperative follow-up was considered essential to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk for allograft rejection.

The patient will now be continuously monitored and receive treatment with immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus and prednisone, adjusted according to his response to the transplant. According to the researchers, further studies will be needed to assess the long-term functionality of the transplanted eye and its integration with the central nervous system.

Despite being the fifth facial transplant surgery performed under Dr. Rodriguez’s leadership, this is the first record of a whole-eye transplant. “The mere fact that we have successfully performed the first whole-eye transplant along with a face transplant is a tremendous achievement that many believed to be impossible,” the doctor said in a statement. “We have taken a giant step forward and paved the way for the next chapter in vision restoration.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a groundbreaking procedure, a team of surgeons from New York University Langone Health successfully performed the first combined face and eye transplant on a patient with extensive craniofacial tissue loss after an electrical accident.

The highly complex surgery lasted for 21 hours and involved more than 140 surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals under the leadership of Eduardo D. Rodriguez. MD. It not only restored the patient’s facial features, but also integrated a functional eyeball, potentially setting a new standard for future treatments in similar cases.

The transplant took place in May 2023, and the case report was published on September 5 this year in JAMA.

The 46-year-old man lost a large part of his craniofacial tissue and his left eyeball. The approach was highly specialized. Advanced microsurgical techniques such as anastomoses of microscopic vessels and delicate suturing techniques were crucial for the transplant’s success.

Moreover, customized surgical devices, specific implants, and tissue manipulation tools were developed specifically for this case, thus ensuring the viability of the transplant and adequate perfusion of the transplanted ocular tissue.

The initial results are encouraging. Retinal arterial perfusion has been maintained, and retinal architecture has been preserved, as demonstrated by optical coherence tomography. Electroretinography confirmed retinal responses to light, suggesting that the transplanted eye may eventually contribute to the patient’s visual perception. These results are comparable to those of previous facial tissue transplants, but with the significant addition of ocular functionality, which is a notable advance.

“The successful revascularization of the transplanted eye achieved in this study may serve as a step toward the goal of globe transplant for restoration of vision,” wrote the authors.

The complexity of the combined transplant required a deep understanding of facial and ocular anatomy, as well as tissue preservation techniques. The surgical team reported significant challenges, including the need to align delicate anatomical structures and ensure immunological compatibility between the donor and recipient. Meticulous planning from donor selection to postoperative follow-up was considered essential to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk for allograft rejection.

The patient will now be continuously monitored and receive treatment with immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus and prednisone, adjusted according to his response to the transplant. According to the researchers, further studies will be needed to assess the long-term functionality of the transplanted eye and its integration with the central nervous system.

Despite being the fifth facial transplant surgery performed under Dr. Rodriguez’s leadership, this is the first record of a whole-eye transplant. “The mere fact that we have successfully performed the first whole-eye transplant along with a face transplant is a tremendous achievement that many believed to be impossible,” the doctor said in a statement. “We have taken a giant step forward and paved the way for the next chapter in vision restoration.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a groundbreaking procedure, a team of surgeons from New York University Langone Health successfully performed the first combined face and eye transplant on a patient with extensive craniofacial tissue loss after an electrical accident.

The highly complex surgery lasted for 21 hours and involved more than 140 surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals under the leadership of Eduardo D. Rodriguez. MD. It not only restored the patient’s facial features, but also integrated a functional eyeball, potentially setting a new standard for future treatments in similar cases.

The transplant took place in May 2023, and the case report was published on September 5 this year in JAMA.

The 46-year-old man lost a large part of his craniofacial tissue and his left eyeball. The approach was highly specialized. Advanced microsurgical techniques such as anastomoses of microscopic vessels and delicate suturing techniques were crucial for the transplant’s success.

Moreover, customized surgical devices, specific implants, and tissue manipulation tools were developed specifically for this case, thus ensuring the viability of the transplant and adequate perfusion of the transplanted ocular tissue.

The initial results are encouraging. Retinal arterial perfusion has been maintained, and retinal architecture has been preserved, as demonstrated by optical coherence tomography. Electroretinography confirmed retinal responses to light, suggesting that the transplanted eye may eventually contribute to the patient’s visual perception. These results are comparable to those of previous facial tissue transplants, but with the significant addition of ocular functionality, which is a notable advance.

“The successful revascularization of the transplanted eye achieved in this study may serve as a step toward the goal of globe transplant for restoration of vision,” wrote the authors.

The complexity of the combined transplant required a deep understanding of facial and ocular anatomy, as well as tissue preservation techniques. The surgical team reported significant challenges, including the need to align delicate anatomical structures and ensure immunological compatibility between the donor and recipient. Meticulous planning from donor selection to postoperative follow-up was considered essential to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk for allograft rejection.

The patient will now be continuously monitored and receive treatment with immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus and prednisone, adjusted according to his response to the transplant. According to the researchers, further studies will be needed to assess the long-term functionality of the transplanted eye and its integration with the central nervous system.

Despite being the fifth facial transplant surgery performed under Dr. Rodriguez’s leadership, this is the first record of a whole-eye transplant. “The mere fact that we have successfully performed the first whole-eye transplant along with a face transplant is a tremendous achievement that many believed to be impossible,” the doctor said in a statement. “We have taken a giant step forward and paved the way for the next chapter in vision restoration.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each and every day, 1 billion people on this planet ingest a particular psychoactive substance. This chemical has fairly profound physiologic effects. It increases levels of nitric oxide in the blood, leads to vasodilation, and, of course, makes you feel more awake. The substance comes in many forms but almost always in a liquid medium. Do you have it yet? That’s right. The substance is caffeine, quite possibly the healthiest recreational drug that has ever been discovered.

This might be my New England upbringing speaking, but when it comes to lifestyle and health, one of the rules I’ve internalized is that things that are pleasurable are generally bad for you. I know, I know — some of you love to exercise. Some of you love doing crosswords. But you know what I mean. I’m talking French fries, smoked meats, drugs, smoking, alcohol, binge-watching Firefly. You’d be suspicious if a study came out suggesting that eating ice cream in bed reduces your risk for heart attack, and so would I. So I’m always on the lookout for those unicorns of lifestyle factors, those rare things that you want to do and are also good for you.

So far, the data are strong for three things: sleeping, (safe) sexual activity, and coffee. You’ll have to stay tuned for articles about the first two. Today, we’re brewing up some deeper insights about the power of java.

I was inspired to write this article because of a paper, “Habitual Coffee, Tea, and Caffeine Consumption, Circulating Metabolites, and the Risk of Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity,” appearing September 17 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM). This study may be the most comprehensive study yet to go beyond the simple associations between caffeine intake and outcomes, to try to answer the question of how this miraculous substance does what it does.

This is not the first study to suggest that coffee intake may be beneficial. A 2013 meta-analysis summarized the results of 36 studies with more than a million participants and found a U-shaped relationship between coffee intake and cardiovascular risk. The sweet spot was at three to five cups a day; people drinking that much coffee had about a 15% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease compared with nondrinkers.

AHA/ASA Journals

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp; Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp; Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp; Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp; Metabolism

Dr. Wilson, associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Each and every day, 1 billion people on this planet ingest a particular psychoactive substance. This chemical has fairly profound physiologic effects. It increases levels of nitric oxide in the blood, leads to vasodilation, and, of course, makes you feel more awake. The substance comes in many forms but almost always in a liquid medium. Do you have it yet? That’s right. The substance is caffeine, quite possibly the healthiest recreational drug that has ever been discovered.

This might be my New England upbringing speaking, but when it comes to lifestyle and health, one of the rules I’ve internalized is that things that are pleasurable are generally bad for you. I know, I know — some of you love to exercise. Some of you love doing crosswords. But you know what I mean. I’m talking French fries, smoked meats, drugs, smoking, alcohol, binge-watching Firefly. You’d be suspicious if a study came out suggesting that eating ice cream in bed reduces your risk for heart attack, and so would I. So I’m always on the lookout for those unicorns of lifestyle factors, those rare things that you want to do and are also good for you.

So far, the data are strong for three things: sleeping, (safe) sexual activity, and coffee. You’ll have to stay tuned for articles about the first two. Today, we’re brewing up some deeper insights about the power of java.

I was inspired to write this article because of a paper, “Habitual Coffee, Tea, and Caffeine Consumption, Circulating Metabolites, and the Risk of Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity,” appearing September 17 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM). This study may be the most comprehensive study yet to go beyond the simple associations between caffeine intake and outcomes, to try to answer the question of how this miraculous substance does what it does.

This is not the first study to suggest that coffee intake may be beneficial. A 2013 meta-analysis summarized the results of 36 studies with more than a million participants and found a U-shaped relationship between coffee intake and cardiovascular risk. The sweet spot was at three to five cups a day; people drinking that much coffee had about a 15% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease compared with nondrinkers.

AHA/ASA Journals

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp; Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp; Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp; Metabolism

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology &amp; Metabolism

Dr. Wilson, associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Each and every day, 1 billion people on this planet ingest a particular psychoactive substance. This chemical has fairly profound physiologic effects. It increases levels of nitric oxide in the blood, leads to vasodilation, and, of course, makes you feel more awake. The substance comes in many forms but almost always in a liquid medium. Do you have it yet? That’s right. The substance is caffeine, quite possibly the healthiest recreational drug that has ever been discovered.

This might be my New England upbringing speaking, but when it comes to lifestyle and health, one of the rules I’ve internalized is that things that are pleasurable are generally bad for you. I know, I know — some of you love to exercise. Some of you love doing crosswords. But you know what I mean. I’m talking French fries, smoked meats, drugs, smoking, alcohol, binge-watching Firefly. You’d be suspicious if a study came out suggesting that eating ice cream in bed reduces your risk for heart attack, and so would I. So I’m always on the lookout for those unicorns of lifestyle factors, those rare things that you want to do and are also good for you.

So far, the data are strong for three things: sleeping, (safe) sexual activity, and coffee. You’ll have to stay tuned for articles about the first two. Today, we’re brewing up some deeper insights about the power of java.

I was inspired to write this article because of a paper, “Habitual Coffee, Tea, and Caffeine Consumption, Circulating Metabolites, and the Risk of Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity,” appearing September 17 in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM). This study may be the most comprehensive study yet to go beyond the simple associations between caffeine intake and outcomes, to try to answer the question of how this miraculous substance does what it does.

This is not the first study to suggest that coffee intake may be beneficial. A 2013 meta-analysis summarized the results of 36 studies with more than a million participants and found a U-shaped relationship between coffee intake and cardiovascular risk. The sweet spot was at three to five cups a day; people drinking that much coffee had about a 15% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease compared with nondrinkers.

AHA/ASA Journals

Dr. F. Perry Wilson