Mixed Topics

Q2. Correct answer: A. CT scan. 
 
Rationale  
Given the change in bowel habits, colonoscopy in indicated to evaluate for inflammation. Anorectal manometry is helpful in evaluating sphincter function. Endoanal ultrasound can identify anal sphincter defects in the internal or external anal sphincter. Digital rectal exam is important in evaluating the anal area for skin tags, fissures, or scar. Digital exam can evaluate for resting anal sphincter tone and squeeze, pelvic floor descent and strength of the pelvic floor muscles. CT is unlikely to contribute to the evaluation of a functional disorder.  
 
Reference  
Bharucha AE et al. Gastroenterology. 2006 Apr;130(5):1510-8.

Q2. Correct answer: A. CT scan. 
 
Rationale  
Given the change in bowel habits, colonoscopy in indicated to evaluate for inflammation. Anorectal manometry is helpful in evaluating sphincter function. Endoanal ultrasound can identify anal sphincter defects in the internal or external anal sphincter. Digital rectal exam is important in evaluating the anal area for skin tags, fissures, or scar. Digital exam can evaluate for resting anal sphincter tone and squeeze, pelvic floor descent and strength of the pelvic floor muscles. CT is unlikely to contribute to the evaluation of a functional disorder.  
 
Reference  
Bharucha AE et al. Gastroenterology. 2006 Apr;130(5):1510-8.

Q2. Correct answer: A. CT scan. 
 
Rationale  
Given the change in bowel habits, colonoscopy in indicated to evaluate for inflammation. Anorectal manometry is helpful in evaluating sphincter function. Endoanal ultrasound can identify anal sphincter defects in the internal or external anal sphincter. Digital rectal exam is important in evaluating the anal area for skin tags, fissures, or scar. Digital exam can evaluate for resting anal sphincter tone and squeeze, pelvic floor descent and strength of the pelvic floor muscles. CT is unlikely to contribute to the evaluation of a functional disorder.  
 
Reference  
Bharucha AE et al. Gastroenterology. 2006 Apr;130(5):1510-8.

Q1. Correct answer: C. Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction.  
 
Rationale  
Recent studies recognized the role of medications in inducing esophageal motor disorders. Opiates have been shown to be associated with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, achalasia (not type 1), and other hypercontractile esophageal abnormalities.  
 
Reference  
Camilleri M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Sep;15(9):1338-49.

Q1. Correct answer: C. Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction.  
 
Rationale  
Recent studies recognized the role of medications in inducing esophageal motor disorders. Opiates have been shown to be associated with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, achalasia (not type 1), and other hypercontractile esophageal abnormalities.  
 
Reference  
Camilleri M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Sep;15(9):1338-49.

Q1. Correct answer: C. Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction.  
 
Rationale  
Recent studies recognized the role of medications in inducing esophageal motor disorders. Opiates have been shown to be associated with esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, achalasia (not type 1), and other hypercontractile esophageal abnormalities.  
 
Reference  
Camilleri M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Sep;15(9):1338-49.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration established its accelerated drug approval pathway 28 years ago, more than 2 in 5 drugs granted fast-track approval have not been confirmed clinically effective as required, an in-depth investigation published in The BMJ has determined.

“Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases,’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited – to the detriment of patients, who may be prescribed a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm, and to taxpayers,” writes Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, who carried out the analysis.

The FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is intended to provide earlier access to drugs for serious diseases when there is lingering uncertainty at the time of approval regarding the drug’s ultimate clinical benefit.
 

Required studies rarely completed

As part of this fast-track pathway, drug manufacturers must conduct postapproval, phase 4 confirmatory trials to verify the anticipated clinical benefit. If these trials indicate no benefit, FDA approval can be withdrawn.

However, the analysis of FDA data shows once they are approved drugs are rarely taken off the market.

The BMJ investigation that analyzed data up to the end of 2020 shows that 112 of the 253 (44%) medications granted accelerated approval have not been confirmed to be effective.

In addition, 24 (21%) of these questionable drugs have been on the market for more than 5 years and some have been on the market for more than 20 years – often with a hefty price tag.

Furthermore, only 16 drugs approved through the accelerated approval process have ever been withdrawn, and most were shown to be ineffective, but in some cases the confirmatory trials were never done, Ms. Mahase reports.

For example, the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex), which was granted accelerated approval in 1999 for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, was on the market for 12 years before the FDA finally asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw it for this indication because efficacy trials were never completed.

As part of The BMJ’s investigation, Ms. Mahase asked manufacturers of the 24 drugs that have remained on the market for more than 5 years whether they had conducted the required phase 4 confirmatory trials. Six of the drugs had been withdrawn, approved, or postponed.

Of the remaining 18 drugs, the manufacturers provided the relevant trial information for only six. Only four drugmakers had started to recruit patients; two said they were still in discussion with the FDA over the final trial design.

“These products routinely have side effects, but the benefit information is a lot less certain. That’s what we’re concerned about – that we may have drugs on the market that don’t have any benefits, but certainly predictably have harms associated with them,” Huseyin Naci, PhD, MHS, with the London School of Economics, comments in the report.
 

Call for reform

As reported by this news organization, a 2015 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA does not do an effective job of tracking the clinical efficacy or the safety of drugs with expedited approval after they hit the market.

In April of this year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cited a lack of “credible threats” to withdraw approval if companies don’t do confirmatory trials – meaning drugmakers have little incentive to do the trials.

“There are some instances where the companies really do seem to be taking advantage of the accelerated approval pathway and are using it in a way that makes it harder to get at the truth about whether these products really are safe and effective,” Rachel Sachs, JD, MPH, Washington University, St. Louis, said in The BMJ article.

In addition, the authors of a recent viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine assert the recent approval of the controversial anti-amyloid drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) shows that the accelerated approval pathway needs to be reformed.

Despite the concerns, Ms. Mahase said all experts who spoke to The BMJ believe the accelerated approval pathway is still useful and can be beneficial to patients, although some changes are needed.

One effective reform might be to have confirmatory trials designed, and even started, as part of accelerated approval.

“One important piece of the puzzle is for the FDA itself to be tougher on these companies, to hold them to the bargain that they have agreed to, and to take action when the company has not met their obligations,” Ms. Sachs told the journal.

An FDA spokesperson told the BMJ that the agency is “committed to working with sponsors to ensure that confirmatory studies are completed in a timely manner.”

“We expect sponsors to commit all resources needed to move trials forward as effectively as possible, with the aim of completing trials as soon as is feasible, while assuring the quality of the data and the robustness of the results,” the agency said.

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

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration established its accelerated drug approval pathway 28 years ago, more than 2 in 5 drugs granted fast-track approval have not been confirmed clinically effective as required, an in-depth investigation published in The BMJ has determined.

“Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases,’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited – to the detriment of patients, who may be prescribed a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm, and to taxpayers,” writes Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, who carried out the analysis.

The FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is intended to provide earlier access to drugs for serious diseases when there is lingering uncertainty at the time of approval regarding the drug’s ultimate clinical benefit.
 

Required studies rarely completed

As part of this fast-track pathway, drug manufacturers must conduct postapproval, phase 4 confirmatory trials to verify the anticipated clinical benefit. If these trials indicate no benefit, FDA approval can be withdrawn.

However, the analysis of FDA data shows once they are approved drugs are rarely taken off the market.

The BMJ investigation that analyzed data up to the end of 2020 shows that 112 of the 253 (44%) medications granted accelerated approval have not been confirmed to be effective.

In addition, 24 (21%) of these questionable drugs have been on the market for more than 5 years and some have been on the market for more than 20 years – often with a hefty price tag.

Furthermore, only 16 drugs approved through the accelerated approval process have ever been withdrawn, and most were shown to be ineffective, but in some cases the confirmatory trials were never done, Ms. Mahase reports.

For example, the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex), which was granted accelerated approval in 1999 for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, was on the market for 12 years before the FDA finally asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw it for this indication because efficacy trials were never completed.

As part of The BMJ’s investigation, Ms. Mahase asked manufacturers of the 24 drugs that have remained on the market for more than 5 years whether they had conducted the required phase 4 confirmatory trials. Six of the drugs had been withdrawn, approved, or postponed.

Of the remaining 18 drugs, the manufacturers provided the relevant trial information for only six. Only four drugmakers had started to recruit patients; two said they were still in discussion with the FDA over the final trial design.

“These products routinely have side effects, but the benefit information is a lot less certain. That’s what we’re concerned about – that we may have drugs on the market that don’t have any benefits, but certainly predictably have harms associated with them,” Huseyin Naci, PhD, MHS, with the London School of Economics, comments in the report.
 

Call for reform

As reported by this news organization, a 2015 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA does not do an effective job of tracking the clinical efficacy or the safety of drugs with expedited approval after they hit the market.

In April of this year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cited a lack of “credible threats” to withdraw approval if companies don’t do confirmatory trials – meaning drugmakers have little incentive to do the trials.

“There are some instances where the companies really do seem to be taking advantage of the accelerated approval pathway and are using it in a way that makes it harder to get at the truth about whether these products really are safe and effective,” Rachel Sachs, JD, MPH, Washington University, St. Louis, said in The BMJ article.

In addition, the authors of a recent viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine assert the recent approval of the controversial anti-amyloid drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) shows that the accelerated approval pathway needs to be reformed.

Despite the concerns, Ms. Mahase said all experts who spoke to The BMJ believe the accelerated approval pathway is still useful and can be beneficial to patients, although some changes are needed.

One effective reform might be to have confirmatory trials designed, and even started, as part of accelerated approval.

“One important piece of the puzzle is for the FDA itself to be tougher on these companies, to hold them to the bargain that they have agreed to, and to take action when the company has not met their obligations,” Ms. Sachs told the journal.

An FDA spokesperson told the BMJ that the agency is “committed to working with sponsors to ensure that confirmatory studies are completed in a timely manner.”

“We expect sponsors to commit all resources needed to move trials forward as effectively as possible, with the aim of completing trials as soon as is feasible, while assuring the quality of the data and the robustness of the results,” the agency said.

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

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration established its accelerated drug approval pathway 28 years ago, more than 2 in 5 drugs granted fast-track approval have not been confirmed clinically effective as required, an in-depth investigation published in The BMJ has determined.

“Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases,’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited – to the detriment of patients, who may be prescribed a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm, and to taxpayers,” writes Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, who carried out the analysis.

The FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is intended to provide earlier access to drugs for serious diseases when there is lingering uncertainty at the time of approval regarding the drug’s ultimate clinical benefit.
 

Required studies rarely completed

As part of this fast-track pathway, drug manufacturers must conduct postapproval, phase 4 confirmatory trials to verify the anticipated clinical benefit. If these trials indicate no benefit, FDA approval can be withdrawn.

However, the analysis of FDA data shows once they are approved drugs are rarely taken off the market.

The BMJ investigation that analyzed data up to the end of 2020 shows that 112 of the 253 (44%) medications granted accelerated approval have not been confirmed to be effective.

In addition, 24 (21%) of these questionable drugs have been on the market for more than 5 years and some have been on the market for more than 20 years – often with a hefty price tag.

Furthermore, only 16 drugs approved through the accelerated approval process have ever been withdrawn, and most were shown to be ineffective, but in some cases the confirmatory trials were never done, Ms. Mahase reports.

For example, the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex), which was granted accelerated approval in 1999 for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, was on the market for 12 years before the FDA finally asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw it for this indication because efficacy trials were never completed.

As part of The BMJ’s investigation, Ms. Mahase asked manufacturers of the 24 drugs that have remained on the market for more than 5 years whether they had conducted the required phase 4 confirmatory trials. Six of the drugs had been withdrawn, approved, or postponed.

Of the remaining 18 drugs, the manufacturers provided the relevant trial information for only six. Only four drugmakers had started to recruit patients; two said they were still in discussion with the FDA over the final trial design.

“These products routinely have side effects, but the benefit information is a lot less certain. That’s what we’re concerned about – that we may have drugs on the market that don’t have any benefits, but certainly predictably have harms associated with them,” Huseyin Naci, PhD, MHS, with the London School of Economics, comments in the report.
 

Call for reform

As reported by this news organization, a 2015 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA does not do an effective job of tracking the clinical efficacy or the safety of drugs with expedited approval after they hit the market.

In April of this year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cited a lack of “credible threats” to withdraw approval if companies don’t do confirmatory trials – meaning drugmakers have little incentive to do the trials.

“There are some instances where the companies really do seem to be taking advantage of the accelerated approval pathway and are using it in a way that makes it harder to get at the truth about whether these products really are safe and effective,” Rachel Sachs, JD, MPH, Washington University, St. Louis, said in The BMJ article.

In addition, the authors of a recent viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine assert the recent approval of the controversial anti-amyloid drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) shows that the accelerated approval pathway needs to be reformed.

Despite the concerns, Ms. Mahase said all experts who spoke to The BMJ believe the accelerated approval pathway is still useful and can be beneficial to patients, although some changes are needed.

One effective reform might be to have confirmatory trials designed, and even started, as part of accelerated approval.

“One important piece of the puzzle is for the FDA itself to be tougher on these companies, to hold them to the bargain that they have agreed to, and to take action when the company has not met their obligations,” Ms. Sachs told the journal.

An FDA spokesperson told the BMJ that the agency is “committed to working with sponsors to ensure that confirmatory studies are completed in a timely manner.”

“We expect sponsors to commit all resources needed to move trials forward as effectively as possible, with the aim of completing trials as soon as is feasible, while assuring the quality of the data and the robustness of the results,” the agency said.

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

Adult women with acne describe significant impacts on their lived experience of acne, including concerns about appearance, mental and emotional health consequences, and disruption to their personal and professional lives, results from a qualitative study demonstrated.

“Nearly 50% of women experience acne in their 20s, and 35% experience acne in their 30s,” the study’s corresponding author, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, formerly of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. “While several qualitative studies have examined acne in adolescence, the lived experience of adult female acne has not been explored in detail and prior studies have included relatively few patients. As a result, we conducted a series of semistructured interviews among adult women with acne to examine the lived experience of adult acne and its treatment.”

For the study, published online July 28, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri and colleagues conducted voluntary, confidential phone interviews with 50 women aged between 18 and 40 years with moderate to severe acne who were recruited from the University of Pennsylvania Health System and from a private dermatology clinic in Cincinnati. They used free listing and open-ended, semistructured interviews to elicit opinions from the women on how acne affected their lives; their experience with acne treatments, dermatologists, and health care systems; as well as their views on treatment success.

The mean age of the participants was 28 years and 48% were white (10% were Black, 8% were Asian, 4% were more than one race, and the rest abstained from answering this question; 10% said they were Hispanic).

More than three-quarters (78%) reported prior treatment with topical retinoids, followed by spironolactone (70%), topical antibiotics (43%), combined oral contraceptives (43%), and isotretinoin (41%). During the free-listing part of interviews, where the women reported the first words that came to their mind when asked about success of treatment and adverse effects, the most important terms expressed related to treatment success were clear skin, no scarring, and no acne. The most important terms related to treatment adverse effects were dryness, redness, and burning.

In the semistructured interview portion of the study, the main themes expressed were acne-related concerns about appearance, including feeling less confident at work; mental and emotional health, including feelings of depression, anxiety, depression, and low self-worth during acne breakouts; and everyday life impact, including the notion that acne affected how other people perceived them. The other main themes included successful treatment, with clear skin and having a manageable number of lesions being desirable outcomes; and interactions with health care, including varied experiences with dermatologists. The researchers observed that most participants did not think oral antibiotics were appropriate treatments for their acne, specifically because of limited long-term effectiveness.

“Many patients described frustration with finding a dermatologist with whom they were comfortable and with identifying effective treatments for their acne,” the authors wrote. “In contrast, those who thought their dermatologist listened to their concerns and individualized their treatment plan reported higher levels of satisfaction.”

In an interview, Dr. Barbieri, who is now with the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he was surprised by how many patients expressed interest in nonantibiotic treatments for acne, “given that oral antibiotics are by far the most commonly prescribed systemic treatment for acne.”

Moreover, he added, “although I have experienced many patients being hesitant about isotretinoin, I was surprised by how strong patients’ concerns were about isotretinoin side effects. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about isotretinoin that limit use of this treatment that can be highly effective and safe for the appropriate patient.”

In an accompanying editorial, dermatologists Diane M. Thiboutot, MD and Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, with Penn State University, Hershey, and Alison M. Layton, MB, ChB, with the Harrogate Foundation Trust, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England, wrote that the findings from the study “resonate with those recently reported in several international studies that examine the impacts of acne, how patients assess treatment success, and what is important to measure from a patient and health care professional perspective in a clinical trial for acne.”

A large systematic review on the impact of acne on patients, conducted by the Acne Core Outcomes Research Network (ACORN), found that “appearance-related concerns and negative psychosocial effects were found to be a major impact of acne,” they noted. “Surprisingly, only 22 of the 473 studies identified in this review included qualitative data gathered from patient interviews. It is encouraging to see the concordance between the concerns voiced by the participants in the current study and those identified from the literature review, wherein a variety of methods were used to assess acne impacts.”

For his part, Dr. Barbieri said that the study findings “justify the importance of having a discussion with patients about their unique lived experience of acne and individualizing treatment to their specific needs. Patient reported outcome measures could be a useful adjunctive tool to capture these impacts on quality of life.”

This study was funded by grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he received partial salary support through a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Thiboutot reported receiving consultant fees from Galderma and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Layton reported receiving unrestricted educational presentation, advisory board, and consultancy fees from Galderma Honoraria; unrestricted educational presentation and advisory board honoraria from Leo; advisory board honoraria from Novartis and Mylan; consultancy honoraria from Procter and Gamble and Meda; grants from Galderma; and consultancy and advisory board honoraria from Origimm outside the submitted work.

[email protected]

Adult women with acne describe significant impacts on their lived experience of acne, including concerns about appearance, mental and emotional health consequences, and disruption to their personal and professional lives, results from a qualitative study demonstrated.

“Nearly 50% of women experience acne in their 20s, and 35% experience acne in their 30s,” the study’s corresponding author, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, formerly of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. “While several qualitative studies have examined acne in adolescence, the lived experience of adult female acne has not been explored in detail and prior studies have included relatively few patients. As a result, we conducted a series of semistructured interviews among adult women with acne to examine the lived experience of adult acne and its treatment.”

For the study, published online July 28, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri and colleagues conducted voluntary, confidential phone interviews with 50 women aged between 18 and 40 years with moderate to severe acne who were recruited from the University of Pennsylvania Health System and from a private dermatology clinic in Cincinnati. They used free listing and open-ended, semistructured interviews to elicit opinions from the women on how acne affected their lives; their experience with acne treatments, dermatologists, and health care systems; as well as their views on treatment success.

The mean age of the participants was 28 years and 48% were white (10% were Black, 8% were Asian, 4% were more than one race, and the rest abstained from answering this question; 10% said they were Hispanic).

More than three-quarters (78%) reported prior treatment with topical retinoids, followed by spironolactone (70%), topical antibiotics (43%), combined oral contraceptives (43%), and isotretinoin (41%). During the free-listing part of interviews, where the women reported the first words that came to their mind when asked about success of treatment and adverse effects, the most important terms expressed related to treatment success were clear skin, no scarring, and no acne. The most important terms related to treatment adverse effects were dryness, redness, and burning.

In the semistructured interview portion of the study, the main themes expressed were acne-related concerns about appearance, including feeling less confident at work; mental and emotional health, including feelings of depression, anxiety, depression, and low self-worth during acne breakouts; and everyday life impact, including the notion that acne affected how other people perceived them. The other main themes included successful treatment, with clear skin and having a manageable number of lesions being desirable outcomes; and interactions with health care, including varied experiences with dermatologists. The researchers observed that most participants did not think oral antibiotics were appropriate treatments for their acne, specifically because of limited long-term effectiveness.

“Many patients described frustration with finding a dermatologist with whom they were comfortable and with identifying effective treatments for their acne,” the authors wrote. “In contrast, those who thought their dermatologist listened to their concerns and individualized their treatment plan reported higher levels of satisfaction.”

In an interview, Dr. Barbieri, who is now with the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he was surprised by how many patients expressed interest in nonantibiotic treatments for acne, “given that oral antibiotics are by far the most commonly prescribed systemic treatment for acne.”

Moreover, he added, “although I have experienced many patients being hesitant about isotretinoin, I was surprised by how strong patients’ concerns were about isotretinoin side effects. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about isotretinoin that limit use of this treatment that can be highly effective and safe for the appropriate patient.”

In an accompanying editorial, dermatologists Diane M. Thiboutot, MD and Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, with Penn State University, Hershey, and Alison M. Layton, MB, ChB, with the Harrogate Foundation Trust, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England, wrote that the findings from the study “resonate with those recently reported in several international studies that examine the impacts of acne, how patients assess treatment success, and what is important to measure from a patient and health care professional perspective in a clinical trial for acne.”

A large systematic review on the impact of acne on patients, conducted by the Acne Core Outcomes Research Network (ACORN), found that “appearance-related concerns and negative psychosocial effects were found to be a major impact of acne,” they noted. “Surprisingly, only 22 of the 473 studies identified in this review included qualitative data gathered from patient interviews. It is encouraging to see the concordance between the concerns voiced by the participants in the current study and those identified from the literature review, wherein a variety of methods were used to assess acne impacts.”

For his part, Dr. Barbieri said that the study findings “justify the importance of having a discussion with patients about their unique lived experience of acne and individualizing treatment to their specific needs. Patient reported outcome measures could be a useful adjunctive tool to capture these impacts on quality of life.”

This study was funded by grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he received partial salary support through a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Thiboutot reported receiving consultant fees from Galderma and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Layton reported receiving unrestricted educational presentation, advisory board, and consultancy fees from Galderma Honoraria; unrestricted educational presentation and advisory board honoraria from Leo; advisory board honoraria from Novartis and Mylan; consultancy honoraria from Procter and Gamble and Meda; grants from Galderma; and consultancy and advisory board honoraria from Origimm outside the submitted work.

[email protected]

Adult women with acne describe significant impacts on their lived experience of acne, including concerns about appearance, mental and emotional health consequences, and disruption to their personal and professional lives, results from a qualitative study demonstrated.

“Nearly 50% of women experience acne in their 20s, and 35% experience acne in their 30s,” the study’s corresponding author, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, formerly of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. “While several qualitative studies have examined acne in adolescence, the lived experience of adult female acne has not been explored in detail and prior studies have included relatively few patients. As a result, we conducted a series of semistructured interviews among adult women with acne to examine the lived experience of adult acne and its treatment.”

For the study, published online July 28, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri and colleagues conducted voluntary, confidential phone interviews with 50 women aged between 18 and 40 years with moderate to severe acne who were recruited from the University of Pennsylvania Health System and from a private dermatology clinic in Cincinnati. They used free listing and open-ended, semistructured interviews to elicit opinions from the women on how acne affected their lives; their experience with acne treatments, dermatologists, and health care systems; as well as their views on treatment success.

The mean age of the participants was 28 years and 48% were white (10% were Black, 8% were Asian, 4% were more than one race, and the rest abstained from answering this question; 10% said they were Hispanic).

More than three-quarters (78%) reported prior treatment with topical retinoids, followed by spironolactone (70%), topical antibiotics (43%), combined oral contraceptives (43%), and isotretinoin (41%). During the free-listing part of interviews, where the women reported the first words that came to their mind when asked about success of treatment and adverse effects, the most important terms expressed related to treatment success were clear skin, no scarring, and no acne. The most important terms related to treatment adverse effects were dryness, redness, and burning.

In the semistructured interview portion of the study, the main themes expressed were acne-related concerns about appearance, including feeling less confident at work; mental and emotional health, including feelings of depression, anxiety, depression, and low self-worth during acne breakouts; and everyday life impact, including the notion that acne affected how other people perceived them. The other main themes included successful treatment, with clear skin and having a manageable number of lesions being desirable outcomes; and interactions with health care, including varied experiences with dermatologists. The researchers observed that most participants did not think oral antibiotics were appropriate treatments for their acne, specifically because of limited long-term effectiveness.

“Many patients described frustration with finding a dermatologist with whom they were comfortable and with identifying effective treatments for their acne,” the authors wrote. “In contrast, those who thought their dermatologist listened to their concerns and individualized their treatment plan reported higher levels of satisfaction.”

In an interview, Dr. Barbieri, who is now with the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he was surprised by how many patients expressed interest in nonantibiotic treatments for acne, “given that oral antibiotics are by far the most commonly prescribed systemic treatment for acne.”

Moreover, he added, “although I have experienced many patients being hesitant about isotretinoin, I was surprised by how strong patients’ concerns were about isotretinoin side effects. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about isotretinoin that limit use of this treatment that can be highly effective and safe for the appropriate patient.”

In an accompanying editorial, dermatologists Diane M. Thiboutot, MD and Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, with Penn State University, Hershey, and Alison M. Layton, MB, ChB, with the Harrogate Foundation Trust, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England, wrote that the findings from the study “resonate with those recently reported in several international studies that examine the impacts of acne, how patients assess treatment success, and what is important to measure from a patient and health care professional perspective in a clinical trial for acne.”

A large systematic review on the impact of acne on patients, conducted by the Acne Core Outcomes Research Network (ACORN), found that “appearance-related concerns and negative psychosocial effects were found to be a major impact of acne,” they noted. “Surprisingly, only 22 of the 473 studies identified in this review included qualitative data gathered from patient interviews. It is encouraging to see the concordance between the concerns voiced by the participants in the current study and those identified from the literature review, wherein a variety of methods were used to assess acne impacts.”

For his part, Dr. Barbieri said that the study findings “justify the importance of having a discussion with patients about their unique lived experience of acne and individualizing treatment to their specific needs. Patient reported outcome measures could be a useful adjunctive tool to capture these impacts on quality of life.”

This study was funded by grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he received partial salary support through a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Thiboutot reported receiving consultant fees from Galderma and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Layton reported receiving unrestricted educational presentation, advisory board, and consultancy fees from Galderma Honoraria; unrestricted educational presentation and advisory board honoraria from Leo; advisory board honoraria from Novartis and Mylan; consultancy honoraria from Procter and Gamble and Meda; grants from Galderma; and consultancy and advisory board honoraria from Origimm outside the submitted work.

[email protected]

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

AGA journals’ reach record-high Impact Factors

AGA is proud to announce that its journals have maintained their exceptional standing in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, based on Impact Factor. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency with which articles published in the previous 2 years are cited and is commonly used to rank the significance of journals within their fields.

Gastroenterology, AGA’s flagship journal, received a record-high Impact Factor of 22.682, a substantial increase from its 2019 Impact Factor of 17.37. Gastroenterology maintains its position among an elite group of journals focused on publishing original research, spanning basic to clinical, in our field. Co–Editors in Chief (EICs) Richard M. Peek Jr., MD, and Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, remarked, “We would like to thank our entire board of editors and reviewers, as well as the incredible AGA editorial staff, for their exceptional work in this challenging pandemic year as we continue to publish articles and reviews of outstanding quality that are widely used by our readership. It is an honor to be part of such a remarkable team.”

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), AGA’s clinically focused journal, also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 11.382, pulling ahead as the field’s top exclusively clinically oriented journal. This puts CGH at a rank of 8th among 92 journals in the field. Fasiha Kanwal, MD, MSHS, EIC of CGH, noted, “We are delighted that CGH remains in a strong position in the top 10 GI journals in terms of Impact Factor. On behalf of the CGH board of editors, I want to extend a warm and most heartfelt thanks to our authors, reviewers, and readers!  We would not have been able to achieve this milestone without your support, contributions, and the faith that you place in us.”

To round things out, Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), AGA’s basic and translational open-access journal also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 9.225, placing it 13th, and second among nonclinical journals in that topic area. EICs Klaus Kaestner, PhD, and Michael Pack, MD, stated, “As co-EICs of CMGH, we send congratulations to the journal’s board of editors, editorial board, reviewers, and superb editorial staff on this year’s Impact Factor. We are honored to work with these outstanding colleagues and to provide our readership with highly impactful and cutting-edge research and review articles.”

In its online announcement, AGA congratulates and thanks the boards of all three journals for their editorial leadership. We also thank our authors, readers, and reviewers for their continued support of AGA’s journals. We look forward to continuing to push the envelope in scientific publishing in the upcoming year.
 

AGA journals select new editorial fellows

The AGA journals Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), and Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) recently selected the recipients of their editorial fellowships, which will run from July 2021 through June 2022. The AGA editorial fellowship program is in its 4th year. 

• Amisha Ahuja, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Helenie Kefalalkes, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Katherine Falloon, MD (CGH)
• Judy Trieu, MD, MPH (CGH)
• Lindsey Kennedy, PhD (CMGH)
• Vivian Ortiz, MD (CMGH)  
• Sagarika Satyavada, MD (TIGE)
• Eric Swei, MD (TIGE)

Gain perspectives, insights, and experience in diagnostic and therapeutic GI care

Accurately diagnosing and treating GI disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or eosinophilic esophagitis are challenging for any health care practitioners. Why not be the advanced practice provider (APP) in your practice that others look to for providing the best course of action for patients? The all-virtual 2021 Principles of GI for the NP and PA, Aug. 14-15, 2021, explores these GI conditions in detail, as well as colorectal cancer and disorders of the liver and pancreas, to give you a foundation in which to provide superlative patient care.

The virtual format also offers a safe and affordable forum for learning from your home or office as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be felt throughout 2021. You’ll also benefit from on-demand access for 2 years after the live course so you can reference and refresh what you learned.

Take the opportunity to refine your skills and improve your patient care outcomes. 
 

Honor your peers with an AGA Recognition Award

When you think about outstanding GI educators, clinicians, investigators, and mentors, who comes to mind?  

Share your appreciation by nominating your colleagues for a prestigious 2022 AGA Recognition Award! 

Make your nominee stand out by sharing specific examples of how they have devoted themselves to eradicating the world of digestive disease, demonstrated innovation in bettering our community, and made a lasting impact, all of which exemplifies an outstanding AGA member. 

Need some inspiration? Read about our 2021 winners before submitting your nomination. 

AGA journals’ reach record-high Impact Factors

AGA is proud to announce that its journals have maintained their exceptional standing in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, based on Impact Factor. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency with which articles published in the previous 2 years are cited and is commonly used to rank the significance of journals within their fields.

Gastroenterology, AGA’s flagship journal, received a record-high Impact Factor of 22.682, a substantial increase from its 2019 Impact Factor of 17.37. Gastroenterology maintains its position among an elite group of journals focused on publishing original research, spanning basic to clinical, in our field. Co–Editors in Chief (EICs) Richard M. Peek Jr., MD, and Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, remarked, “We would like to thank our entire board of editors and reviewers, as well as the incredible AGA editorial staff, for their exceptional work in this challenging pandemic year as we continue to publish articles and reviews of outstanding quality that are widely used by our readership. It is an honor to be part of such a remarkable team.”

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), AGA’s clinically focused journal, also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 11.382, pulling ahead as the field’s top exclusively clinically oriented journal. This puts CGH at a rank of 8th among 92 journals in the field. Fasiha Kanwal, MD, MSHS, EIC of CGH, noted, “We are delighted that CGH remains in a strong position in the top 10 GI journals in terms of Impact Factor. On behalf of the CGH board of editors, I want to extend a warm and most heartfelt thanks to our authors, reviewers, and readers!  We would not have been able to achieve this milestone without your support, contributions, and the faith that you place in us.”

To round things out, Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), AGA’s basic and translational open-access journal also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 9.225, placing it 13th, and second among nonclinical journals in that topic area. EICs Klaus Kaestner, PhD, and Michael Pack, MD, stated, “As co-EICs of CMGH, we send congratulations to the journal’s board of editors, editorial board, reviewers, and superb editorial staff on this year’s Impact Factor. We are honored to work with these outstanding colleagues and to provide our readership with highly impactful and cutting-edge research and review articles.”

In its online announcement, AGA congratulates and thanks the boards of all three journals for their editorial leadership. We also thank our authors, readers, and reviewers for their continued support of AGA’s journals. We look forward to continuing to push the envelope in scientific publishing in the upcoming year.
 

AGA journals select new editorial fellows

The AGA journals Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), and Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) recently selected the recipients of their editorial fellowships, which will run from July 2021 through June 2022. The AGA editorial fellowship program is in its 4th year. 

• Amisha Ahuja, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Helenie Kefalalkes, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Katherine Falloon, MD (CGH)
• Judy Trieu, MD, MPH (CGH)
• Lindsey Kennedy, PhD (CMGH)
• Vivian Ortiz, MD (CMGH)  
• Sagarika Satyavada, MD (TIGE)
• Eric Swei, MD (TIGE)

Gain perspectives, insights, and experience in diagnostic and therapeutic GI care

Accurately diagnosing and treating GI disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or eosinophilic esophagitis are challenging for any health care practitioners. Why not be the advanced practice provider (APP) in your practice that others look to for providing the best course of action for patients? The all-virtual 2021 Principles of GI for the NP and PA, Aug. 14-15, 2021, explores these GI conditions in detail, as well as colorectal cancer and disorders of the liver and pancreas, to give you a foundation in which to provide superlative patient care.

The virtual format also offers a safe and affordable forum for learning from your home or office as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be felt throughout 2021. You’ll also benefit from on-demand access for 2 years after the live course so you can reference and refresh what you learned.

Take the opportunity to refine your skills and improve your patient care outcomes. 
 

Honor your peers with an AGA Recognition Award

When you think about outstanding GI educators, clinicians, investigators, and mentors, who comes to mind?  

Share your appreciation by nominating your colleagues for a prestigious 2022 AGA Recognition Award! 

Make your nominee stand out by sharing specific examples of how they have devoted themselves to eradicating the world of digestive disease, demonstrated innovation in bettering our community, and made a lasting impact, all of which exemplifies an outstanding AGA member. 

Need some inspiration? Read about our 2021 winners before submitting your nomination. 

AGA journals’ reach record-high Impact Factors

AGA is proud to announce that its journals have maintained their exceptional standing in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, based on Impact Factor. The Impact Factor is a measure of the frequency with which articles published in the previous 2 years are cited and is commonly used to rank the significance of journals within their fields.

Gastroenterology, AGA’s flagship journal, received a record-high Impact Factor of 22.682, a substantial increase from its 2019 Impact Factor of 17.37. Gastroenterology maintains its position among an elite group of journals focused on publishing original research, spanning basic to clinical, in our field. Co–Editors in Chief (EICs) Richard M. Peek Jr., MD, and Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, remarked, “We would like to thank our entire board of editors and reviewers, as well as the incredible AGA editorial staff, for their exceptional work in this challenging pandemic year as we continue to publish articles and reviews of outstanding quality that are widely used by our readership. It is an honor to be part of such a remarkable team.”

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), AGA’s clinically focused journal, also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 11.382, pulling ahead as the field’s top exclusively clinically oriented journal. This puts CGH at a rank of 8th among 92 journals in the field. Fasiha Kanwal, MD, MSHS, EIC of CGH, noted, “We are delighted that CGH remains in a strong position in the top 10 GI journals in terms of Impact Factor. On behalf of the CGH board of editors, I want to extend a warm and most heartfelt thanks to our authors, reviewers, and readers!  We would not have been able to achieve this milestone without your support, contributions, and the faith that you place in us.”

To round things out, Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), AGA’s basic and translational open-access journal also reached a record high with an Impact Factor of 9.225, placing it 13th, and second among nonclinical journals in that topic area. EICs Klaus Kaestner, PhD, and Michael Pack, MD, stated, “As co-EICs of CMGH, we send congratulations to the journal’s board of editors, editorial board, reviewers, and superb editorial staff on this year’s Impact Factor. We are honored to work with these outstanding colleagues and to provide our readership with highly impactful and cutting-edge research and review articles.”

In its online announcement, AGA congratulates and thanks the boards of all three journals for their editorial leadership. We also thank our authors, readers, and reviewers for their continued support of AGA’s journals. We look forward to continuing to push the envelope in scientific publishing in the upcoming year.
 

AGA journals select new editorial fellows

The AGA journals Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CMGH), and Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TIGE) recently selected the recipients of their editorial fellowships, which will run from July 2021 through June 2022. The AGA editorial fellowship program is in its 4th year. 

• Amisha Ahuja, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Helenie Kefalalkes, MD (Gastroenterology)
• Katherine Falloon, MD (CGH)
• Judy Trieu, MD, MPH (CGH)
• Lindsey Kennedy, PhD (CMGH)
• Vivian Ortiz, MD (CMGH)  
• Sagarika Satyavada, MD (TIGE)
• Eric Swei, MD (TIGE)

Gain perspectives, insights, and experience in diagnostic and therapeutic GI care

Accurately diagnosing and treating GI disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or eosinophilic esophagitis are challenging for any health care practitioners. Why not be the advanced practice provider (APP) in your practice that others look to for providing the best course of action for patients? The all-virtual 2021 Principles of GI for the NP and PA, Aug. 14-15, 2021, explores these GI conditions in detail, as well as colorectal cancer and disorders of the liver and pancreas, to give you a foundation in which to provide superlative patient care.

The virtual format also offers a safe and affordable forum for learning from your home or office as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be felt throughout 2021. You’ll also benefit from on-demand access for 2 years after the live course so you can reference and refresh what you learned.

Take the opportunity to refine your skills and improve your patient care outcomes. 
 

Honor your peers with an AGA Recognition Award

When you think about outstanding GI educators, clinicians, investigators, and mentors, who comes to mind?  

Share your appreciation by nominating your colleagues for a prestigious 2022 AGA Recognition Award! 

Make your nominee stand out by sharing specific examples of how they have devoted themselves to eradicating the world of digestive disease, demonstrated innovation in bettering our community, and made a lasting impact, all of which exemplifies an outstanding AGA member. 

Need some inspiration? Read about our 2021 winners before submitting your nomination. 

When Jerry Gardner, MD, and a junior colleague received the acceptance notification for their abstract to be presented at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2021, a clause in the mandatory participation agreement gave Dr. Gardner pause. It required his colleague, as the submitting author, to completely accept any and all legal responsibility for any claims that might arise out of their presentation.

VladKol/Getty Images

The clause was a red flag to Dr. Gardner, president of Science for Organizations, a Mill Valley, Calif.–based consulting firm. The gastroenterologist and former head of the digestive diseases branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – who has made hundreds of presentations and had participated in DDW for 40 years – had never encountered such a broad indemnity clause.

This news organization investigated just how risky it is to make a presentation at a conference – more than a dozen professional societies were contacted. Although DDW declined to discuss its agreement, Houston health care attorney Rachel V. Rose said that Dr. Gardner was smart to be cautious. “I would not sign that agreement. I have never seen anything that broad and all encompassing,” she said.

The DDW requirement “means that participants must put themselves at great potential financial risk in order to present their work,” Dr. Gardner said. He added that he and his colleague would not have submitted an abstract had they known about the indemnification clause up front.

Dr. Gardner advised his colleague not to sign the DDW agreement. She did not, and both missed the meeting.
 

Speakers ‘have to be careful’

Dr. Gardner may be an exception. How many doctors are willing to forgo a presentation because of a concern about something in an agreement?

John Mandrola, MD, said he operates under the assumption that if he does not sign the agreement, then he won’t be able to give his presentation. He admits that he generally just signs them and is careful with his presentations. “I’ve never really paid much attention to them,” said Dr. Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist in Louisville, Ky., and chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.

Not everyone takes that approach. “I do think that people read them, but they also take them with a grain of salt,” said E. Magnus Ohman, MBBS, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. He said he’s pragmatic and regards the agreements as a necessary evil in a litigious nation. Speakers “have to be careful, obviously,” Dr. Ohman said in an interview.

Some argue that the requirements are not only fair but also understandable. David Johnson, MD, a former president of the American College of Gastroenterology, said he has never had questions about agreements for meetings he has been involved with. “To me, this is not anything other than standard operating procedure,” he said.

Presenters participate by invitation, noted Dr. Johnson, a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who is a contributor to this news organization. “If they stand up and do something egregious, I would concur that the society should not be liable,” he said.
 

Big asks, big secrecy

Even for those who generally agree with Dr. Johnson’s position, it may be hard to completely understand what’s at stake without an attorney.

Although many declined to discuss their policies, a handful of professional societies provided their agreements for review. In general, the agreements appear to offer broad protection and rights to the organizers and large liability exposure for the participants. Participants are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, such as ensuring against copyright violations and intellectual property infringement, and that they also agree to unlimited use of their presentations and their name and likeness.

The American Academy of Neurology, which held its meeting virtually in 2021, required participants to indemnify the organization against all “losses, expenses, damages, or liabilities,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Federal employees, however, could opt out of indemnification.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that it does not usually require indemnification from its meeting participants. However, a spokesperson noted that ASCO did require participants at its 2021 virtual meeting to abide by the terms of use for content posted to the ASCO website. Those terms specify that users agree to indemnify ASCO from damages related to posts.

The American Psychiatric Association said it does not require any indemnification but did not make its agreement available. The American Academy of Pediatrics also said it did not require indemnification but would not share its agreement.

An American Diabetes Association spokesperson said that “every association is different in what they ask or require from speakers,” but would not share its requirements.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the Endocrine Society all declined to participate.

The organizations that withheld agreements “probably don’t want anybody picking apart their documents,” said Kyle Claussen, CEO of the Resolve Physician Agency, which reviews employment contracts and other contracts for physicians. “The more fair a document, the more likely they would be willing to disclose that, because they have nothing to hide,” he said.
 

‘It’s all on you’

Requiring indemnification for any and all aspects of a presentation appears to be increasingly common, said the attorneys interviewed for this article. As organizations repackage meeting presentations for sale, they put the content further out into the world and for a longer period, which increases liability exposure.

“If I’m the attorney for DDW, I certainly think I’d want to have this in place,” said Mr. Claussen.

“It’s good business sense for them because it reduces their risk,” said Courtney H. A. Thompson, an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who advises regional and national corporations and ad agencies on advertising, marketing, and trademark law. She also works with clients who speak at meetings and who thus encounter meeting agreements.

Ms. Thompson said indemnity clauses have become fairly common over the past decade, especially as more companies and organizations have sought to protect trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property and to minimize litigation costs.

A conference organizer “doesn’t want a third party to come after them for intellectual property, privacy, or publicity right infringement based on the participation of the customer or, in this case, the speaker,” said Ms. Thompson.

The agreements also reflect America’s litigation-prone culture.

Dean Fanelli, a patent attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of Cooley LLP, said the agreements he’s been asked to sign as a speaker increasingly seem “overly lawyerly.”

Two decades ago, a speaker might have been asked to sign a paragraph or a one-page form. Now “they often look more like formalized legal agreements,” Mr. Fanelli told this news organization.

The DDW agreement, for instance, ran four pages and contained 21 detailed clauses.

The increasingly complicated agreements “are a little over the top,” said Mr. Fanelli. But as an attorney who works with clients in the pharmaceutical industry, he said he understands that meeting organizers want to protect their rights.

DDW’s main indemnification clause requires the participant to indemnify DDW and its agents, directors, and employees “against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,” including attorneys’ fees “arising out of a claim, action or proceeding” based on a breach or “alleged breach” by the participant.

“You’re releasing this information to them and then you’re also giving them blanket indemnity back, saying if there’s any type of intellectual property violation on your end – if you’ve included any type of work that’s protected, if this causes any problems – it’s all on you,” said Mr. Claussen.
 

Other potential pitfalls

Aside from indemnification, participation agreements can contain other potentially worrisome clauses, including onerous terms for cancellation and reuse of content without remuneration.

DDW requires royalty-free licensing of a speaker’s content; the organization can reproduce it in perpetuity without royalties. Many organizations have such a clause in their agreements, including the AAN and the American College of Cardiology.

ASCO’s general authorization form for meeting participants requires that they assign to ASCO rights to their content “perpetually, irrevocably, worldwide and royalty free.” Participants can contact the organization if they seek to opt out, but it’s not clear whether ASCO grants such requests.

Participants in the upcoming American Heart Association annual meeting can deny permission to record their presentation. But if they allow recording and do not agree to assign all rights and copyright ownership to the AHA, the work will be excluded from publication in the meeting program, e-posters, and the meeting supplement in Circulation.

Mr. Claussen said granting royalty-free rights presents a conundrum. Having content reproduced in various formats “might be better for your personal brand,” but it’s not likely to result in any direct compensation and could increase liability exposure, he said.
 

How presenters must prepare

Mr. Claussen and Ms. Rose said speakers should be vigilant about their own rights and responsibilities, including ensuring that they do not violate copyrights or infringe on intellectual property rights.

“I would recommend that folks be meticulous about what is in their slide deck and materials,” said Ms. Thompson. He said that presenters should be sure they have the right to share material. Technologies crawl the internet seeking out infringement, which often leads to cease and desist letters from attorneys, she said.

It’s better to head off such a letter, Ms. Thompson said. “You need to defend it whether or not it’s a viable claim,” and that can be costly, she said.

Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fanelli also warn about disclosing anything that might be considered a trade secret. Many agreements prohibit presenters from engaging in commercial promotion, but if a talk includes information about a drug or device, the manufacturer will want to review the presentation before it’s made public, said Mr. Fanelli.

Many organizations prohibit attendees from photographing, recording, or tweeting at meetings and often require speakers to warn the audience about doing so. DDW goes further by holding presenters liable if someone violates the rule.

“That’s a huge problem,” said Dr. Mandrola. He noted that although it might be easy to police journalists attending a meeting, “it seems hard to enforce that rule amongst just regular attendees.”
 

Accept or negotiate?

Individuals who submit work to an organization might feel they must sign an agreement as is, especially if they are looking to advance their career or expand knowledge by presenting work at a meeting. But some attorneys said it might be possible to negotiate with meeting organizers.

“My personal opinion is that it never hurts to ask,” said Ms. Thompson. If she were speaking at a legal conference, she would mark up a contract and “see what happens.” The more times pushback is accepted – say, if it works with three out of five speaking engagements – the more it reduces overall liability exposure.

Mr. Fanelli, however, said that although he always reads over an agreement, he typically signs without negotiating. “I don’t usually worry about it because I’m just trying to talk at a particular seminar,” he said.

Prospective presenters “have to weigh that balance – do you want to talk at a seminar, or are you concerned about the legal issues?” said Mr. Fanelli.

If in doubt, talk with a lawyer.

“If you ever have a question on whether or not you should consult an attorney, the answer is always yes,” said Mr. Claussen. It would be “an ounce of prevention,” especially if it’s just a short agreement, he said.

Dr. Ohman, however, said that he believed “it would be fairly costly” and potentially unwieldy. “You can’t litigate everything in life,” he added.

As for Dr. Gardner, he said he would not be as likely to attend DDW in the future if he has to agree to cover any and all liability. “I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to personally indemnify DDW in order to make a presentation at the annual meeting,” he said.

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

When Jerry Gardner, MD, and a junior colleague received the acceptance notification for their abstract to be presented at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2021, a clause in the mandatory participation agreement gave Dr. Gardner pause. It required his colleague, as the submitting author, to completely accept any and all legal responsibility for any claims that might arise out of their presentation.

VladKol/Getty Images

The clause was a red flag to Dr. Gardner, president of Science for Organizations, a Mill Valley, Calif.–based consulting firm. The gastroenterologist and former head of the digestive diseases branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – who has made hundreds of presentations and had participated in DDW for 40 years – had never encountered such a broad indemnity clause.

This news organization investigated just how risky it is to make a presentation at a conference – more than a dozen professional societies were contacted. Although DDW declined to discuss its agreement, Houston health care attorney Rachel V. Rose said that Dr. Gardner was smart to be cautious. “I would not sign that agreement. I have never seen anything that broad and all encompassing,” she said.

The DDW requirement “means that participants must put themselves at great potential financial risk in order to present their work,” Dr. Gardner said. He added that he and his colleague would not have submitted an abstract had they known about the indemnification clause up front.

Dr. Gardner advised his colleague not to sign the DDW agreement. She did not, and both missed the meeting.
 

Speakers ‘have to be careful’

Dr. Gardner may be an exception. How many doctors are willing to forgo a presentation because of a concern about something in an agreement?

John Mandrola, MD, said he operates under the assumption that if he does not sign the agreement, then he won’t be able to give his presentation. He admits that he generally just signs them and is careful with his presentations. “I’ve never really paid much attention to them,” said Dr. Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist in Louisville, Ky., and chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.

Not everyone takes that approach. “I do think that people read them, but they also take them with a grain of salt,” said E. Magnus Ohman, MBBS, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. He said he’s pragmatic and regards the agreements as a necessary evil in a litigious nation. Speakers “have to be careful, obviously,” Dr. Ohman said in an interview.

Some argue that the requirements are not only fair but also understandable. David Johnson, MD, a former president of the American College of Gastroenterology, said he has never had questions about agreements for meetings he has been involved with. “To me, this is not anything other than standard operating procedure,” he said.

Presenters participate by invitation, noted Dr. Johnson, a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who is a contributor to this news organization. “If they stand up and do something egregious, I would concur that the society should not be liable,” he said.
 

Big asks, big secrecy

Even for those who generally agree with Dr. Johnson’s position, it may be hard to completely understand what’s at stake without an attorney.

Although many declined to discuss their policies, a handful of professional societies provided their agreements for review. In general, the agreements appear to offer broad protection and rights to the organizers and large liability exposure for the participants. Participants are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, such as ensuring against copyright violations and intellectual property infringement, and that they also agree to unlimited use of their presentations and their name and likeness.

The American Academy of Neurology, which held its meeting virtually in 2021, required participants to indemnify the organization against all “losses, expenses, damages, or liabilities,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Federal employees, however, could opt out of indemnification.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that it does not usually require indemnification from its meeting participants. However, a spokesperson noted that ASCO did require participants at its 2021 virtual meeting to abide by the terms of use for content posted to the ASCO website. Those terms specify that users agree to indemnify ASCO from damages related to posts.

The American Psychiatric Association said it does not require any indemnification but did not make its agreement available. The American Academy of Pediatrics also said it did not require indemnification but would not share its agreement.

An American Diabetes Association spokesperson said that “every association is different in what they ask or require from speakers,” but would not share its requirements.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the Endocrine Society all declined to participate.

The organizations that withheld agreements “probably don’t want anybody picking apart their documents,” said Kyle Claussen, CEO of the Resolve Physician Agency, which reviews employment contracts and other contracts for physicians. “The more fair a document, the more likely they would be willing to disclose that, because they have nothing to hide,” he said.
 

‘It’s all on you’

Requiring indemnification for any and all aspects of a presentation appears to be increasingly common, said the attorneys interviewed for this article. As organizations repackage meeting presentations for sale, they put the content further out into the world and for a longer period, which increases liability exposure.

“If I’m the attorney for DDW, I certainly think I’d want to have this in place,” said Mr. Claussen.

“It’s good business sense for them because it reduces their risk,” said Courtney H. A. Thompson, an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who advises regional and national corporations and ad agencies on advertising, marketing, and trademark law. She also works with clients who speak at meetings and who thus encounter meeting agreements.

Ms. Thompson said indemnity clauses have become fairly common over the past decade, especially as more companies and organizations have sought to protect trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property and to minimize litigation costs.

A conference organizer “doesn’t want a third party to come after them for intellectual property, privacy, or publicity right infringement based on the participation of the customer or, in this case, the speaker,” said Ms. Thompson.

The agreements also reflect America’s litigation-prone culture.

Dean Fanelli, a patent attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of Cooley LLP, said the agreements he’s been asked to sign as a speaker increasingly seem “overly lawyerly.”

Two decades ago, a speaker might have been asked to sign a paragraph or a one-page form. Now “they often look more like formalized legal agreements,” Mr. Fanelli told this news organization.

The DDW agreement, for instance, ran four pages and contained 21 detailed clauses.

The increasingly complicated agreements “are a little over the top,” said Mr. Fanelli. But as an attorney who works with clients in the pharmaceutical industry, he said he understands that meeting organizers want to protect their rights.

DDW’s main indemnification clause requires the participant to indemnify DDW and its agents, directors, and employees “against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,” including attorneys’ fees “arising out of a claim, action or proceeding” based on a breach or “alleged breach” by the participant.

“You’re releasing this information to them and then you’re also giving them blanket indemnity back, saying if there’s any type of intellectual property violation on your end – if you’ve included any type of work that’s protected, if this causes any problems – it’s all on you,” said Mr. Claussen.
 

Other potential pitfalls

Aside from indemnification, participation agreements can contain other potentially worrisome clauses, including onerous terms for cancellation and reuse of content without remuneration.

DDW requires royalty-free licensing of a speaker’s content; the organization can reproduce it in perpetuity without royalties. Many organizations have such a clause in their agreements, including the AAN and the American College of Cardiology.

ASCO’s general authorization form for meeting participants requires that they assign to ASCO rights to their content “perpetually, irrevocably, worldwide and royalty free.” Participants can contact the organization if they seek to opt out, but it’s not clear whether ASCO grants such requests.

Participants in the upcoming American Heart Association annual meeting can deny permission to record their presentation. But if they allow recording and do not agree to assign all rights and copyright ownership to the AHA, the work will be excluded from publication in the meeting program, e-posters, and the meeting supplement in Circulation.

Mr. Claussen said granting royalty-free rights presents a conundrum. Having content reproduced in various formats “might be better for your personal brand,” but it’s not likely to result in any direct compensation and could increase liability exposure, he said.
 

How presenters must prepare

Mr. Claussen and Ms. Rose said speakers should be vigilant about their own rights and responsibilities, including ensuring that they do not violate copyrights or infringe on intellectual property rights.

“I would recommend that folks be meticulous about what is in their slide deck and materials,” said Ms. Thompson. He said that presenters should be sure they have the right to share material. Technologies crawl the internet seeking out infringement, which often leads to cease and desist letters from attorneys, she said.

It’s better to head off such a letter, Ms. Thompson said. “You need to defend it whether or not it’s a viable claim,” and that can be costly, she said.

Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fanelli also warn about disclosing anything that might be considered a trade secret. Many agreements prohibit presenters from engaging in commercial promotion, but if a talk includes information about a drug or device, the manufacturer will want to review the presentation before it’s made public, said Mr. Fanelli.

Many organizations prohibit attendees from photographing, recording, or tweeting at meetings and often require speakers to warn the audience about doing so. DDW goes further by holding presenters liable if someone violates the rule.

“That’s a huge problem,” said Dr. Mandrola. He noted that although it might be easy to police journalists attending a meeting, “it seems hard to enforce that rule amongst just regular attendees.”
 

Accept or negotiate?

Individuals who submit work to an organization might feel they must sign an agreement as is, especially if they are looking to advance their career or expand knowledge by presenting work at a meeting. But some attorneys said it might be possible to negotiate with meeting organizers.

“My personal opinion is that it never hurts to ask,” said Ms. Thompson. If she were speaking at a legal conference, she would mark up a contract and “see what happens.” The more times pushback is accepted – say, if it works with three out of five speaking engagements – the more it reduces overall liability exposure.

Mr. Fanelli, however, said that although he always reads over an agreement, he typically signs without negotiating. “I don’t usually worry about it because I’m just trying to talk at a particular seminar,” he said.

Prospective presenters “have to weigh that balance – do you want to talk at a seminar, or are you concerned about the legal issues?” said Mr. Fanelli.

If in doubt, talk with a lawyer.

“If you ever have a question on whether or not you should consult an attorney, the answer is always yes,” said Mr. Claussen. It would be “an ounce of prevention,” especially if it’s just a short agreement, he said.

Dr. Ohman, however, said that he believed “it would be fairly costly” and potentially unwieldy. “You can’t litigate everything in life,” he added.

As for Dr. Gardner, he said he would not be as likely to attend DDW in the future if he has to agree to cover any and all liability. “I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to personally indemnify DDW in order to make a presentation at the annual meeting,” he said.

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

When Jerry Gardner, MD, and a junior colleague received the acceptance notification for their abstract to be presented at Digestive Diseases Week® (DDW) 2021, a clause in the mandatory participation agreement gave Dr. Gardner pause. It required his colleague, as the submitting author, to completely accept any and all legal responsibility for any claims that might arise out of their presentation.

VladKol/Getty Images

The clause was a red flag to Dr. Gardner, president of Science for Organizations, a Mill Valley, Calif.–based consulting firm. The gastroenterologist and former head of the digestive diseases branch at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – who has made hundreds of presentations and had participated in DDW for 40 years – had never encountered such a broad indemnity clause.

This news organization investigated just how risky it is to make a presentation at a conference – more than a dozen professional societies were contacted. Although DDW declined to discuss its agreement, Houston health care attorney Rachel V. Rose said that Dr. Gardner was smart to be cautious. “I would not sign that agreement. I have never seen anything that broad and all encompassing,” she said.

The DDW requirement “means that participants must put themselves at great potential financial risk in order to present their work,” Dr. Gardner said. He added that he and his colleague would not have submitted an abstract had they known about the indemnification clause up front.

Dr. Gardner advised his colleague not to sign the DDW agreement. She did not, and both missed the meeting.
 

Speakers ‘have to be careful’

Dr. Gardner may be an exception. How many doctors are willing to forgo a presentation because of a concern about something in an agreement?

John Mandrola, MD, said he operates under the assumption that if he does not sign the agreement, then he won’t be able to give his presentation. He admits that he generally just signs them and is careful with his presentations. “I’ve never really paid much attention to them,” said Dr. Mandrola, a cardiac electrophysiologist in Louisville, Ky., and chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.

Not everyone takes that approach. “I do think that people read them, but they also take them with a grain of salt,” said E. Magnus Ohman, MBBS, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. He said he’s pragmatic and regards the agreements as a necessary evil in a litigious nation. Speakers “have to be careful, obviously,” Dr. Ohman said in an interview.

Some argue that the requirements are not only fair but also understandable. David Johnson, MD, a former president of the American College of Gastroenterology, said he has never had questions about agreements for meetings he has been involved with. “To me, this is not anything other than standard operating procedure,” he said.

Presenters participate by invitation, noted Dr. Johnson, a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, who is a contributor to this news organization. “If they stand up and do something egregious, I would concur that the society should not be liable,” he said.
 

Big asks, big secrecy

Even for those who generally agree with Dr. Johnson’s position, it may be hard to completely understand what’s at stake without an attorney.

Although many declined to discuss their policies, a handful of professional societies provided their agreements for review. In general, the agreements appear to offer broad protection and rights to the organizers and large liability exposure for the participants. Participants are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, such as ensuring against copyright violations and intellectual property infringement, and that they also agree to unlimited use of their presentations and their name and likeness.

The American Academy of Neurology, which held its meeting virtually in 2021, required participants to indemnify the organization against all “losses, expenses, damages, or liabilities,” including “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Federal employees, however, could opt out of indemnification.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that it does not usually require indemnification from its meeting participants. However, a spokesperson noted that ASCO did require participants at its 2021 virtual meeting to abide by the terms of use for content posted to the ASCO website. Those terms specify that users agree to indemnify ASCO from damages related to posts.

The American Psychiatric Association said it does not require any indemnification but did not make its agreement available. The American Academy of Pediatrics also said it did not require indemnification but would not share its agreement.

An American Diabetes Association spokesperson said that “every association is different in what they ask or require from speakers,” but would not share its requirements.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the Endocrine Society all declined to participate.

The organizations that withheld agreements “probably don’t want anybody picking apart their documents,” said Kyle Claussen, CEO of the Resolve Physician Agency, which reviews employment contracts and other contracts for physicians. “The more fair a document, the more likely they would be willing to disclose that, because they have nothing to hide,” he said.
 

‘It’s all on you’

Requiring indemnification for any and all aspects of a presentation appears to be increasingly common, said the attorneys interviewed for this article. As organizations repackage meeting presentations for sale, they put the content further out into the world and for a longer period, which increases liability exposure.

“If I’m the attorney for DDW, I certainly think I’d want to have this in place,” said Mr. Claussen.

“It’s good business sense for them because it reduces their risk,” said Courtney H. A. Thompson, an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who advises regional and national corporations and ad agencies on advertising, marketing, and trademark law. She also works with clients who speak at meetings and who thus encounter meeting agreements.

Ms. Thompson said indemnity clauses have become fairly common over the past decade, especially as more companies and organizations have sought to protect trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property and to minimize litigation costs.

A conference organizer “doesn’t want a third party to come after them for intellectual property, privacy, or publicity right infringement based on the participation of the customer or, in this case, the speaker,” said Ms. Thompson.

The agreements also reflect America’s litigation-prone culture.

Dean Fanelli, a patent attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of Cooley LLP, said the agreements he’s been asked to sign as a speaker increasingly seem “overly lawyerly.”

Two decades ago, a speaker might have been asked to sign a paragraph or a one-page form. Now “they often look more like formalized legal agreements,” Mr. Fanelli told this news organization.

The DDW agreement, for instance, ran four pages and contained 21 detailed clauses.

The increasingly complicated agreements “are a little over the top,” said Mr. Fanelli. But as an attorney who works with clients in the pharmaceutical industry, he said he understands that meeting organizers want to protect their rights.

DDW’s main indemnification clause requires the participant to indemnify DDW and its agents, directors, and employees “against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses,” including attorneys’ fees “arising out of a claim, action or proceeding” based on a breach or “alleged breach” by the participant.

“You’re releasing this information to them and then you’re also giving them blanket indemnity back, saying if there’s any type of intellectual property violation on your end – if you’ve included any type of work that’s protected, if this causes any problems – it’s all on you,” said Mr. Claussen.
 

Other potential pitfalls

Aside from indemnification, participation agreements can contain other potentially worrisome clauses, including onerous terms for cancellation and reuse of content without remuneration.

DDW requires royalty-free licensing of a speaker’s content; the organization can reproduce it in perpetuity without royalties. Many organizations have such a clause in their agreements, including the AAN and the American College of Cardiology.

ASCO’s general authorization form for meeting participants requires that they assign to ASCO rights to their content “perpetually, irrevocably, worldwide and royalty free.” Participants can contact the organization if they seek to opt out, but it’s not clear whether ASCO grants such requests.

Participants in the upcoming American Heart Association annual meeting can deny permission to record their presentation. But if they allow recording and do not agree to assign all rights and copyright ownership to the AHA, the work will be excluded from publication in the meeting program, e-posters, and the meeting supplement in Circulation.

Mr. Claussen said granting royalty-free rights presents a conundrum. Having content reproduced in various formats “might be better for your personal brand,” but it’s not likely to result in any direct compensation and could increase liability exposure, he said.
 

How presenters must prepare

Mr. Claussen and Ms. Rose said speakers should be vigilant about their own rights and responsibilities, including ensuring that they do not violate copyrights or infringe on intellectual property rights.

“I would recommend that folks be meticulous about what is in their slide deck and materials,” said Ms. Thompson. He said that presenters should be sure they have the right to share material. Technologies crawl the internet seeking out infringement, which often leads to cease and desist letters from attorneys, she said.

It’s better to head off such a letter, Ms. Thompson said. “You need to defend it whether or not it’s a viable claim,” and that can be costly, she said.

Both Ms. Thompson and Mr. Fanelli also warn about disclosing anything that might be considered a trade secret. Many agreements prohibit presenters from engaging in commercial promotion, but if a talk includes information about a drug or device, the manufacturer will want to review the presentation before it’s made public, said Mr. Fanelli.

Many organizations prohibit attendees from photographing, recording, or tweeting at meetings and often require speakers to warn the audience about doing so. DDW goes further by holding presenters liable if someone violates the rule.

“That’s a huge problem,” said Dr. Mandrola. He noted that although it might be easy to police journalists attending a meeting, “it seems hard to enforce that rule amongst just regular attendees.”
 

Accept or negotiate?

Individuals who submit work to an organization might feel they must sign an agreement as is, especially if they are looking to advance their career or expand knowledge by presenting work at a meeting. But some attorneys said it might be possible to negotiate with meeting organizers.

“My personal opinion is that it never hurts to ask,” said Ms. Thompson. If she were speaking at a legal conference, she would mark up a contract and “see what happens.” The more times pushback is accepted – say, if it works with three out of five speaking engagements – the more it reduces overall liability exposure.

Mr. Fanelli, however, said that although he always reads over an agreement, he typically signs without negotiating. “I don’t usually worry about it because I’m just trying to talk at a particular seminar,” he said.

Prospective presenters “have to weigh that balance – do you want to talk at a seminar, or are you concerned about the legal issues?” said Mr. Fanelli.

If in doubt, talk with a lawyer.

“If you ever have a question on whether or not you should consult an attorney, the answer is always yes,” said Mr. Claussen. It would be “an ounce of prevention,” especially if it’s just a short agreement, he said.

Dr. Ohman, however, said that he believed “it would be fairly costly” and potentially unwieldy. “You can’t litigate everything in life,” he added.

As for Dr. Gardner, he said he would not be as likely to attend DDW in the future if he has to agree to cover any and all liability. “I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to personally indemnify DDW in order to make a presentation at the annual meeting,” he said.

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

Not surprisingly, the pandemic has torn at the already fraying fabric of many families. Cooped up away from friends and the emotional relief valve of school, even children who had been relatively easy to manage in the past have posed disciplinary challenges beyond their parents’ abilities to cope.

In a recent study from the Parenting in Context Lab of the University of Michigan (“Child Discipline During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” Family Snapshots: Life During the Pandemic, American Academy of Pediatrics, June 8 2021) researchers found that one in six parents surveyed (n = 3,000 adults) admitted to spanking. Nearly half of the parents said that they had yelled at or threatened their children.

Five out of six parents reported using what the investigators described as less harsh “positive discipline measures.” Three-quarters of these parents used “explaining” as a strategy and nearly the same number used either time-outs or sent the children to their rooms.

Again, not surprisingly, parents who had experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) were more than twice as likely to spank. And parents who reported an episode of intimate partner violence (IPV) were more likely to resort to a harsh discipline strategy (yelling, threatening, or spanking).

Over my professional career I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about discipline and I have attempted to summarize my thoughts in a book titled, “How to Say No to Your Toddler” (Simon and Schuster, 2003), that has been published in four languages. Based on my observations, trying to explain to a misbehaving child the error of his ways is generally parental time not well spent. A well-structured time-out, preferably in a separate room with a door closed, is the most effective and safest discipline strategy.

However, as in all of my books, this advice on discipline was colored by the families in my practice and the audience for which I was writing, primarily middle class and upper middle class, reasonably affluent parents who buy books. These are usually folks who have homes in which children often have their own rooms, or where at least there are multiple rooms with doors – spaces to escape when tensions rise. Few of these parents have endured ACEs. Few have they experienced – nor have their children witnessed – IPV.

My advice that parents make only threats that can be safely carried, out such as time-out, and to always follow up on threats and promises, is valid regardless of a family’s socioeconomic situation. However, when it comes to choosing a consequence, my standard recommendation of a time-out can be difficult to follow for a family of six living in a three-room apartment, particularly during pandemic-dictated restrictions and lockdowns.

Of course there are alternatives to time-outs in a separate space, including an extended hug in a parental lap, but these responses require that the parents have been able to compose themselves well enough, and that they have the time. One of the important benefits of time-outs is that they can provide parents the time and space to reassess the situation and consider their role in the conflict. The bottom line is that a time-out is the safest and most effective form of discipline, but it requires space and a parent relatively unburdened of financial or emotional stress. Families without these luxuries are left with few alternatives other than physical or verbal abuse.

The AAP’s Family Snapshot concludes with the observation that “pediatricians and pediatric health care providers can continue to play an important role in supporting positive discipline strategies.” That is a difficult assignment even in prepandemic times, but for those of you working with families who lack the space and time to defuse disciplinary tensions, it is a heroic task.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Not surprisingly, the pandemic has torn at the already fraying fabric of many families. Cooped up away from friends and the emotional relief valve of school, even children who had been relatively easy to manage in the past have posed disciplinary challenges beyond their parents’ abilities to cope.

In a recent study from the Parenting in Context Lab of the University of Michigan (“Child Discipline During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” Family Snapshots: Life During the Pandemic, American Academy of Pediatrics, June 8 2021) researchers found that one in six parents surveyed (n = 3,000 adults) admitted to spanking. Nearly half of the parents said that they had yelled at or threatened their children.

Five out of six parents reported using what the investigators described as less harsh “positive discipline measures.” Three-quarters of these parents used “explaining” as a strategy and nearly the same number used either time-outs or sent the children to their rooms.

Again, not surprisingly, parents who had experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) were more than twice as likely to spank. And parents who reported an episode of intimate partner violence (IPV) were more likely to resort to a harsh discipline strategy (yelling, threatening, or spanking).

Over my professional career I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about discipline and I have attempted to summarize my thoughts in a book titled, “How to Say No to Your Toddler” (Simon and Schuster, 2003), that has been published in four languages. Based on my observations, trying to explain to a misbehaving child the error of his ways is generally parental time not well spent. A well-structured time-out, preferably in a separate room with a door closed, is the most effective and safest discipline strategy.

However, as in all of my books, this advice on discipline was colored by the families in my practice and the audience for which I was writing, primarily middle class and upper middle class, reasonably affluent parents who buy books. These are usually folks who have homes in which children often have their own rooms, or where at least there are multiple rooms with doors – spaces to escape when tensions rise. Few of these parents have endured ACEs. Few have they experienced – nor have their children witnessed – IPV.

My advice that parents make only threats that can be safely carried, out such as time-out, and to always follow up on threats and promises, is valid regardless of a family’s socioeconomic situation. However, when it comes to choosing a consequence, my standard recommendation of a time-out can be difficult to follow for a family of six living in a three-room apartment, particularly during pandemic-dictated restrictions and lockdowns.

Of course there are alternatives to time-outs in a separate space, including an extended hug in a parental lap, but these responses require that the parents have been able to compose themselves well enough, and that they have the time. One of the important benefits of time-outs is that they can provide parents the time and space to reassess the situation and consider their role in the conflict. The bottom line is that a time-out is the safest and most effective form of discipline, but it requires space and a parent relatively unburdened of financial or emotional stress. Families without these luxuries are left with few alternatives other than physical or verbal abuse.

The AAP’s Family Snapshot concludes with the observation that “pediatricians and pediatric health care providers can continue to play an important role in supporting positive discipline strategies.” That is a difficult assignment even in prepandemic times, but for those of you working with families who lack the space and time to defuse disciplinary tensions, it is a heroic task.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Not surprisingly, the pandemic has torn at the already fraying fabric of many families. Cooped up away from friends and the emotional relief valve of school, even children who had been relatively easy to manage in the past have posed disciplinary challenges beyond their parents’ abilities to cope.

In a recent study from the Parenting in Context Lab of the University of Michigan (“Child Discipline During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” Family Snapshots: Life During the Pandemic, American Academy of Pediatrics, June 8 2021) researchers found that one in six parents surveyed (n = 3,000 adults) admitted to spanking. Nearly half of the parents said that they had yelled at or threatened their children.

Five out of six parents reported using what the investigators described as less harsh “positive discipline measures.” Three-quarters of these parents used “explaining” as a strategy and nearly the same number used either time-outs or sent the children to their rooms.

Again, not surprisingly, parents who had experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) were more than twice as likely to spank. And parents who reported an episode of intimate partner violence (IPV) were more likely to resort to a harsh discipline strategy (yelling, threatening, or spanking).

Over my professional career I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about discipline and I have attempted to summarize my thoughts in a book titled, “How to Say No to Your Toddler” (Simon and Schuster, 2003), that has been published in four languages. Based on my observations, trying to explain to a misbehaving child the error of his ways is generally parental time not well spent. A well-structured time-out, preferably in a separate room with a door closed, is the most effective and safest discipline strategy.

However, as in all of my books, this advice on discipline was colored by the families in my practice and the audience for which I was writing, primarily middle class and upper middle class, reasonably affluent parents who buy books. These are usually folks who have homes in which children often have their own rooms, or where at least there are multiple rooms with doors – spaces to escape when tensions rise. Few of these parents have endured ACEs. Few have they experienced – nor have their children witnessed – IPV.

My advice that parents make only threats that can be safely carried, out such as time-out, and to always follow up on threats and promises, is valid regardless of a family’s socioeconomic situation. However, when it comes to choosing a consequence, my standard recommendation of a time-out can be difficult to follow for a family of six living in a three-room apartment, particularly during pandemic-dictated restrictions and lockdowns.

Of course there are alternatives to time-outs in a separate space, including an extended hug in a parental lap, but these responses require that the parents have been able to compose themselves well enough, and that they have the time. One of the important benefits of time-outs is that they can provide parents the time and space to reassess the situation and consider their role in the conflict. The bottom line is that a time-out is the safest and most effective form of discipline, but it requires space and a parent relatively unburdened of financial or emotional stress. Families without these luxuries are left with few alternatives other than physical or verbal abuse.

The AAP’s Family Snapshot concludes with the observation that “pediatricians and pediatric health care providers can continue to play an important role in supporting positive discipline strategies.” That is a difficult assignment even in prepandemic times, but for those of you working with families who lack the space and time to defuse disciplinary tensions, it is a heroic task.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

It’s not necessary to completely eradicate all Clostridioides difficile to successfully treat recurrent C. difficile infections with fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), according to a study presented online July 12 at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

C. difficile colonization persisted for 3 weeks after FMT in about one-quarter of patients, but it’s not clear whether this is a persistent infection, a newly acquired infection, or partial persistence of a mixed infection, said Elisabeth Terveer, MD, a medical microbiologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. In addition, “82% of patients with detectable C. diff do not relapse, so it’s absolutely not necessary for a cure,” she said.

Several mechanisms explain why FMT is a highly effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infections, including restoration of bacterial metabolism in the gut, immune modulation, and direct competition between bacteria, Dr. Terveer said, but it’s less clear whether eradication of C. difficile spores is among these mechanisms. 

Between May 2016 and April 2020, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 84 patients who took vancomycin for at least 4 days before undergoing FMT. The researchers took fecal samples from patients before FMT and 3 weeks after FMT to culture them and the donor samples for presence of C. difficile, and they assessed clinical outcomes at 3 weeks and 6 months after FMT.

After antibiotic treatment but prior to FMT, 19% of patients (n = 16) still had a toxigenic C. difficile culture while the other 81% had a negative culture. None of the donor samples had a positive C. difficile culture. After FMT treatment, five patients who had a positive pre-FMT culture remained positive, and the other 11 were negative. Among the 81% of patients (n = 68) who had a negative culture just before FMT, 22 had a positive culture and 46 had a negative culture after FMT. Overall, 26% of patients post FMT had a positive C. difficile culture, a finding that was 10-fold higher than another study that assessed C. difficile with PCR testing, Dr. Terveer said.

The clinical cure rate after FMT was 94%, and five patients had relapses within 2 months of their FMT. These relapses were more prevalent in patients with a positive C. difficile culture prior to FMT (odds ratio [OR], 7.6; P = .045) and a positive C. difficile culture after FMT (OR, 13.6; P = .016). Still, 82% of patients who had a positive C. difficile culture post FMT remained clinically cured 2 months later.

It’s unclear why 19% of patients had a positive culture after their antibiotic pretreatment prior to FMT, Dr. Terveer said, but it may be because the pretreatment was of such a short duration.

“I think the advice should be: Give a full anti–C. diff antibiotic course to treat the C. diff infection, and then give FMT afterward to restore the microbiota and prevent further relapses,” Dr. Terveer told attendees.

Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of the Minneapolis VA Infectious Disease Section, said the findings were not necessarily surprising, but it would have been interesting for the researchers to have conducted DNA sequencing of the patients’ fecal samples post FMT to see what the biological diversity looked like.

“One school of thought has been that you have to repopulate the normal diverse microbiota of the colon” with FMT, and the other “is that you need to get rid of the C. diff that›s there,” Dr. Drekonja, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “I think more people think it’s the diverse microbiota because if it’s just getting rid of C. diff, we can get do that with antibiotics – but that gets rid of the other organisms.”

As long as you have a diverse microbiota post FMT, Dr. Drekonja said, then “having a few residual organisms, even if they get magnified in the culture process, is probably not that big a deal.”

But there’s a third school of thought that Dr. Drekonja said he himself falls into: “I don’t really care how it works, just that in well-done trials, it does work.” As long as large, robust, well-blinded trials show that FMT works, “I’m open to all sorts of ideas of what the mechanism is,” he said. “The main thing is that it does or doesn’t work.”

These findings basically reinforce current guidance not to test patients’ stools if they are asymptomatic, Dr. Drekonja said. In the past, clinicians sometimes tested patients’ stool after therapy to ensure the C. difficile was eradicated, regardless of whether the patient had symptoms of infection, he said.

“We’ve since become much more attuned that there are lots of people who have detectable C. diff in their stool without any symptoms,” whether detectable by culture or PCR, Dr. Drekonja said. “Generally, if you’re doing well and you’re not having diarrhea, don’t test, and if someone does test and finds it, pretend you didn’t see the test,” he advised. “This is a big part of diagnostic stewardship, which is: You don’t go testing people who are doing well.”

The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank used in the research is funded by a grant from Vedanta Biosciences. Dr. Drekonja had no disclosures.

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

It’s not necessary to completely eradicate all Clostridioides difficile to successfully treat recurrent C. difficile infections with fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), according to a study presented online July 12 at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

C. difficile colonization persisted for 3 weeks after FMT in about one-quarter of patients, but it’s not clear whether this is a persistent infection, a newly acquired infection, or partial persistence of a mixed infection, said Elisabeth Terveer, MD, a medical microbiologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. In addition, “82% of patients with detectable C. diff do not relapse, so it’s absolutely not necessary for a cure,” she said.

Several mechanisms explain why FMT is a highly effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infections, including restoration of bacterial metabolism in the gut, immune modulation, and direct competition between bacteria, Dr. Terveer said, but it’s less clear whether eradication of C. difficile spores is among these mechanisms. 

Between May 2016 and April 2020, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 84 patients who took vancomycin for at least 4 days before undergoing FMT. The researchers took fecal samples from patients before FMT and 3 weeks after FMT to culture them and the donor samples for presence of C. difficile, and they assessed clinical outcomes at 3 weeks and 6 months after FMT.

After antibiotic treatment but prior to FMT, 19% of patients (n = 16) still had a toxigenic C. difficile culture while the other 81% had a negative culture. None of the donor samples had a positive C. difficile culture. After FMT treatment, five patients who had a positive pre-FMT culture remained positive, and the other 11 were negative. Among the 81% of patients (n = 68) who had a negative culture just before FMT, 22 had a positive culture and 46 had a negative culture after FMT. Overall, 26% of patients post FMT had a positive C. difficile culture, a finding that was 10-fold higher than another study that assessed C. difficile with PCR testing, Dr. Terveer said.

The clinical cure rate after FMT was 94%, and five patients had relapses within 2 months of their FMT. These relapses were more prevalent in patients with a positive C. difficile culture prior to FMT (odds ratio [OR], 7.6; P = .045) and a positive C. difficile culture after FMT (OR, 13.6; P = .016). Still, 82% of patients who had a positive C. difficile culture post FMT remained clinically cured 2 months later.

It’s unclear why 19% of patients had a positive culture after their antibiotic pretreatment prior to FMT, Dr. Terveer said, but it may be because the pretreatment was of such a short duration.

“I think the advice should be: Give a full anti–C. diff antibiotic course to treat the C. diff infection, and then give FMT afterward to restore the microbiota and prevent further relapses,” Dr. Terveer told attendees.

Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of the Minneapolis VA Infectious Disease Section, said the findings were not necessarily surprising, but it would have been interesting for the researchers to have conducted DNA sequencing of the patients’ fecal samples post FMT to see what the biological diversity looked like.

“One school of thought has been that you have to repopulate the normal diverse microbiota of the colon” with FMT, and the other “is that you need to get rid of the C. diff that›s there,” Dr. Drekonja, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “I think more people think it’s the diverse microbiota because if it’s just getting rid of C. diff, we can get do that with antibiotics – but that gets rid of the other organisms.”

As long as you have a diverse microbiota post FMT, Dr. Drekonja said, then “having a few residual organisms, even if they get magnified in the culture process, is probably not that big a deal.”

But there’s a third school of thought that Dr. Drekonja said he himself falls into: “I don’t really care how it works, just that in well-done trials, it does work.” As long as large, robust, well-blinded trials show that FMT works, “I’m open to all sorts of ideas of what the mechanism is,” he said. “The main thing is that it does or doesn’t work.”

These findings basically reinforce current guidance not to test patients’ stools if they are asymptomatic, Dr. Drekonja said. In the past, clinicians sometimes tested patients’ stool after therapy to ensure the C. difficile was eradicated, regardless of whether the patient had symptoms of infection, he said.

“We’ve since become much more attuned that there are lots of people who have detectable C. diff in their stool without any symptoms,” whether detectable by culture or PCR, Dr. Drekonja said. “Generally, if you’re doing well and you’re not having diarrhea, don’t test, and if someone does test and finds it, pretend you didn’t see the test,” he advised. “This is a big part of diagnostic stewardship, which is: You don’t go testing people who are doing well.”

The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank used in the research is funded by a grant from Vedanta Biosciences. Dr. Drekonja had no disclosures.

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

It’s not necessary to completely eradicate all Clostridioides difficile to successfully treat recurrent C. difficile infections with fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), according to a study presented online July 12 at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.

C. difficile colonization persisted for 3 weeks after FMT in about one-quarter of patients, but it’s not clear whether this is a persistent infection, a newly acquired infection, or partial persistence of a mixed infection, said Elisabeth Terveer, MD, a medical microbiologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. In addition, “82% of patients with detectable C. diff do not relapse, so it’s absolutely not necessary for a cure,” she said.

Several mechanisms explain why FMT is a highly effective therapy for recurrent C. difficile infections, including restoration of bacterial metabolism in the gut, immune modulation, and direct competition between bacteria, Dr. Terveer said, but it’s less clear whether eradication of C. difficile spores is among these mechanisms. 

Between May 2016 and April 2020, the researchers analyzed fecal samples from 84 patients who took vancomycin for at least 4 days before undergoing FMT. The researchers took fecal samples from patients before FMT and 3 weeks after FMT to culture them and the donor samples for presence of C. difficile, and they assessed clinical outcomes at 3 weeks and 6 months after FMT.

After antibiotic treatment but prior to FMT, 19% of patients (n = 16) still had a toxigenic C. difficile culture while the other 81% had a negative culture. None of the donor samples had a positive C. difficile culture. After FMT treatment, five patients who had a positive pre-FMT culture remained positive, and the other 11 were negative. Among the 81% of patients (n = 68) who had a negative culture just before FMT, 22 had a positive culture and 46 had a negative culture after FMT. Overall, 26% of patients post FMT had a positive C. difficile culture, a finding that was 10-fold higher than another study that assessed C. difficile with PCR testing, Dr. Terveer said.

The clinical cure rate after FMT was 94%, and five patients had relapses within 2 months of their FMT. These relapses were more prevalent in patients with a positive C. difficile culture prior to FMT (odds ratio [OR], 7.6; P = .045) and a positive C. difficile culture after FMT (OR, 13.6; P = .016). Still, 82% of patients who had a positive C. difficile culture post FMT remained clinically cured 2 months later.

It’s unclear why 19% of patients had a positive culture after their antibiotic pretreatment prior to FMT, Dr. Terveer said, but it may be because the pretreatment was of such a short duration.

“I think the advice should be: Give a full anti–C. diff antibiotic course to treat the C. diff infection, and then give FMT afterward to restore the microbiota and prevent further relapses,” Dr. Terveer told attendees.

Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of the Minneapolis VA Infectious Disease Section, said the findings were not necessarily surprising, but it would have been interesting for the researchers to have conducted DNA sequencing of the patients’ fecal samples post FMT to see what the biological diversity looked like.

“One school of thought has been that you have to repopulate the normal diverse microbiota of the colon” with FMT, and the other “is that you need to get rid of the C. diff that›s there,” Dr. Drekonja, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “I think more people think it’s the diverse microbiota because if it’s just getting rid of C. diff, we can get do that with antibiotics – but that gets rid of the other organisms.”

As long as you have a diverse microbiota post FMT, Dr. Drekonja said, then “having a few residual organisms, even if they get magnified in the culture process, is probably not that big a deal.”

But there’s a third school of thought that Dr. Drekonja said he himself falls into: “I don’t really care how it works, just that in well-done trials, it does work.” As long as large, robust, well-blinded trials show that FMT works, “I’m open to all sorts of ideas of what the mechanism is,” he said. “The main thing is that it does or doesn’t work.”

These findings basically reinforce current guidance not to test patients’ stools if they are asymptomatic, Dr. Drekonja said. In the past, clinicians sometimes tested patients’ stool after therapy to ensure the C. difficile was eradicated, regardless of whether the patient had symptoms of infection, he said.

“We’ve since become much more attuned that there are lots of people who have detectable C. diff in their stool without any symptoms,” whether detectable by culture or PCR, Dr. Drekonja said. “Generally, if you’re doing well and you’re not having diarrhea, don’t test, and if someone does test and finds it, pretend you didn’t see the test,” he advised. “This is a big part of diagnostic stewardship, which is: You don’t go testing people who are doing well.”

The Netherlands Donor Feces Bank used in the research is funded by a grant from Vedanta Biosciences. Dr. Drekonja had no disclosures.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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