Dermatology News

SINGAPORE – When injected subcutaneously, the interleukin-36 receptor antagonist spesolimab significantly reduced the risk for generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) flares, according to results of a study presented in a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology,

In the phase 2b study, patients who received the high-dose regimen (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 4 weeks) of spesolimab experienced 84% fewer GPP fares over 48 weeks, compared with those on placebo, reported Bruce Strober, MD, PhD, Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, and clinical professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Additionally, no flares occurred after week 4, and this, in turn, translated into improved patient outcomes.”

GPP is a rare, chronic, systemic neutrophilic skin disease. The resulting flares, characterized by painful pustules all over the body, can lead to sepsis, shock, and other life-threatening complications. “People who have it are considerably burdened by it, so targeted therapy of this disease is incredibly important because it leads to lessened morbidity and, importantly, mortality for these patients,” Dr. Strober said.

“It’s important not only to treat the flares but also to prevent them,” he noted.

The intravenous formulation of spesolimab (Spevigo) was approved for the treatment of GPP flares in adults by the Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. It is now authorized in nearly 40 countries, including Japan, China, and the European Union.

The phase 2 Effisayil 2 study presented at the meeting evaluated the subcutaneous formulation of spesolimab. Data on subcutaneous spesolimab has been submitted to the FDA, and has received breakthrough therapy designation, according to the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Flare prevention

In the study, 123 patients with GPP were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to one of four groups: high-dose spesolimab, medium-dose (600-mg SC loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 12 weeks), low-dose (300-mg SC loading dose, then 150-mg SC every 12 weeks), or placebo. In the event of a flare during the randomized treatment period, a patient was administered a single, 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab.

Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female and nearly two-thirds were Asian, with a mean age of about 39-43 years.

The mean numbers of GPP flares experienced annually by those in the low-, medium-, and high-dose spesolimab groups were 2.7, 1.9, and 2.4, respectively (2.4% in the placebo group). Fewer than a third had concurrent plaque psoriasis at baseline. Most (48.4%-63.3%) did not have an IL-36RN mutation.

Additionally, the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment total score was 1 in 74.2%-93.5% of participants, and 0 in the remainder.

The primary study endpoint was the time to GPP flare by week 48. The risk of developing a flare among those on high-dose spesolimab was 84% lower, compared with that of those on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.54; P = .0005). No patients on the high dose had a flare after the 4th week of the study.

Similarly, for the secondary endpoint (occurrence of at least one GPP flare by week 48). Dr. Strober and his colleagues reported that high-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo with a risk difference of -39% (95% CI, –0.62 to –0.16; P = .0013). By contrast, the risk differences for the medium- and low-dose spesolimab arms were –0.23 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.01) and -0.31 (95% CI, –0.54 to –0.08), respectively.

The safety profile of subcutaneous spesolimab across all three doses was similar to that of placebo, and there was no dose-dependent trend. Reported adverse events (AEs) were mild. There were five (5.4%) AEs leading to discontinuation of the drug in the medium- and high-dose groups, but none in the low-dose group. Overall, there were nine (9.7%) serious AEs reported in the spesolimab groups, and three (10%) in the high-dose group; no deaths occurred on any dose.

Participants most often reported injection-site erythema, reported in 13 (14%) of the patients on spesolimab versus 1 (3.3%) of those on placebo.

“Overall, the study demonstrates that subcutaneous spesolimab is effective at controlling GPP flares, especially at a high dose relative to placebo, and supports subcutaneous spesolimab for the therapy for GPP flare prevention,” Dr. Strober said at the meeting.
 

Targeting the IL-36 pathway

In a comment, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Clinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, S.C., who moderated the session, said: “It’s very exciting to be able to have a subcutaneous version of the medication.”

“I think the IL-36 is a great pathway,” he said, referring to the signaling pathway within the immune system that is central to the pathogenesis of GPP and several other autoinflammatory diseases.

However, Dr. Schlesinger said that he would have liked to have seen data on how many patients ended up treated with intravenous spesolimab.

He added that he would like future studies of subcutaneous spesolimab to examine the effect in different populations that vary by parameters such as weight, race, and disease severity. “Just seeing how somebody who’s flaring five times a year and you give them this medication and they’re now flaring once a year – that’s interesting data that we might like to know in the future.”

Other than for preventing GPP flares, spesolimab is being studied for treating other IL-36–mediated skin diseases, such as palmoplantar pustulosis.

The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; both Dr. Strober and Dr. Schlesinger do research and consulting for BI, and receive funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

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

SINGAPORE – When injected subcutaneously, the interleukin-36 receptor antagonist spesolimab significantly reduced the risk for generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) flares, according to results of a study presented in a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology,

In the phase 2b study, patients who received the high-dose regimen (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 4 weeks) of spesolimab experienced 84% fewer GPP fares over 48 weeks, compared with those on placebo, reported Bruce Strober, MD, PhD, Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, and clinical professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Additionally, no flares occurred after week 4, and this, in turn, translated into improved patient outcomes.”

GPP is a rare, chronic, systemic neutrophilic skin disease. The resulting flares, characterized by painful pustules all over the body, can lead to sepsis, shock, and other life-threatening complications. “People who have it are considerably burdened by it, so targeted therapy of this disease is incredibly important because it leads to lessened morbidity and, importantly, mortality for these patients,” Dr. Strober said.

“It’s important not only to treat the flares but also to prevent them,” he noted.

The intravenous formulation of spesolimab (Spevigo) was approved for the treatment of GPP flares in adults by the Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. It is now authorized in nearly 40 countries, including Japan, China, and the European Union.

The phase 2 Effisayil 2 study presented at the meeting evaluated the subcutaneous formulation of spesolimab. Data on subcutaneous spesolimab has been submitted to the FDA, and has received breakthrough therapy designation, according to the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Flare prevention

In the study, 123 patients with GPP were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to one of four groups: high-dose spesolimab, medium-dose (600-mg SC loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 12 weeks), low-dose (300-mg SC loading dose, then 150-mg SC every 12 weeks), or placebo. In the event of a flare during the randomized treatment period, a patient was administered a single, 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab.

Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female and nearly two-thirds were Asian, with a mean age of about 39-43 years.

The mean numbers of GPP flares experienced annually by those in the low-, medium-, and high-dose spesolimab groups were 2.7, 1.9, and 2.4, respectively (2.4% in the placebo group). Fewer than a third had concurrent plaque psoriasis at baseline. Most (48.4%-63.3%) did not have an IL-36RN mutation.

Additionally, the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment total score was 1 in 74.2%-93.5% of participants, and 0 in the remainder.

The primary study endpoint was the time to GPP flare by week 48. The risk of developing a flare among those on high-dose spesolimab was 84% lower, compared with that of those on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.54; P = .0005). No patients on the high dose had a flare after the 4th week of the study.

Similarly, for the secondary endpoint (occurrence of at least one GPP flare by week 48). Dr. Strober and his colleagues reported that high-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo with a risk difference of -39% (95% CI, –0.62 to –0.16; P = .0013). By contrast, the risk differences for the medium- and low-dose spesolimab arms were –0.23 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.01) and -0.31 (95% CI, –0.54 to –0.08), respectively.

The safety profile of subcutaneous spesolimab across all three doses was similar to that of placebo, and there was no dose-dependent trend. Reported adverse events (AEs) were mild. There were five (5.4%) AEs leading to discontinuation of the drug in the medium- and high-dose groups, but none in the low-dose group. Overall, there were nine (9.7%) serious AEs reported in the spesolimab groups, and three (10%) in the high-dose group; no deaths occurred on any dose.

Participants most often reported injection-site erythema, reported in 13 (14%) of the patients on spesolimab versus 1 (3.3%) of those on placebo.

“Overall, the study demonstrates that subcutaneous spesolimab is effective at controlling GPP flares, especially at a high dose relative to placebo, and supports subcutaneous spesolimab for the therapy for GPP flare prevention,” Dr. Strober said at the meeting.
 

Targeting the IL-36 pathway

In a comment, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Clinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, S.C., who moderated the session, said: “It’s very exciting to be able to have a subcutaneous version of the medication.”

“I think the IL-36 is a great pathway,” he said, referring to the signaling pathway within the immune system that is central to the pathogenesis of GPP and several other autoinflammatory diseases.

However, Dr. Schlesinger said that he would have liked to have seen data on how many patients ended up treated with intravenous spesolimab.

He added that he would like future studies of subcutaneous spesolimab to examine the effect in different populations that vary by parameters such as weight, race, and disease severity. “Just seeing how somebody who’s flaring five times a year and you give them this medication and they’re now flaring once a year – that’s interesting data that we might like to know in the future.”

Other than for preventing GPP flares, spesolimab is being studied for treating other IL-36–mediated skin diseases, such as palmoplantar pustulosis.

The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; both Dr. Strober and Dr. Schlesinger do research and consulting for BI, and receive funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

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

SINGAPORE – When injected subcutaneously, the interleukin-36 receptor antagonist spesolimab significantly reduced the risk for generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) flares, according to results of a study presented in a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology,

In the phase 2b study, patients who received the high-dose regimen (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 4 weeks) of spesolimab experienced 84% fewer GPP fares over 48 weeks, compared with those on placebo, reported Bruce Strober, MD, PhD, Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, and clinical professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Additionally, no flares occurred after week 4, and this, in turn, translated into improved patient outcomes.”

GPP is a rare, chronic, systemic neutrophilic skin disease. The resulting flares, characterized by painful pustules all over the body, can lead to sepsis, shock, and other life-threatening complications. “People who have it are considerably burdened by it, so targeted therapy of this disease is incredibly important because it leads to lessened morbidity and, importantly, mortality for these patients,” Dr. Strober said.

“It’s important not only to treat the flares but also to prevent them,” he noted.

The intravenous formulation of spesolimab (Spevigo) was approved for the treatment of GPP flares in adults by the Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. It is now authorized in nearly 40 countries, including Japan, China, and the European Union.

The phase 2 Effisayil 2 study presented at the meeting evaluated the subcutaneous formulation of spesolimab. Data on subcutaneous spesolimab has been submitted to the FDA, and has received breakthrough therapy designation, according to the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Flare prevention

In the study, 123 patients with GPP were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to one of four groups: high-dose spesolimab, medium-dose (600-mg SC loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 12 weeks), low-dose (300-mg SC loading dose, then 150-mg SC every 12 weeks), or placebo. In the event of a flare during the randomized treatment period, a patient was administered a single, 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab.

Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female and nearly two-thirds were Asian, with a mean age of about 39-43 years.

The mean numbers of GPP flares experienced annually by those in the low-, medium-, and high-dose spesolimab groups were 2.7, 1.9, and 2.4, respectively (2.4% in the placebo group). Fewer than a third had concurrent plaque psoriasis at baseline. Most (48.4%-63.3%) did not have an IL-36RN mutation.

Additionally, the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment total score was 1 in 74.2%-93.5% of participants, and 0 in the remainder.

The primary study endpoint was the time to GPP flare by week 48. The risk of developing a flare among those on high-dose spesolimab was 84% lower, compared with that of those on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.54; P = .0005). No patients on the high dose had a flare after the 4th week of the study.

Similarly, for the secondary endpoint (occurrence of at least one GPP flare by week 48). Dr. Strober and his colleagues reported that high-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo with a risk difference of -39% (95% CI, –0.62 to –0.16; P = .0013). By contrast, the risk differences for the medium- and low-dose spesolimab arms were –0.23 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.01) and -0.31 (95% CI, –0.54 to –0.08), respectively.

The safety profile of subcutaneous spesolimab across all three doses was similar to that of placebo, and there was no dose-dependent trend. Reported adverse events (AEs) were mild. There were five (5.4%) AEs leading to discontinuation of the drug in the medium- and high-dose groups, but none in the low-dose group. Overall, there were nine (9.7%) serious AEs reported in the spesolimab groups, and three (10%) in the high-dose group; no deaths occurred on any dose.

Participants most often reported injection-site erythema, reported in 13 (14%) of the patients on spesolimab versus 1 (3.3%) of those on placebo.

“Overall, the study demonstrates that subcutaneous spesolimab is effective at controlling GPP flares, especially at a high dose relative to placebo, and supports subcutaneous spesolimab for the therapy for GPP flare prevention,” Dr. Strober said at the meeting.
 

Targeting the IL-36 pathway

In a comment, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Clinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, S.C., who moderated the session, said: “It’s very exciting to be able to have a subcutaneous version of the medication.”

“I think the IL-36 is a great pathway,” he said, referring to the signaling pathway within the immune system that is central to the pathogenesis of GPP and several other autoinflammatory diseases.

However, Dr. Schlesinger said that he would have liked to have seen data on how many patients ended up treated with intravenous spesolimab.

He added that he would like future studies of subcutaneous spesolimab to examine the effect in different populations that vary by parameters such as weight, race, and disease severity. “Just seeing how somebody who’s flaring five times a year and you give them this medication and they’re now flaring once a year – that’s interesting data that we might like to know in the future.”

Other than for preventing GPP flares, spesolimab is being studied for treating other IL-36–mediated skin diseases, such as palmoplantar pustulosis.

The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; both Dr. Strober and Dr. Schlesinger do research and consulting for BI, and receive funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Flares of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), particularly those involving severe kidney disease, were associated with growth spikes of the gut bacteria Ruminococcus blautia gnavus in a small, 4-year observational study that also demonstrated an underlying, inherent instability in the gut microbiome of patients with SLE.

Of 16 patients with SLE studied during the provision of routine care and monitoring, 5 had R. gnavus blooms that were “strikingly concordant with periods of raised disease activity,” Gregg J. Silverman, MD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, and coinvestigators reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Four of the five patients with flare-associated R. gnavus blooms had lupus nephritis (LN); the other had a flare involving inflammation in multiple joints. The four patients with concurrent LN and spikes in R. gnavus also represented almost half of patients who had LN disease flares (four of nine) during the study period. The nine patients in the study with renal involvement, and the four with concurrent R. gnavus spikes and flares, represented different races and ethnicities.

The findings build upon research published by the NYU group several years ago showing that patients with SLE had more R. gnavus in the gut than similar patients without the disease, and that flares closely tracked major increases in R. gnavus growth. Evidence of R. gnavus expansions in patients with SLE now comes from several cohorts in the United States as well as cohorts in Europe and China, the researchers noted in their new paper.
 

An underlying, unstable microbiome

The new study at NYU took a “deeper dive” than previous research, looking at individuals over a longer period of time, Dr. Silverman, the study’s senior investigator and associate director of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. Blood and a total of 44 stool samples from the 16 patients were analyzed, as were a total of 72 stool samples from 22 healthy control volunteers.

Importantly, he said, the gut microbiome in patients with SLE was found to be inherently unstable over time, compared with the microbiota communities of the controls. “There was an instability, a shifting dynamic composition of the microbiome [in patients with lupus]. ... Healthy individuals had more of a balance, with small changes over time” and a stable, low abundance of R. gnavus, Dr. Silverman said.

Transient expansions of several pathogenic species occurred in some of the patients with lupus (and not in controls), but blooms of R. gnavus were the most common. The researchers said in their paper that they “speculate that susceptibility for specific clinical features during R. gnavus blooms reflect in part differences in genetic susceptibility of the patient.”

Patients on cytotoxic agents or antibiotics were excluded from the study, but the study was not designed to disentangle the potential influence of diet or prior antibiotic exposure, they noted. Larger studies are needed that are better controlled and that include more frequent assessments, Dr. Silverman added.
 

A sure association and probable cause

“There seems to be a special connection [of R. gnavus] to lupus nephritis, which is an important, major subset of disease,” said Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, chief or rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Munster (Germany). Dr. Kriegel also researches the gut microbiome in lupus and was asked to comment on the new findings from NYU.

The “difficult question is, is the bug driving the flare [as the NYU paper proposes], or is it the lupus nephritis that leads to overgrowth?” he said, noting that it “is well known that kidney disease, whether from lupus or other causes, creates disturbances in the microbiome.”

It’s “likely the case” that the pathobiome – with R. gnavus being an important pathobiont – helps to drive flares, he said. The new research shows only an association, but studies done in mice – including prior research by Dr. Silverman – support a mechanistic link, said Dr. Kriegel, also adjunct associate professor of immunobiology and of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Investigators in the microbiome space are moving toward more strain-level analysis – “not only measuring what organisms are there, but culturing them and sequencing them,” Dr. Kriegel noted, and the new study does just this.

The R. gnavus strains isolated during lupus flares were distinguishable from strains found in healthy people – and from strains found by other researchers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease – by their common expression of a novel type of cell membrane–associated lipoglycan. The lipoglycans were recognized by specific serum IgG2 antibodies that were detected concurrently with R. gnavus blooms and lupus flares, Dr. Silverman and his colleagues reported.

Dr. Silverman and Dr. Kriegel both study the paradigm of a gut-barrier breach, whereby pathogenic bacteria cause intestinal permeability, allowing bacterial leakages that trigger inflammation and immune responses. “We think that in lupus and other rheumatic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, a leaky gut barrier is an important mechanism, even though these patients don’t have gastrointestinal symptoms,” said Dr. Kriegel, who has studied the role of another potentially pathogenic bacteria, Enterococcus gallinarum, in SLE.

Strengthening the gut barrier may be a plausible, general approach to reducing the severity of diseases like SLE and RA until more personalized approaches targeting individuals’ microbiome are developed, he noted.

Future treatments involving antibacterial agents, probiotics or dietary regimens that prevent imbalances in the gut microbiome would be “benign,” compared with currently utilized immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Silverman said.

The NYU study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Lupus Research Alliance. Dr. Silverman disclosed that NYU has filed a patent application for an antibody test to detect serum antibodies to the lipoglycan made by some strains of R. gnavus. Dr. Kriegel disclosed that he holds a patent at Yale related to the Enterococcus bacteria he studies, and that he consults for Roche, Enterome, and Eligo Biosciences.

Flares of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), particularly those involving severe kidney disease, were associated with growth spikes of the gut bacteria Ruminococcus blautia gnavus in a small, 4-year observational study that also demonstrated an underlying, inherent instability in the gut microbiome of patients with SLE.

Of 16 patients with SLE studied during the provision of routine care and monitoring, 5 had R. gnavus blooms that were “strikingly concordant with periods of raised disease activity,” Gregg J. Silverman, MD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, and coinvestigators reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Four of the five patients with flare-associated R. gnavus blooms had lupus nephritis (LN); the other had a flare involving inflammation in multiple joints. The four patients with concurrent LN and spikes in R. gnavus also represented almost half of patients who had LN disease flares (four of nine) during the study period. The nine patients in the study with renal involvement, and the four with concurrent R. gnavus spikes and flares, represented different races and ethnicities.

The findings build upon research published by the NYU group several years ago showing that patients with SLE had more R. gnavus in the gut than similar patients without the disease, and that flares closely tracked major increases in R. gnavus growth. Evidence of R. gnavus expansions in patients with SLE now comes from several cohorts in the United States as well as cohorts in Europe and China, the researchers noted in their new paper.
 

An underlying, unstable microbiome

The new study at NYU took a “deeper dive” than previous research, looking at individuals over a longer period of time, Dr. Silverman, the study’s senior investigator and associate director of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. Blood and a total of 44 stool samples from the 16 patients were analyzed, as were a total of 72 stool samples from 22 healthy control volunteers.

Importantly, he said, the gut microbiome in patients with SLE was found to be inherently unstable over time, compared with the microbiota communities of the controls. “There was an instability, a shifting dynamic composition of the microbiome [in patients with lupus]. ... Healthy individuals had more of a balance, with small changes over time” and a stable, low abundance of R. gnavus, Dr. Silverman said.

Transient expansions of several pathogenic species occurred in some of the patients with lupus (and not in controls), but blooms of R. gnavus were the most common. The researchers said in their paper that they “speculate that susceptibility for specific clinical features during R. gnavus blooms reflect in part differences in genetic susceptibility of the patient.”

Patients on cytotoxic agents or antibiotics were excluded from the study, but the study was not designed to disentangle the potential influence of diet or prior antibiotic exposure, they noted. Larger studies are needed that are better controlled and that include more frequent assessments, Dr. Silverman added.
 

A sure association and probable cause

“There seems to be a special connection [of R. gnavus] to lupus nephritis, which is an important, major subset of disease,” said Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, chief or rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Munster (Germany). Dr. Kriegel also researches the gut microbiome in lupus and was asked to comment on the new findings from NYU.

The “difficult question is, is the bug driving the flare [as the NYU paper proposes], or is it the lupus nephritis that leads to overgrowth?” he said, noting that it “is well known that kidney disease, whether from lupus or other causes, creates disturbances in the microbiome.”

It’s “likely the case” that the pathobiome – with R. gnavus being an important pathobiont – helps to drive flares, he said. The new research shows only an association, but studies done in mice – including prior research by Dr. Silverman – support a mechanistic link, said Dr. Kriegel, also adjunct associate professor of immunobiology and of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Investigators in the microbiome space are moving toward more strain-level analysis – “not only measuring what organisms are there, but culturing them and sequencing them,” Dr. Kriegel noted, and the new study does just this.

The R. gnavus strains isolated during lupus flares were distinguishable from strains found in healthy people – and from strains found by other researchers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease – by their common expression of a novel type of cell membrane–associated lipoglycan. The lipoglycans were recognized by specific serum IgG2 antibodies that were detected concurrently with R. gnavus blooms and lupus flares, Dr. Silverman and his colleagues reported.

Dr. Silverman and Dr. Kriegel both study the paradigm of a gut-barrier breach, whereby pathogenic bacteria cause intestinal permeability, allowing bacterial leakages that trigger inflammation and immune responses. “We think that in lupus and other rheumatic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, a leaky gut barrier is an important mechanism, even though these patients don’t have gastrointestinal symptoms,” said Dr. Kriegel, who has studied the role of another potentially pathogenic bacteria, Enterococcus gallinarum, in SLE.

Strengthening the gut barrier may be a plausible, general approach to reducing the severity of diseases like SLE and RA until more personalized approaches targeting individuals’ microbiome are developed, he noted.

Future treatments involving antibacterial agents, probiotics or dietary regimens that prevent imbalances in the gut microbiome would be “benign,” compared with currently utilized immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Silverman said.

The NYU study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Lupus Research Alliance. Dr. Silverman disclosed that NYU has filed a patent application for an antibody test to detect serum antibodies to the lipoglycan made by some strains of R. gnavus. Dr. Kriegel disclosed that he holds a patent at Yale related to the Enterococcus bacteria he studies, and that he consults for Roche, Enterome, and Eligo Biosciences.

Flares of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), particularly those involving severe kidney disease, were associated with growth spikes of the gut bacteria Ruminococcus blautia gnavus in a small, 4-year observational study that also demonstrated an underlying, inherent instability in the gut microbiome of patients with SLE.

Of 16 patients with SLE studied during the provision of routine care and monitoring, 5 had R. gnavus blooms that were “strikingly concordant with periods of raised disease activity,” Gregg J. Silverman, MD, of NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, and coinvestigators reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Four of the five patients with flare-associated R. gnavus blooms had lupus nephritis (LN); the other had a flare involving inflammation in multiple joints. The four patients with concurrent LN and spikes in R. gnavus also represented almost half of patients who had LN disease flares (four of nine) during the study period. The nine patients in the study with renal involvement, and the four with concurrent R. gnavus spikes and flares, represented different races and ethnicities.

The findings build upon research published by the NYU group several years ago showing that patients with SLE had more R. gnavus in the gut than similar patients without the disease, and that flares closely tracked major increases in R. gnavus growth. Evidence of R. gnavus expansions in patients with SLE now comes from several cohorts in the United States as well as cohorts in Europe and China, the researchers noted in their new paper.
 

An underlying, unstable microbiome

The new study at NYU took a “deeper dive” than previous research, looking at individuals over a longer period of time, Dr. Silverman, the study’s senior investigator and associate director of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. Blood and a total of 44 stool samples from the 16 patients were analyzed, as were a total of 72 stool samples from 22 healthy control volunteers.

Importantly, he said, the gut microbiome in patients with SLE was found to be inherently unstable over time, compared with the microbiota communities of the controls. “There was an instability, a shifting dynamic composition of the microbiome [in patients with lupus]. ... Healthy individuals had more of a balance, with small changes over time” and a stable, low abundance of R. gnavus, Dr. Silverman said.

Transient expansions of several pathogenic species occurred in some of the patients with lupus (and not in controls), but blooms of R. gnavus were the most common. The researchers said in their paper that they “speculate that susceptibility for specific clinical features during R. gnavus blooms reflect in part differences in genetic susceptibility of the patient.”

Patients on cytotoxic agents or antibiotics were excluded from the study, but the study was not designed to disentangle the potential influence of diet or prior antibiotic exposure, they noted. Larger studies are needed that are better controlled and that include more frequent assessments, Dr. Silverman added.
 

A sure association and probable cause

“There seems to be a special connection [of R. gnavus] to lupus nephritis, which is an important, major subset of disease,” said Martin Kriegel, MD, PhD, chief or rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Munster (Germany). Dr. Kriegel also researches the gut microbiome in lupus and was asked to comment on the new findings from NYU.

The “difficult question is, is the bug driving the flare [as the NYU paper proposes], or is it the lupus nephritis that leads to overgrowth?” he said, noting that it “is well known that kidney disease, whether from lupus or other causes, creates disturbances in the microbiome.”

It’s “likely the case” that the pathobiome – with R. gnavus being an important pathobiont – helps to drive flares, he said. The new research shows only an association, but studies done in mice – including prior research by Dr. Silverman – support a mechanistic link, said Dr. Kriegel, also adjunct associate professor of immunobiology and of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Investigators in the microbiome space are moving toward more strain-level analysis – “not only measuring what organisms are there, but culturing them and sequencing them,” Dr. Kriegel noted, and the new study does just this.

The R. gnavus strains isolated during lupus flares were distinguishable from strains found in healthy people – and from strains found by other researchers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease – by their common expression of a novel type of cell membrane–associated lipoglycan. The lipoglycans were recognized by specific serum IgG2 antibodies that were detected concurrently with R. gnavus blooms and lupus flares, Dr. Silverman and his colleagues reported.

Dr. Silverman and Dr. Kriegel both study the paradigm of a gut-barrier breach, whereby pathogenic bacteria cause intestinal permeability, allowing bacterial leakages that trigger inflammation and immune responses. “We think that in lupus and other rheumatic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, a leaky gut barrier is an important mechanism, even though these patients don’t have gastrointestinal symptoms,” said Dr. Kriegel, who has studied the role of another potentially pathogenic bacteria, Enterococcus gallinarum, in SLE.

Strengthening the gut barrier may be a plausible, general approach to reducing the severity of diseases like SLE and RA until more personalized approaches targeting individuals’ microbiome are developed, he noted.

Future treatments involving antibacterial agents, probiotics or dietary regimens that prevent imbalances in the gut microbiome would be “benign,” compared with currently utilized immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Silverman said.

The NYU study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Lupus Research Alliance. Dr. Silverman disclosed that NYU has filed a patent application for an antibody test to detect serum antibodies to the lipoglycan made by some strains of R. gnavus. Dr. Kriegel disclosed that he holds a patent at Yale related to the Enterococcus bacteria he studies, and that he consults for Roche, Enterome, and Eligo Biosciences.

On July 6, the Food and Drug Administration updated its informational webpage on dermal fillers to reflect the risk of delayed-onset inflammation near dermal filler treatment sites.

Along with a list of common reactions such as bruising, redness, swelling, and pain, the webpage now includes language to inform the public and health care providers about reports of delayed-onset inflammation that have been reported to occur near the dermal filler treatment site following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures. According to an FDA spokesperson, the update is based on several sources of information, including postmarketing data from adverse event–reporting databases, such as the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) for devices and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for vaccines, published literature, and recommendations from federal agencies and professional societies.

“More specifically, the site was updated to include certain risks of using dermal fillers such as swelling and bruising as well as some less common risks such as inflammation – swelling or redness near the dermal filler injection site – following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures,” the spokesperson said.

The announcement about the update also states that “typically, the reported inflammation is responsive to treatment or resolves on its own.”

Other less common risks from dermal filler use listed on the website include bumps in or under the skin (nodules or granulomas) that may need to be treated with injections, oral antibiotics, or surgical removal; infection; open or draining wounds; a sore at the injection site; allergic reactions; or necrosis.

Meanwhile, rare risks from dermal filler use that have been reported to the FDA include severe allergic reactions (anaphylactic shock) that require immediate emergency medical assistance; migration (movement of filler material from the site of injection); leakage or rupture of the filler material at the injection site or through the skin (which may result from a tissue reaction or an infection); the formation of permanent hard nodules; and injury to the blood supply after an unintentional injection into a blood vessel, resulting in necrosis, vision abnormalities (including blindness), or stroke.

Health care professionals, patients, and others can report adverse events related to dermal fillers and other medical devices to the FDA at 800-FDA-1088 or on the MAUDE website.

On July 6, the Food and Drug Administration updated its informational webpage on dermal fillers to reflect the risk of delayed-onset inflammation near dermal filler treatment sites.

Along with a list of common reactions such as bruising, redness, swelling, and pain, the webpage now includes language to inform the public and health care providers about reports of delayed-onset inflammation that have been reported to occur near the dermal filler treatment site following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures. According to an FDA spokesperson, the update is based on several sources of information, including postmarketing data from adverse event–reporting databases, such as the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) for devices and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for vaccines, published literature, and recommendations from federal agencies and professional societies.

“More specifically, the site was updated to include certain risks of using dermal fillers such as swelling and bruising as well as some less common risks such as inflammation – swelling or redness near the dermal filler injection site – following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures,” the spokesperson said.

The announcement about the update also states that “typically, the reported inflammation is responsive to treatment or resolves on its own.”

Other less common risks from dermal filler use listed on the website include bumps in or under the skin (nodules or granulomas) that may need to be treated with injections, oral antibiotics, or surgical removal; infection; open or draining wounds; a sore at the injection site; allergic reactions; or necrosis.

Meanwhile, rare risks from dermal filler use that have been reported to the FDA include severe allergic reactions (anaphylactic shock) that require immediate emergency medical assistance; migration (movement of filler material from the site of injection); leakage or rupture of the filler material at the injection site or through the skin (which may result from a tissue reaction or an infection); the formation of permanent hard nodules; and injury to the blood supply after an unintentional injection into a blood vessel, resulting in necrosis, vision abnormalities (including blindness), or stroke.

Health care professionals, patients, and others can report adverse events related to dermal fillers and other medical devices to the FDA at 800-FDA-1088 or on the MAUDE website.

On July 6, the Food and Drug Administration updated its informational webpage on dermal fillers to reflect the risk of delayed-onset inflammation near dermal filler treatment sites.

Along with a list of common reactions such as bruising, redness, swelling, and pain, the webpage now includes language to inform the public and health care providers about reports of delayed-onset inflammation that have been reported to occur near the dermal filler treatment site following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures. According to an FDA spokesperson, the update is based on several sources of information, including postmarketing data from adverse event–reporting databases, such as the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) for devices and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for vaccines, published literature, and recommendations from federal agencies and professional societies.

“More specifically, the site was updated to include certain risks of using dermal fillers such as swelling and bruising as well as some less common risks such as inflammation – swelling or redness near the dermal filler injection site – following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures,” the spokesperson said.

The announcement about the update also states that “typically, the reported inflammation is responsive to treatment or resolves on its own.”

Other less common risks from dermal filler use listed on the website include bumps in or under the skin (nodules or granulomas) that may need to be treated with injections, oral antibiotics, or surgical removal; infection; open or draining wounds; a sore at the injection site; allergic reactions; or necrosis.

Meanwhile, rare risks from dermal filler use that have been reported to the FDA include severe allergic reactions (anaphylactic shock) that require immediate emergency medical assistance; migration (movement of filler material from the site of injection); leakage or rupture of the filler material at the injection site or through the skin (which may result from a tissue reaction or an infection); the formation of permanent hard nodules; and injury to the blood supply after an unintentional injection into a blood vessel, resulting in necrosis, vision abnormalities (including blindness), or stroke.

Health care professionals, patients, and others can report adverse events related to dermal fillers and other medical devices to the FDA at 800-FDA-1088 or on the MAUDE website.

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

While the typical dose of methotrexate (MTX) for inflammatory disease in pediatric patients varies in published studies, the maximum dose is considered to be 1 mg/kg and not to exceed 25 mg/week. In addition, test doses are not necessary for pediatric patients starting low dose (1 mg/kg or less) MTX for inflammatory skin disease, and the onset of efficacy with MTX may take 8-16 weeks.

Those are among 46 evidence- and consensus-based recommendations about the use of MTX for inflammatory skin disease in pediatric patients that were developed by a committee of 23 experts and published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

“Methotrexate is a cost-effective, readily accessible, well-tolerated, useful, and time-honored option for children with a spectrum of inflammatory skin diseases,” project cochair Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, told this news organization. “Although considered an ‘immune suppressant’ by some, it is more accurately classified as an immune modulator and has been widely used for more than 50 years, and remains the standard of care when administered at very high doses and intrathecally in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia – a practice that supports safety. But many details that support optimized treatment are not widely appreciated.”

• MTX can be discontinued abruptly without adverse effects, other than the risk of disease worsening.
• Folic acid supplementation (starting at 1 mg/day, regardless of weight) is an effective approach to minimizing associated gastrointestinal adverse effects.
• Concomitant use of MTX and antibiotics (including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) and NSAIDS are not contraindicated for most pediatric patients treated for inflammatory skin disease.
• Live virus vaccine boosters such as varicella-zoster virus (VZV) and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) are not contraindicated in patients taking MTX; there are insufficient data to make recommendations for or against primary immunization with MMR vaccine in patients taking MTX; inactivated vaccines should be given to patients taking MTX.
• Routine surveillance laboratory monitoring (i.e., CBC with differential, alanine transaminase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatinine) is recommended at baseline, after 1 month of treatment, and every 3-4 months thereafter.
• Transient transaminase elevation (≤ 3 upper limit normal for < 3 months) is not uncommon with low-dose MTX and does not usually require interruption of MTX. The most likely causes are concomitant viral infection, MTX dosing within 24 hours prior to phlebotomy, recent administration of other medications (such as acetaminophen), and/or recent alcohol consumption.
• Liver biopsy is not indicated for routine monitoring of pediatric patients taking low-dose MTX.

According to Dr. Siegfried, consensus of the committee members was lowest on the need for a test dose of MTX.

Overall, she said in the interview, helping to craft the guidelines caused her to reflect on how her approach to using MTX has evolved over the past 35 years, after treating “many hundreds” of patients. “I was gratified to confirm similar practice patterns among my colleagues,” she added.

The project’s other cochair was Heather Brandling-Bennett, MD, a dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital. This work was supported by a grant from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA), with additional funding from the National Eczema Association and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Siegfried disclosed ties with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Novan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, and Verrica. She has participated in contracted research for AI Therapeutics, and has served as principal investigator for Janssen. Many of the guideline coauthors disclosed having received grant support and other funding from pharmaceutical companies.

While the typical dose of methotrexate (MTX) for inflammatory disease in pediatric patients varies in published studies, the maximum dose is considered to be 1 mg/kg and not to exceed 25 mg/week. In addition, test doses are not necessary for pediatric patients starting low dose (1 mg/kg or less) MTX for inflammatory skin disease, and the onset of efficacy with MTX may take 8-16 weeks.

Those are among 46 evidence- and consensus-based recommendations about the use of MTX for inflammatory skin disease in pediatric patients that were developed by a committee of 23 experts and published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

“Methotrexate is a cost-effective, readily accessible, well-tolerated, useful, and time-honored option for children with a spectrum of inflammatory skin diseases,” project cochair Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, told this news organization. “Although considered an ‘immune suppressant’ by some, it is more accurately classified as an immune modulator and has been widely used for more than 50 years, and remains the standard of care when administered at very high doses and intrathecally in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia – a practice that supports safety. But many details that support optimized treatment are not widely appreciated.”

• MTX can be discontinued abruptly without adverse effects, other than the risk of disease worsening.
• Folic acid supplementation (starting at 1 mg/day, regardless of weight) is an effective approach to minimizing associated gastrointestinal adverse effects.
• Concomitant use of MTX and antibiotics (including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) and NSAIDS are not contraindicated for most pediatric patients treated for inflammatory skin disease.
• Live virus vaccine boosters such as varicella-zoster virus (VZV) and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) are not contraindicated in patients taking MTX; there are insufficient data to make recommendations for or against primary immunization with MMR vaccine in patients taking MTX; inactivated vaccines should be given to patients taking MTX.
• Routine surveillance laboratory monitoring (i.e., CBC with differential, alanine transaminase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatinine) is recommended at baseline, after 1 month of treatment, and every 3-4 months thereafter.
• Transient transaminase elevation (≤ 3 upper limit normal for < 3 months) is not uncommon with low-dose MTX and does not usually require interruption of MTX. The most likely causes are concomitant viral infection, MTX dosing within 24 hours prior to phlebotomy, recent administration of other medications (such as acetaminophen), and/or recent alcohol consumption.
• Liver biopsy is not indicated for routine monitoring of pediatric patients taking low-dose MTX.

According to Dr. Siegfried, consensus of the committee members was lowest on the need for a test dose of MTX.

Overall, she said in the interview, helping to craft the guidelines caused her to reflect on how her approach to using MTX has evolved over the past 35 years, after treating “many hundreds” of patients. “I was gratified to confirm similar practice patterns among my colleagues,” she added.

The project’s other cochair was Heather Brandling-Bennett, MD, a dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital. This work was supported by a grant from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA), with additional funding from the National Eczema Association and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Siegfried disclosed ties with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Novan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, and Verrica. She has participated in contracted research for AI Therapeutics, and has served as principal investigator for Janssen. Many of the guideline coauthors disclosed having received grant support and other funding from pharmaceutical companies.

While the typical dose of methotrexate (MTX) for inflammatory disease in pediatric patients varies in published studies, the maximum dose is considered to be 1 mg/kg and not to exceed 25 mg/week. In addition, test doses are not necessary for pediatric patients starting low dose (1 mg/kg or less) MTX for inflammatory skin disease, and the onset of efficacy with MTX may take 8-16 weeks.

Those are among 46 evidence- and consensus-based recommendations about the use of MTX for inflammatory skin disease in pediatric patients that were developed by a committee of 23 experts and published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

“Methotrexate is a cost-effective, readily accessible, well-tolerated, useful, and time-honored option for children with a spectrum of inflammatory skin diseases,” project cochair Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, told this news organization. “Although considered an ‘immune suppressant’ by some, it is more accurately classified as an immune modulator and has been widely used for more than 50 years, and remains the standard of care when administered at very high doses and intrathecally in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia – a practice that supports safety. But many details that support optimized treatment are not widely appreciated.”

• MTX can be discontinued abruptly without adverse effects, other than the risk of disease worsening.
• Folic acid supplementation (starting at 1 mg/day, regardless of weight) is an effective approach to minimizing associated gastrointestinal adverse effects.
• Concomitant use of MTX and antibiotics (including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) and NSAIDS are not contraindicated for most pediatric patients treated for inflammatory skin disease.
• Live virus vaccine boosters such as varicella-zoster virus (VZV) and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) are not contraindicated in patients taking MTX; there are insufficient data to make recommendations for or against primary immunization with MMR vaccine in patients taking MTX; inactivated vaccines should be given to patients taking MTX.
• Routine surveillance laboratory monitoring (i.e., CBC with differential, alanine transaminase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatinine) is recommended at baseline, after 1 month of treatment, and every 3-4 months thereafter.
• Transient transaminase elevation (≤ 3 upper limit normal for < 3 months) is not uncommon with low-dose MTX and does not usually require interruption of MTX. The most likely causes are concomitant viral infection, MTX dosing within 24 hours prior to phlebotomy, recent administration of other medications (such as acetaminophen), and/or recent alcohol consumption.
• Liver biopsy is not indicated for routine monitoring of pediatric patients taking low-dose MTX.

According to Dr. Siegfried, consensus of the committee members was lowest on the need for a test dose of MTX.

Overall, she said in the interview, helping to craft the guidelines caused her to reflect on how her approach to using MTX has evolved over the past 35 years, after treating “many hundreds” of patients. “I was gratified to confirm similar practice patterns among my colleagues,” she added.

The project’s other cochair was Heather Brandling-Bennett, MD, a dermatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital. This work was supported by a grant from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA), with additional funding from the National Eczema Association and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Siegfried disclosed ties with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Novan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, and Verrica. She has participated in contracted research for AI Therapeutics, and has served as principal investigator for Janssen. Many of the guideline coauthors disclosed having received grant support and other funding from pharmaceutical companies.

In the mid-1990s, when Somnath Saha was a medical resident at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, he came across a cluster of studies showing that Black people with cardiovascular disease were treated less aggressively, compared with White people. The findings were “appalling” to the young physician who describes himself as a “Brown kid from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.”

Dr. Saha had experienced racism growing up, but was surprised to see such clear signs of inequity within the field of medicine. “There was an injustice happening in my own backyard,” he said.

Indeed, bias towards Black patients can be challenging because many doctors either don’t realize their biases or won’t admit to them. Dr. Saha, now a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, likens implicit bias – unconscious judgments that can affect behavior – to “an invisible force.”

While numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in medicine through patient reports, less is known about how implicit bias shows up in medical records, and how stigmatizing language in patient notes can affect the care that Black patients receive.

That’s part of the reason why, about 7 years ago, Dr. Saha began poring through medical records. For him, they offered a window into doctors’ feelings about their patients.

As part of his latest research, Dr. Saha’s team examined the records of nearly 19,000 patients, paying particular attention to negative descriptions that may influence a clinician’s decision-making. The data, which were recently presented at the 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, aren’t yet published, but it suggests what researchers have long speculated: Doctors are more likely to use negative language when describing a Black patient than they are in describing a White patient. The notes provide, at times, a surprisingly candid view of how patients are perceived by doctors, and how their race may affect treatment.

The study adds to a concerning body of literature that explores how racial bias manifests in health care. Researchers like Dr. Saha are interested in how such prejudice leaves a paper trail, which can then reinforce negative stereotypes. Because medical notes get passed between physicians, Dr. Saha’s research suggests they can affect the health of Black patients down the line.

“The medical record is like a rap sheet, it stays with you,” Dr. Saha said, adding that “these things that we say about patients get eternalized.”

Research has long shown that Black patients experience worse health outcomes, compared with White patients, in part because of biased medical care. Black women, for example, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications, compared with White women. And Black patients often report feeling like physicians don’t listen to their needs or don’t believe their concerns.

Studies appear to back that up. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that non-Hispanic White children who went to the emergency room for migraines were more likely to receive pain medications, compared with children of color – even though the two groups reported similar pain scores. Other studies echo similar results for adults as well.

While Michael Sun, a resident physician at the University of Chicago, knew about such health disparities, by his own admission, he was naive about the biases in medical records. At that time, Dr. Sun had “no experience in the medical record, in documentation, or in physician language and culture,” he said.

But in Dr. Sun’s first year of medical school, his professor shared the story of a longtime patient, whom she had referred to an outside specialist. In his recollection, the professor regarded her patient in kind terms, having worked with her for some time to treat a chronic illness. But when she got the specialist’s notes back, she was confused by the description of her patient: Terms like “really difficult,” “noncompliant,” and “uninterested in their health.” This was not the patient she remembered.

“This, as a first-year medical student, really shocked me because I had taken at face value that any words used in notes were true, were valid, or rightfully used,” said Dr. Sun. “I realized all the ways that bias, untold stories, and unknown context may change the way that we view our patients.”

Like Dr. Saha, Dr. Sun became interested in how bias influenced the relationship between doctor and patient, and how these interactions were memorialized in the medical record. In a study published last year, he and his colleagues looked at more than 40,000 medical notes from 18,459 patients. Researchers first manually combed through the notes, then used this information to teach a machine learning algorithm to interpret the connotations of words. Compared with White patients, Black patients were about 2.5 times more likely to be described negatively, with terms like “challenging,” “angry,” and “noncompliant.”

Dr. Saha has used similar methodology – and found similar results – in his own research. For the study presented at the AAAS meeting, his team first read through more than 100,000 medical notes to identify language their team considered to be disparaging – which they chose based on a list of words and phrases from prior research. They then used machine learning to find those terms in medical notes, taking care to ensure context was considered. For example, if the word “aggressive” was used to describe a treatment plan, it was excluded from their analysis. But if “aggressive” was used to describe the patient, it was included.

Dr. Saha pointed to three categories of stigmatizing language that were the most pronounced: expressing doubt or disbelief in what the patient said, such as reporting they “claimed” to experience pain; insinuating that the patient was confrontational, using words like “belligerent” or combative;” and suggesting a patient was not cooperating with a doctor’s orders by saying they “refused” medical advice.

“We’ve known for some time that in health care we sometimes use language that can be confusing or even insulting,” Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in an email to Undark. But he noted that research such as Dr. Saha’s has drawn attention to a previously overlooked issue. Describing a patient as “noncompliant” with medications, he said, “makes it sound like the patient is intentionally refusing to follow advice when, in fact, there are many reasons why people might not be able to follow our advice and intentional refusal isn’t even a very common one.”

Dr. Saha noted that, if a patient isn’t taking their medication, it’s important that doctors note that, so that the next physician doesn’t overprescribe them. But the concern, he said, is whether doctors are using these terms appropriately and for the right reasons because of the implications they have for patients.

If a doctor portrays their patient negatively, Dr. Saha said, it can “trigger the next clinician to read them and formulate a potentially negative opinion about that patient” before they’ve even had a chance to interact.

Still, stigmatizing language is only one small piece of the puzzle. What also matters, Dr. Saha said, is how those words can have an impact on care. In prior work, Dr. Saha has shown how implicit and, in some cases, explicit bias, affects a patient’s treatment recommendations.

In a 2018 study, Dr. Saha, along with his wife, Mary Catherine Beach – also a professor at Johns Hopkins University – combed through reports of patients with sickle cell anemia. Their team focused on that particular population since sickle cell patients are some of the most stigmatized in the health care system: Most patients are Black and many require regular doses of opioids for pain management.

In the notes, they found numerous examples of details that were irrelevant to patients’ health concerns: phrases like “girlfriend requests bus token,” “cursing at nurse,” “girlfriend on bed with shoes on,” and “narcotic dependent.”

Dr. Saha and Dr. Beach wanted to see how these remarks might influence a physician’s treatment recommendations, so they used vignettes they had found in the medical records of sickle cell patients. They showed either a vignette which had described patients negatively, or one that was edited with neutral language. Then they asked medical students and residents about the dose of pain medication they would hypothetically recommend. Dr. Beach said that the purpose was to see how what she called “dog whistles about social class or race or something that would make the person seem less educated” would impact treatment recommendations.

The study found that medical notes with stigmatizing language were associated with “less aggressive management of the patient’s pain.” Doctors who read the stigmatizing language chart notes prescribed less pain medication to patients even in cases when they commented that their pain was a 10 out of 10.

“The fact that we were able to show that this bias transmits to the next doctor has been the thing that I think motivates doctors to take it seriously,” said Dr. Beach.

Pain management has become a focal point for researchers because many of the most glaring racial tropes about patient care have revolved around pain. In 2016, a study conducted at the University of Virginia found that half of the 418 medical students and residents surveyed endorsed false beliefs about Black patients. For example, that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites” and “Blacks’ skin is thicker than whites.” What’s more, those who endorsed these false beliefs also rated Black patients’ pain as lower than White patients’.

Antoinette M. Schoenthaler, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University and associate director of research at the school’s Institute for Excellence in Health Equity, said that disparities in pain management are pervasive and widespread across the medical profession. They seep into treatments for sickle cell anemia, but also prenatal care. As a result, she said, Black patients across the board are often fearful of attending appointments.

“Patients of color go into an appointment with feelings of heightened anxiety because they’re expecting mistreatment,” said Dr. Schoenthaler. “We’ve seen minoritized patients have higher blood pressure in the context of a clinical visit because of these expectations of anxiety and fear, and disappointment.”

Disparities in health care between Black and White patients is a complex issue – one which can’t be solved by addressing medical records alone. But, for researchers like Dr. Saha, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Sun, they can offer a road map that outlines where differences in care begin. The words a clinician uses sets the path for how a patient may be treated in the future.

One way to combat implicit bias, Dr. Saha suggested, is to use an algorithm that identifies stigmatizing language to “give hospital departments or clinicians report cards on how much of this language that they’re using.” By benchmarking averages against one another, clinicians could know if they’re using stigmatizing language at an above average rate. This is something he is considering for future research.

When clinicians are made aware of their biases – when the unconscious becomes conscious – Dr. Saha told Undark that he’s optimistic they’ll work to change them: “We’re using language that we’ve used forever without realizing the potential impact that it has on patient care.”

This article originated on Undark. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the mid-1990s, when Somnath Saha was a medical resident at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, he came across a cluster of studies showing that Black people with cardiovascular disease were treated less aggressively, compared with White people. The findings were “appalling” to the young physician who describes himself as a “Brown kid from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.”

Dr. Saha had experienced racism growing up, but was surprised to see such clear signs of inequity within the field of medicine. “There was an injustice happening in my own backyard,” he said.

Indeed, bias towards Black patients can be challenging because many doctors either don’t realize their biases or won’t admit to them. Dr. Saha, now a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, likens implicit bias – unconscious judgments that can affect behavior – to “an invisible force.”

While numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in medicine through patient reports, less is known about how implicit bias shows up in medical records, and how stigmatizing language in patient notes can affect the care that Black patients receive.

That’s part of the reason why, about 7 years ago, Dr. Saha began poring through medical records. For him, they offered a window into doctors’ feelings about their patients.

As part of his latest research, Dr. Saha’s team examined the records of nearly 19,000 patients, paying particular attention to negative descriptions that may influence a clinician’s decision-making. The data, which were recently presented at the 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, aren’t yet published, but it suggests what researchers have long speculated: Doctors are more likely to use negative language when describing a Black patient than they are in describing a White patient. The notes provide, at times, a surprisingly candid view of how patients are perceived by doctors, and how their race may affect treatment.

The study adds to a concerning body of literature that explores how racial bias manifests in health care. Researchers like Dr. Saha are interested in how such prejudice leaves a paper trail, which can then reinforce negative stereotypes. Because medical notes get passed between physicians, Dr. Saha’s research suggests they can affect the health of Black patients down the line.

“The medical record is like a rap sheet, it stays with you,” Dr. Saha said, adding that “these things that we say about patients get eternalized.”

Research has long shown that Black patients experience worse health outcomes, compared with White patients, in part because of biased medical care. Black women, for example, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications, compared with White women. And Black patients often report feeling like physicians don’t listen to their needs or don’t believe their concerns.

Studies appear to back that up. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that non-Hispanic White children who went to the emergency room for migraines were more likely to receive pain medications, compared with children of color – even though the two groups reported similar pain scores. Other studies echo similar results for adults as well.

While Michael Sun, a resident physician at the University of Chicago, knew about such health disparities, by his own admission, he was naive about the biases in medical records. At that time, Dr. Sun had “no experience in the medical record, in documentation, or in physician language and culture,” he said.

But in Dr. Sun’s first year of medical school, his professor shared the story of a longtime patient, whom she had referred to an outside specialist. In his recollection, the professor regarded her patient in kind terms, having worked with her for some time to treat a chronic illness. But when she got the specialist’s notes back, she was confused by the description of her patient: Terms like “really difficult,” “noncompliant,” and “uninterested in their health.” This was not the patient she remembered.

“This, as a first-year medical student, really shocked me because I had taken at face value that any words used in notes were true, were valid, or rightfully used,” said Dr. Sun. “I realized all the ways that bias, untold stories, and unknown context may change the way that we view our patients.”

Like Dr. Saha, Dr. Sun became interested in how bias influenced the relationship between doctor and patient, and how these interactions were memorialized in the medical record. In a study published last year, he and his colleagues looked at more than 40,000 medical notes from 18,459 patients. Researchers first manually combed through the notes, then used this information to teach a machine learning algorithm to interpret the connotations of words. Compared with White patients, Black patients were about 2.5 times more likely to be described negatively, with terms like “challenging,” “angry,” and “noncompliant.”

Dr. Saha has used similar methodology – and found similar results – in his own research. For the study presented at the AAAS meeting, his team first read through more than 100,000 medical notes to identify language their team considered to be disparaging – which they chose based on a list of words and phrases from prior research. They then used machine learning to find those terms in medical notes, taking care to ensure context was considered. For example, if the word “aggressive” was used to describe a treatment plan, it was excluded from their analysis. But if “aggressive” was used to describe the patient, it was included.

Dr. Saha pointed to three categories of stigmatizing language that were the most pronounced: expressing doubt or disbelief in what the patient said, such as reporting they “claimed” to experience pain; insinuating that the patient was confrontational, using words like “belligerent” or combative;” and suggesting a patient was not cooperating with a doctor’s orders by saying they “refused” medical advice.

“We’ve known for some time that in health care we sometimes use language that can be confusing or even insulting,” Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in an email to Undark. But he noted that research such as Dr. Saha’s has drawn attention to a previously overlooked issue. Describing a patient as “noncompliant” with medications, he said, “makes it sound like the patient is intentionally refusing to follow advice when, in fact, there are many reasons why people might not be able to follow our advice and intentional refusal isn’t even a very common one.”

Dr. Saha noted that, if a patient isn’t taking their medication, it’s important that doctors note that, so that the next physician doesn’t overprescribe them. But the concern, he said, is whether doctors are using these terms appropriately and for the right reasons because of the implications they have for patients.

If a doctor portrays their patient negatively, Dr. Saha said, it can “trigger the next clinician to read them and formulate a potentially negative opinion about that patient” before they’ve even had a chance to interact.

Still, stigmatizing language is only one small piece of the puzzle. What also matters, Dr. Saha said, is how those words can have an impact on care. In prior work, Dr. Saha has shown how implicit and, in some cases, explicit bias, affects a patient’s treatment recommendations.

In a 2018 study, Dr. Saha, along with his wife, Mary Catherine Beach – also a professor at Johns Hopkins University – combed through reports of patients with sickle cell anemia. Their team focused on that particular population since sickle cell patients are some of the most stigmatized in the health care system: Most patients are Black and many require regular doses of opioids for pain management.

In the notes, they found numerous examples of details that were irrelevant to patients’ health concerns: phrases like “girlfriend requests bus token,” “cursing at nurse,” “girlfriend on bed with shoes on,” and “narcotic dependent.”

Dr. Saha and Dr. Beach wanted to see how these remarks might influence a physician’s treatment recommendations, so they used vignettes they had found in the medical records of sickle cell patients. They showed either a vignette which had described patients negatively, or one that was edited with neutral language. Then they asked medical students and residents about the dose of pain medication they would hypothetically recommend. Dr. Beach said that the purpose was to see how what she called “dog whistles about social class or race or something that would make the person seem less educated” would impact treatment recommendations.

The study found that medical notes with stigmatizing language were associated with “less aggressive management of the patient’s pain.” Doctors who read the stigmatizing language chart notes prescribed less pain medication to patients even in cases when they commented that their pain was a 10 out of 10.

“The fact that we were able to show that this bias transmits to the next doctor has been the thing that I think motivates doctors to take it seriously,” said Dr. Beach.

Pain management has become a focal point for researchers because many of the most glaring racial tropes about patient care have revolved around pain. In 2016, a study conducted at the University of Virginia found that half of the 418 medical students and residents surveyed endorsed false beliefs about Black patients. For example, that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites” and “Blacks’ skin is thicker than whites.” What’s more, those who endorsed these false beliefs also rated Black patients’ pain as lower than White patients’.

Antoinette M. Schoenthaler, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University and associate director of research at the school’s Institute for Excellence in Health Equity, said that disparities in pain management are pervasive and widespread across the medical profession. They seep into treatments for sickle cell anemia, but also prenatal care. As a result, she said, Black patients across the board are often fearful of attending appointments.

“Patients of color go into an appointment with feelings of heightened anxiety because they’re expecting mistreatment,” said Dr. Schoenthaler. “We’ve seen minoritized patients have higher blood pressure in the context of a clinical visit because of these expectations of anxiety and fear, and disappointment.”

Disparities in health care between Black and White patients is a complex issue – one which can’t be solved by addressing medical records alone. But, for researchers like Dr. Saha, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Sun, they can offer a road map that outlines where differences in care begin. The words a clinician uses sets the path for how a patient may be treated in the future.

One way to combat implicit bias, Dr. Saha suggested, is to use an algorithm that identifies stigmatizing language to “give hospital departments or clinicians report cards on how much of this language that they’re using.” By benchmarking averages against one another, clinicians could know if they’re using stigmatizing language at an above average rate. This is something he is considering for future research.

When clinicians are made aware of their biases – when the unconscious becomes conscious – Dr. Saha told Undark that he’s optimistic they’ll work to change them: “We’re using language that we’ve used forever without realizing the potential impact that it has on patient care.”

This article originated on Undark. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the mid-1990s, when Somnath Saha was a medical resident at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, he came across a cluster of studies showing that Black people with cardiovascular disease were treated less aggressively, compared with White people. The findings were “appalling” to the young physician who describes himself as a “Brown kid from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.”

Dr. Saha had experienced racism growing up, but was surprised to see such clear signs of inequity within the field of medicine. “There was an injustice happening in my own backyard,” he said.

Indeed, bias towards Black patients can be challenging because many doctors either don’t realize their biases or won’t admit to them. Dr. Saha, now a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, likens implicit bias – unconscious judgments that can affect behavior – to “an invisible force.”

While numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in medicine through patient reports, less is known about how implicit bias shows up in medical records, and how stigmatizing language in patient notes can affect the care that Black patients receive.

That’s part of the reason why, about 7 years ago, Dr. Saha began poring through medical records. For him, they offered a window into doctors’ feelings about their patients.

As part of his latest research, Dr. Saha’s team examined the records of nearly 19,000 patients, paying particular attention to negative descriptions that may influence a clinician’s decision-making. The data, which were recently presented at the 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, aren’t yet published, but it suggests what researchers have long speculated: Doctors are more likely to use negative language when describing a Black patient than they are in describing a White patient. The notes provide, at times, a surprisingly candid view of how patients are perceived by doctors, and how their race may affect treatment.

The study adds to a concerning body of literature that explores how racial bias manifests in health care. Researchers like Dr. Saha are interested in how such prejudice leaves a paper trail, which can then reinforce negative stereotypes. Because medical notes get passed between physicians, Dr. Saha’s research suggests they can affect the health of Black patients down the line.

“The medical record is like a rap sheet, it stays with you,” Dr. Saha said, adding that “these things that we say about patients get eternalized.”

Research has long shown that Black patients experience worse health outcomes, compared with White patients, in part because of biased medical care. Black women, for example, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications, compared with White women. And Black patients often report feeling like physicians don’t listen to their needs or don’t believe their concerns.

Studies appear to back that up. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that non-Hispanic White children who went to the emergency room for migraines were more likely to receive pain medications, compared with children of color – even though the two groups reported similar pain scores. Other studies echo similar results for adults as well.

While Michael Sun, a resident physician at the University of Chicago, knew about such health disparities, by his own admission, he was naive about the biases in medical records. At that time, Dr. Sun had “no experience in the medical record, in documentation, or in physician language and culture,” he said.

But in Dr. Sun’s first year of medical school, his professor shared the story of a longtime patient, whom she had referred to an outside specialist. In his recollection, the professor regarded her patient in kind terms, having worked with her for some time to treat a chronic illness. But when she got the specialist’s notes back, she was confused by the description of her patient: Terms like “really difficult,” “noncompliant,” and “uninterested in their health.” This was not the patient she remembered.

“This, as a first-year medical student, really shocked me because I had taken at face value that any words used in notes were true, were valid, or rightfully used,” said Dr. Sun. “I realized all the ways that bias, untold stories, and unknown context may change the way that we view our patients.”

Like Dr. Saha, Dr. Sun became interested in how bias influenced the relationship between doctor and patient, and how these interactions were memorialized in the medical record. In a study published last year, he and his colleagues looked at more than 40,000 medical notes from 18,459 patients. Researchers first manually combed through the notes, then used this information to teach a machine learning algorithm to interpret the connotations of words. Compared with White patients, Black patients were about 2.5 times more likely to be described negatively, with terms like “challenging,” “angry,” and “noncompliant.”

Dr. Saha has used similar methodology – and found similar results – in his own research. For the study presented at the AAAS meeting, his team first read through more than 100,000 medical notes to identify language their team considered to be disparaging – which they chose based on a list of words and phrases from prior research. They then used machine learning to find those terms in medical notes, taking care to ensure context was considered. For example, if the word “aggressive” was used to describe a treatment plan, it was excluded from their analysis. But if “aggressive” was used to describe the patient, it was included.

Dr. Saha pointed to three categories of stigmatizing language that were the most pronounced: expressing doubt or disbelief in what the patient said, such as reporting they “claimed” to experience pain; insinuating that the patient was confrontational, using words like “belligerent” or combative;” and suggesting a patient was not cooperating with a doctor’s orders by saying they “refused” medical advice.

“We’ve known for some time that in health care we sometimes use language that can be confusing or even insulting,” Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in an email to Undark. But he noted that research such as Dr. Saha’s has drawn attention to a previously overlooked issue. Describing a patient as “noncompliant” with medications, he said, “makes it sound like the patient is intentionally refusing to follow advice when, in fact, there are many reasons why people might not be able to follow our advice and intentional refusal isn’t even a very common one.”

Dr. Saha noted that, if a patient isn’t taking their medication, it’s important that doctors note that, so that the next physician doesn’t overprescribe them. But the concern, he said, is whether doctors are using these terms appropriately and for the right reasons because of the implications they have for patients.

If a doctor portrays their patient negatively, Dr. Saha said, it can “trigger the next clinician to read them and formulate a potentially negative opinion about that patient” before they’ve even had a chance to interact.

Still, stigmatizing language is only one small piece of the puzzle. What also matters, Dr. Saha said, is how those words can have an impact on care. In prior work, Dr. Saha has shown how implicit and, in some cases, explicit bias, affects a patient’s treatment recommendations.

In a 2018 study, Dr. Saha, along with his wife, Mary Catherine Beach – also a professor at Johns Hopkins University – combed through reports of patients with sickle cell anemia. Their team focused on that particular population since sickle cell patients are some of the most stigmatized in the health care system: Most patients are Black and many require regular doses of opioids for pain management.

In the notes, they found numerous examples of details that were irrelevant to patients’ health concerns: phrases like “girlfriend requests bus token,” “cursing at nurse,” “girlfriend on bed with shoes on,” and “narcotic dependent.”

Dr. Saha and Dr. Beach wanted to see how these remarks might influence a physician’s treatment recommendations, so they used vignettes they had found in the medical records of sickle cell patients. They showed either a vignette which had described patients negatively, or one that was edited with neutral language. Then they asked medical students and residents about the dose of pain medication they would hypothetically recommend. Dr. Beach said that the purpose was to see how what she called “dog whistles about social class or race or something that would make the person seem less educated” would impact treatment recommendations.

The study found that medical notes with stigmatizing language were associated with “less aggressive management of the patient’s pain.” Doctors who read the stigmatizing language chart notes prescribed less pain medication to patients even in cases when they commented that their pain was a 10 out of 10.

“The fact that we were able to show that this bias transmits to the next doctor has been the thing that I think motivates doctors to take it seriously,” said Dr. Beach.

Pain management has become a focal point for researchers because many of the most glaring racial tropes about patient care have revolved around pain. In 2016, a study conducted at the University of Virginia found that half of the 418 medical students and residents surveyed endorsed false beliefs about Black patients. For example, that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites” and “Blacks’ skin is thicker than whites.” What’s more, those who endorsed these false beliefs also rated Black patients’ pain as lower than White patients’.

Antoinette M. Schoenthaler, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University and associate director of research at the school’s Institute for Excellence in Health Equity, said that disparities in pain management are pervasive and widespread across the medical profession. They seep into treatments for sickle cell anemia, but also prenatal care. As a result, she said, Black patients across the board are often fearful of attending appointments.

“Patients of color go into an appointment with feelings of heightened anxiety because they’re expecting mistreatment,” said Dr. Schoenthaler. “We’ve seen minoritized patients have higher blood pressure in the context of a clinical visit because of these expectations of anxiety and fear, and disappointment.”

Disparities in health care between Black and White patients is a complex issue – one which can’t be solved by addressing medical records alone. But, for researchers like Dr. Saha, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Sun, they can offer a road map that outlines where differences in care begin. The words a clinician uses sets the path for how a patient may be treated in the future.

One way to combat implicit bias, Dr. Saha suggested, is to use an algorithm that identifies stigmatizing language to “give hospital departments or clinicians report cards on how much of this language that they’re using.” By benchmarking averages against one another, clinicians could know if they’re using stigmatizing language at an above average rate. This is something he is considering for future research.

When clinicians are made aware of their biases – when the unconscious becomes conscious – Dr. Saha told Undark that he’s optimistic they’ll work to change them: “We’re using language that we’ve used forever without realizing the potential impact that it has on patient care.”

This article originated on Undark. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, rolling back more than 40 years of affirmative action standards and changing how medical schools evaluate applicants to attract students from diverse backgrounds.  

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement that the Supreme Court ruling will result in a less diverse physician workforce, which is “bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation.” He cited the AMA’s recent adoption of a policy advising medical schools to increase enrollment of people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine – even if that means considering race as a factor in admissions criteria.

“Supporting racial and ethnic diversity in the health professions – spanning classrooms, labs, and clinical settings – enriches the educational experiences of all medical and health professions students and the teaching experiences of faculty, and it is essential to improving the overall health of our nation,” the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a prepared statement. The AAMC said it was “deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision and will continue to pursue efforts to improve diversity among medical students and physicians.

The American Medical Student Association also denounced the Supreme Court decision. “As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged ... We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments,” the organization said in a press release.

“Diversity in the health care workforce not only benefits underserved patients but improves care for all patients” by increasing understanding and empathy for people of various cultures, Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a press release.

The Supreme Court ruling stems from a lawsuit by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that considering race in the college admission process constitutes discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the court’s decision, stated that an applicant’s personal experiences should carry the most weight in admission decisions and that historically, universities have “wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Still, Justice Roberts said the opinion does not prohibit universities from considering how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Diversity in medical schools increased last year, with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling. But continued diversity efforts were expected to prove challenging with affirmative action off the table, according to an amicus brief filed last year by the AMA, the AAMC, and dozens of other professional health care organizations.

The brief supported continued use of race in college admissions, stating that eliminating that factor could slow efforts to achieve greater health equity because fewer doctors would be training and working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Several universities with medical programs, such as Yale and Johns Hopkins universities, filed a separate brief citing similar concerns. After the June 29 decision, Harvard and the University of North Carolina released statements stating they would comply with the ruling.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, rolling back more than 40 years of affirmative action standards and changing how medical schools evaluate applicants to attract students from diverse backgrounds.  

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement that the Supreme Court ruling will result in a less diverse physician workforce, which is “bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation.” He cited the AMA’s recent adoption of a policy advising medical schools to increase enrollment of people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine – even if that means considering race as a factor in admissions criteria.

“Supporting racial and ethnic diversity in the health professions – spanning classrooms, labs, and clinical settings – enriches the educational experiences of all medical and health professions students and the teaching experiences of faculty, and it is essential to improving the overall health of our nation,” the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a prepared statement. The AAMC said it was “deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision and will continue to pursue efforts to improve diversity among medical students and physicians.

The American Medical Student Association also denounced the Supreme Court decision. “As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged ... We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments,” the organization said in a press release.

“Diversity in the health care workforce not only benefits underserved patients but improves care for all patients” by increasing understanding and empathy for people of various cultures, Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a press release.

The Supreme Court ruling stems from a lawsuit by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that considering race in the college admission process constitutes discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the court’s decision, stated that an applicant’s personal experiences should carry the most weight in admission decisions and that historically, universities have “wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Still, Justice Roberts said the opinion does not prohibit universities from considering how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Diversity in medical schools increased last year, with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling. But continued diversity efforts were expected to prove challenging with affirmative action off the table, according to an amicus brief filed last year by the AMA, the AAMC, and dozens of other professional health care organizations.

The brief supported continued use of race in college admissions, stating that eliminating that factor could slow efforts to achieve greater health equity because fewer doctors would be training and working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Several universities with medical programs, such as Yale and Johns Hopkins universities, filed a separate brief citing similar concerns. After the June 29 decision, Harvard and the University of North Carolina released statements stating they would comply with the ruling.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, rolling back more than 40 years of affirmative action standards and changing how medical schools evaluate applicants to attract students from diverse backgrounds.  

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement that the Supreme Court ruling will result in a less diverse physician workforce, which is “bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation.” He cited the AMA’s recent adoption of a policy advising medical schools to increase enrollment of people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine – even if that means considering race as a factor in admissions criteria.

“Supporting racial and ethnic diversity in the health professions – spanning classrooms, labs, and clinical settings – enriches the educational experiences of all medical and health professions students and the teaching experiences of faculty, and it is essential to improving the overall health of our nation,” the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a prepared statement. The AAMC said it was “deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision and will continue to pursue efforts to improve diversity among medical students and physicians.

The American Medical Student Association also denounced the Supreme Court decision. “As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged ... We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments,” the organization said in a press release.

“Diversity in the health care workforce not only benefits underserved patients but improves care for all patients” by increasing understanding and empathy for people of various cultures, Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a press release.

The Supreme Court ruling stems from a lawsuit by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that considering race in the college admission process constitutes discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the court’s decision, stated that an applicant’s personal experiences should carry the most weight in admission decisions and that historically, universities have “wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Still, Justice Roberts said the opinion does not prohibit universities from considering how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Diversity in medical schools increased last year, with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling. But continued diversity efforts were expected to prove challenging with affirmative action off the table, according to an amicus brief filed last year by the AMA, the AAMC, and dozens of other professional health care organizations.

The brief supported continued use of race in college admissions, stating that eliminating that factor could slow efforts to achieve greater health equity because fewer doctors would be training and working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Several universities with medical programs, such as Yale and Johns Hopkins universities, filed a separate brief citing similar concerns. After the June 29 decision, Harvard and the University of North Carolina released statements stating they would comply with the ruling.

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

Researchers may have discovered the elusive cure to baldness in an unlikely place: Those unsightly hairs that sometimes grow out of skin moles.

The researchers found that a specific molecule in those hairy moles “causes normally dormant and diminutive hair follicles to activate their stem cells for robust growth of long and thick hairs,” lead researcher Maksim Plikus, PhD, professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.

The findings could lead to new treatments for the hair loss condition known as androgenetic alopecia, which researchers said occurs in both men and women. It is also known as male-pattern baldness in men. 

The global team led by researchers at the university analyzed hair follicle stem cells and discovered that a molecule called osteopontin drives accelerated hair growth. Stem cells can develop into different kinds of cells, whether they are in the body or in a laboratory, and are often involved in regenerative or repair processes, according to the Mayo Clinic.

This latest study, published in the journal Nature, was done on mice. A drug company cofounded by Dr. Plikus said in a news release that it had further tested the hair growth technique on human hair follicles, and “the researchers were able to induce new growth by human hair follicles in a robust preclinical model.” The company, Amplifica, said in the release that it has an exclusive licensing agreement with the university for the new hair growth “inventions” described in the newly published findings.

Hair loss from androgenetic alopecia occurs in two out of every three men, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Amplifica said the condition affects an estimated 50 million men and 30 million women in the United States. 

The hair loss and thinning can begin as early as the late teens, the Cleveland Clinic says. The condition is progressive and can follow a specific pattern, such as the hairline creating an “M” or “U” shape midway through the process toward complete baldness on the top of the head, with a remaining thin band of hair around the sides of the head.

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

Researchers may have discovered the elusive cure to baldness in an unlikely place: Those unsightly hairs that sometimes grow out of skin moles.

The researchers found that a specific molecule in those hairy moles “causes normally dormant and diminutive hair follicles to activate their stem cells for robust growth of long and thick hairs,” lead researcher Maksim Plikus, PhD, professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.

The findings could lead to new treatments for the hair loss condition known as androgenetic alopecia, which researchers said occurs in both men and women. It is also known as male-pattern baldness in men. 

The global team led by researchers at the university analyzed hair follicle stem cells and discovered that a molecule called osteopontin drives accelerated hair growth. Stem cells can develop into different kinds of cells, whether they are in the body or in a laboratory, and are often involved in regenerative or repair processes, according to the Mayo Clinic.

This latest study, published in the journal Nature, was done on mice. A drug company cofounded by Dr. Plikus said in a news release that it had further tested the hair growth technique on human hair follicles, and “the researchers were able to induce new growth by human hair follicles in a robust preclinical model.” The company, Amplifica, said in the release that it has an exclusive licensing agreement with the university for the new hair growth “inventions” described in the newly published findings.

Hair loss from androgenetic alopecia occurs in two out of every three men, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Amplifica said the condition affects an estimated 50 million men and 30 million women in the United States. 

The hair loss and thinning can begin as early as the late teens, the Cleveland Clinic says. The condition is progressive and can follow a specific pattern, such as the hairline creating an “M” or “U” shape midway through the process toward complete baldness on the top of the head, with a remaining thin band of hair around the sides of the head.

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

Researchers may have discovered the elusive cure to baldness in an unlikely place: Those unsightly hairs that sometimes grow out of skin moles.

The researchers found that a specific molecule in those hairy moles “causes normally dormant and diminutive hair follicles to activate their stem cells for robust growth of long and thick hairs,” lead researcher Maksim Plikus, PhD, professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.

The findings could lead to new treatments for the hair loss condition known as androgenetic alopecia, which researchers said occurs in both men and women. It is also known as male-pattern baldness in men. 

The global team led by researchers at the university analyzed hair follicle stem cells and discovered that a molecule called osteopontin drives accelerated hair growth. Stem cells can develop into different kinds of cells, whether they are in the body or in a laboratory, and are often involved in regenerative or repair processes, according to the Mayo Clinic.

This latest study, published in the journal Nature, was done on mice. A drug company cofounded by Dr. Plikus said in a news release that it had further tested the hair growth technique on human hair follicles, and “the researchers were able to induce new growth by human hair follicles in a robust preclinical model.” The company, Amplifica, said in the release that it has an exclusive licensing agreement with the university for the new hair growth “inventions” described in the newly published findings.

Hair loss from androgenetic alopecia occurs in two out of every three men, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Amplifica said the condition affects an estimated 50 million men and 30 million women in the United States. 

The hair loss and thinning can begin as early as the late teens, the Cleveland Clinic says. The condition is progressive and can follow a specific pattern, such as the hairline creating an “M” or “U” shape midway through the process toward complete baldness on the top of the head, with a remaining thin band of hair around the sides of the head.

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