MDedge Emergency Medicine

Initiation of buprenorphine in hospitals in the United States has plateaued since 2018, with low retention rates of less than 25%, based on data from more than 3 million individuals who began buprenorphine between January 2016 and October 2022.

University of Michigan

Opioid overdose deaths are at a record high in the United States, and many of these deaths can be prevented with medications such as buprenorphine, said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview. “However, buprenorphine cannot prevent opioid overdose deaths if patients are never started on the medication or only stay on the medication for a short time. For that reason, rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention are critical metrics for measuring how well the U.S. health care system is responding to the opioid epidemic,” he said.

“At the time we started our study, several other research groups had evaluated U.S. rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention using data through 2020. However, more recent national data were lacking,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “We felt that this was an important knowledge gap given the many changes in society that have occurred since 2020,” he noted. “For example, it was possible that the relaxation of social distancing measures during 2021 and 2022 might have reduced barriers to health care visits, thereby increasing opportunities to initiate treatment for opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” he said.

Dr. Chua and colleagues used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. “Buprenorphine products included immediate-release and extended-release formulations approved for opioid use disorder but not formulations primarily used to treat pain,” they write.

Monthly buprenorphine initiation was defined as the number of patients initiating therapy per 100,000 individuals. For retention, the researchers used a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measure that defined retention as continuous use of buprenorphine for at least 180 days.

A total of 3,006,629 patients began buprenorphine therapy during the study period; approximately 43% were female.

During the first years of the study period, from January 2016 through September 2018, the monthly buprenorphine initiation rate increased from 12.5 per 100,000 to 15.9 per 100,000, with a statistically significant monthly percentage change of 0.62% (P < .001).

However, from October 2018 through October 2022, the monthly percentage remained essentially the same (P = .62) with a monthly percentage change of −0.03%.

From March 2020 through December 2020, the median monthly buprenorphine initiation rate was 14.4 per 100,000, only slightly lower than the rates from January 2019 through February 2020 and from January 2021 through October 2022 (15.5 per 100,000 and 15.0 per 100,000, respectively).

Over the entire study period from January 2016 through October 2022, the median monthly retention rate for buprenorphine use was 22.2%. This rate increased minimally, with no significant changes in slope and a monthly percentage change of 0.08% (P = .04).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on race and ethnicity, in-clinic administration of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine dispensing through methadone outpatient programs, the researchers note. Also, data did not indicate whether some patients began buprenorphine to treat pain, they say. The timing of the flattening of buprenorphine use also suggests the influence of factors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, they write.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that efforts to date to increase buprenorphine use have been unsuccessful, the researchers write. “A comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma and uneven access to prescribers,” they conclude.
 

Study highlights underuse of buprenorphine option

“Our study shows that buprenorphine initiation rates have been flat since the end of 2018 and that rates of 180-day retention in buprenorphine therapy have remained low throughout 2016-2022,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “Neither of these findings are particularly surprising, but they are disappointing,” he said. “There were a lot of policy and clinical efforts to maintain and expand access to buprenorphine during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as allowing buprenorphine to be prescribed via telehealth without an in-person visit and eliminating training requirements for the waiver that previously was required to prescribe buprenorphine.

“The fact that buprenorphine initiation and retention did not rise after these efforts were implemented suggests that they were insufficient to meet the rising need for this medication,” he said.

The current study “adds to a growing body of research suggesting that clinicians are not maximizing opportunities to initiate buprenorphine treatment among patients with opioid addiction,” Dr. Chua said. He cited another of his recent studies in which 1 in 12 patients were prescribed buprenorphine within 30 days of an emergency department visit for opioid overdose from August 2019 to April 2021, but half of patients with emergency department visits with anaphylaxis were prescribed anepinephrine auto-injector.

“My hope is that our new study will further underscore to clinicians how much the health care system is underusing a critical tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths,” he said.

The federal government’s recent elimination of the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine may move the needle, but to what degree remains to be seen, Dr. Chua added. “It is possible this intervention will be insufficient to overcome the many other barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma about the drug among clinicians, patients, and pharmacists,” he said.
 

Lack of education remains a barrier to buprenorphine use

The current study is important to determine whether attempts to increase buprenorphine initiation and treatment retention are working, said Reuben J. Strayer, MD, director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York, in an interview.

Dr. Strayer was not involved in the current study, but said he was surprised that initiation of buprenorphine didn’t decrease more dramatically during the pandemic, given the significant barriers to accessing care during that time.

However, “efforts to increase buprenorphine initiation and retention have not been sufficiently effective,” Dr. Strayer said. “The rise of fentanyl as a primary street opioid, replacing heroin, has dissuaded both patients and providers from initiating buprenorphine for fear of precipitated withdrawal.”

The elimination of the DATA 2000 (X) waiver was the removal of a potential barrier to increased buprenorphine use, said Dr. Strayer. “Now that the DATA 2000 (X) waiver has been eliminated, the focus of buprenorphine access is educating primary care and inpatient providers on its use, so that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] can be treated, regardless of the venue at which they seek care,” he said.

Looking ahead, “The priority in buprenorphine research is determining the most effective way to initiate buprenorphine without the risk of precipitated withdrawal,” Dr. Strayer added.

The study was supported in part by the Benter Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center in the department of pediatrics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Chua was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Strayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initiation of buprenorphine in hospitals in the United States has plateaued since 2018, with low retention rates of less than 25%, based on data from more than 3 million individuals who began buprenorphine between January 2016 and October 2022.

University of Michigan

Opioid overdose deaths are at a record high in the United States, and many of these deaths can be prevented with medications such as buprenorphine, said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview. “However, buprenorphine cannot prevent opioid overdose deaths if patients are never started on the medication or only stay on the medication for a short time. For that reason, rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention are critical metrics for measuring how well the U.S. health care system is responding to the opioid epidemic,” he said.

“At the time we started our study, several other research groups had evaluated U.S. rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention using data through 2020. However, more recent national data were lacking,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “We felt that this was an important knowledge gap given the many changes in society that have occurred since 2020,” he noted. “For example, it was possible that the relaxation of social distancing measures during 2021 and 2022 might have reduced barriers to health care visits, thereby increasing opportunities to initiate treatment for opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” he said.

Dr. Chua and colleagues used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. “Buprenorphine products included immediate-release and extended-release formulations approved for opioid use disorder but not formulations primarily used to treat pain,” they write.

Monthly buprenorphine initiation was defined as the number of patients initiating therapy per 100,000 individuals. For retention, the researchers used a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measure that defined retention as continuous use of buprenorphine for at least 180 days.

A total of 3,006,629 patients began buprenorphine therapy during the study period; approximately 43% were female.

During the first years of the study period, from January 2016 through September 2018, the monthly buprenorphine initiation rate increased from 12.5 per 100,000 to 15.9 per 100,000, with a statistically significant monthly percentage change of 0.62% (P < .001).

However, from October 2018 through October 2022, the monthly percentage remained essentially the same (P = .62) with a monthly percentage change of −0.03%.

From March 2020 through December 2020, the median monthly buprenorphine initiation rate was 14.4 per 100,000, only slightly lower than the rates from January 2019 through February 2020 and from January 2021 through October 2022 (15.5 per 100,000 and 15.0 per 100,000, respectively).

Over the entire study period from January 2016 through October 2022, the median monthly retention rate for buprenorphine use was 22.2%. This rate increased minimally, with no significant changes in slope and a monthly percentage change of 0.08% (P = .04).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on race and ethnicity, in-clinic administration of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine dispensing through methadone outpatient programs, the researchers note. Also, data did not indicate whether some patients began buprenorphine to treat pain, they say. The timing of the flattening of buprenorphine use also suggests the influence of factors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, they write.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that efforts to date to increase buprenorphine use have been unsuccessful, the researchers write. “A comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma and uneven access to prescribers,” they conclude.
 

Study highlights underuse of buprenorphine option

“Our study shows that buprenorphine initiation rates have been flat since the end of 2018 and that rates of 180-day retention in buprenorphine therapy have remained low throughout 2016-2022,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “Neither of these findings are particularly surprising, but they are disappointing,” he said. “There were a lot of policy and clinical efforts to maintain and expand access to buprenorphine during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as allowing buprenorphine to be prescribed via telehealth without an in-person visit and eliminating training requirements for the waiver that previously was required to prescribe buprenorphine.

“The fact that buprenorphine initiation and retention did not rise after these efforts were implemented suggests that they were insufficient to meet the rising need for this medication,” he said.

The current study “adds to a growing body of research suggesting that clinicians are not maximizing opportunities to initiate buprenorphine treatment among patients with opioid addiction,” Dr. Chua said. He cited another of his recent studies in which 1 in 12 patients were prescribed buprenorphine within 30 days of an emergency department visit for opioid overdose from August 2019 to April 2021, but half of patients with emergency department visits with anaphylaxis were prescribed anepinephrine auto-injector.

“My hope is that our new study will further underscore to clinicians how much the health care system is underusing a critical tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths,” he said.

The federal government’s recent elimination of the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine may move the needle, but to what degree remains to be seen, Dr. Chua added. “It is possible this intervention will be insufficient to overcome the many other barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma about the drug among clinicians, patients, and pharmacists,” he said.
 

Lack of education remains a barrier to buprenorphine use

The current study is important to determine whether attempts to increase buprenorphine initiation and treatment retention are working, said Reuben J. Strayer, MD, director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York, in an interview.

Dr. Strayer was not involved in the current study, but said he was surprised that initiation of buprenorphine didn’t decrease more dramatically during the pandemic, given the significant barriers to accessing care during that time.

However, “efforts to increase buprenorphine initiation and retention have not been sufficiently effective,” Dr. Strayer said. “The rise of fentanyl as a primary street opioid, replacing heroin, has dissuaded both patients and providers from initiating buprenorphine for fear of precipitated withdrawal.”

The elimination of the DATA 2000 (X) waiver was the removal of a potential barrier to increased buprenorphine use, said Dr. Strayer. “Now that the DATA 2000 (X) waiver has been eliminated, the focus of buprenorphine access is educating primary care and inpatient providers on its use, so that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] can be treated, regardless of the venue at which they seek care,” he said.

Looking ahead, “The priority in buprenorphine research is determining the most effective way to initiate buprenorphine without the risk of precipitated withdrawal,” Dr. Strayer added.

The study was supported in part by the Benter Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center in the department of pediatrics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Chua was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Strayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initiation of buprenorphine in hospitals in the United States has plateaued since 2018, with low retention rates of less than 25%, based on data from more than 3 million individuals who began buprenorphine between January 2016 and October 2022.

University of Michigan

Opioid overdose deaths are at a record high in the United States, and many of these deaths can be prevented with medications such as buprenorphine, said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview. “However, buprenorphine cannot prevent opioid overdose deaths if patients are never started on the medication or only stay on the medication for a short time. For that reason, rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention are critical metrics for measuring how well the U.S. health care system is responding to the opioid epidemic,” he said.

“At the time we started our study, several other research groups had evaluated U.S. rates of buprenorphine initiation and retention using data through 2020. However, more recent national data were lacking,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “We felt that this was an important knowledge gap given the many changes in society that have occurred since 2020,” he noted. “For example, it was possible that the relaxation of social distancing measures during 2021 and 2022 might have reduced barriers to health care visits, thereby increasing opportunities to initiate treatment for opioid addiction with buprenorphine,” he said.

Dr. Chua and colleagues used data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies in the United States. “Buprenorphine products included immediate-release and extended-release formulations approved for opioid use disorder but not formulations primarily used to treat pain,” they write.

Monthly buprenorphine initiation was defined as the number of patients initiating therapy per 100,000 individuals. For retention, the researchers used a National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measure that defined retention as continuous use of buprenorphine for at least 180 days.

A total of 3,006,629 patients began buprenorphine therapy during the study period; approximately 43% were female.

During the first years of the study period, from January 2016 through September 2018, the monthly buprenorphine initiation rate increased from 12.5 per 100,000 to 15.9 per 100,000, with a statistically significant monthly percentage change of 0.62% (P < .001).

However, from October 2018 through October 2022, the monthly percentage remained essentially the same (P = .62) with a monthly percentage change of −0.03%.

From March 2020 through December 2020, the median monthly buprenorphine initiation rate was 14.4 per 100,000, only slightly lower than the rates from January 2019 through February 2020 and from January 2021 through October 2022 (15.5 per 100,000 and 15.0 per 100,000, respectively).

Over the entire study period from January 2016 through October 2022, the median monthly retention rate for buprenorphine use was 22.2%. This rate increased minimally, with no significant changes in slope and a monthly percentage change of 0.08% (P = .04).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on race and ethnicity, in-clinic administration of buprenorphine, and buprenorphine dispensing through methadone outpatient programs, the researchers note. Also, data did not indicate whether some patients began buprenorphine to treat pain, they say. The timing of the flattening of buprenorphine use also suggests the influence of factors beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, they write.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that efforts to date to increase buprenorphine use have been unsuccessful, the researchers write. “A comprehensive approach is needed to eliminate barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma and uneven access to prescribers,” they conclude.
 

Study highlights underuse of buprenorphine option

“Our study shows that buprenorphine initiation rates have been flat since the end of 2018 and that rates of 180-day retention in buprenorphine therapy have remained low throughout 2016-2022,” Dr. Chua told this news organization. “Neither of these findings are particularly surprising, but they are disappointing,” he said. “There were a lot of policy and clinical efforts to maintain and expand access to buprenorphine during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as allowing buprenorphine to be prescribed via telehealth without an in-person visit and eliminating training requirements for the waiver that previously was required to prescribe buprenorphine.

“The fact that buprenorphine initiation and retention did not rise after these efforts were implemented suggests that they were insufficient to meet the rising need for this medication,” he said.

The current study “adds to a growing body of research suggesting that clinicians are not maximizing opportunities to initiate buprenorphine treatment among patients with opioid addiction,” Dr. Chua said. He cited another of his recent studies in which 1 in 12 patients were prescribed buprenorphine within 30 days of an emergency department visit for opioid overdose from August 2019 to April 2021, but half of patients with emergency department visits with anaphylaxis were prescribed anepinephrine auto-injector.

“My hope is that our new study will further underscore to clinicians how much the health care system is underusing a critical tool to prevent opioid overdose deaths,” he said.

The federal government’s recent elimination of the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine may move the needle, but to what degree remains to be seen, Dr. Chua added. “It is possible this intervention will be insufficient to overcome the many other barriers to buprenorphine initiation and retention, such as stigma about the drug among clinicians, patients, and pharmacists,” he said.
 

Lack of education remains a barrier to buprenorphine use

The current study is important to determine whether attempts to increase buprenorphine initiation and treatment retention are working, said Reuben J. Strayer, MD, director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York, in an interview.

Dr. Strayer was not involved in the current study, but said he was surprised that initiation of buprenorphine didn’t decrease more dramatically during the pandemic, given the significant barriers to accessing care during that time.

However, “efforts to increase buprenorphine initiation and retention have not been sufficiently effective,” Dr. Strayer said. “The rise of fentanyl as a primary street opioid, replacing heroin, has dissuaded both patients and providers from initiating buprenorphine for fear of precipitated withdrawal.”

The elimination of the DATA 2000 (X) waiver was the removal of a potential barrier to increased buprenorphine use, said Dr. Strayer. “Now that the DATA 2000 (X) waiver has been eliminated, the focus of buprenorphine access is educating primary care and inpatient providers on its use, so that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] can be treated, regardless of the venue at which they seek care,” he said.

Looking ahead, “The priority in buprenorphine research is determining the most effective way to initiate buprenorphine without the risk of precipitated withdrawal,” Dr. Strayer added.

The study was supported in part by the Benter Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center in the department of pediatrics at the University of Michigan. Dr. Chua was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Strayer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hoping to lure U.S. physicians northward, the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and Ontario are now allowing those who are board certified to start practicing medicine immediately with full licensure. They’ll no longer have to start with a limited license and take additional exams or be supervised for up to a year to become fully licensed.

Canada is experiencing an acute shortage of licensed physicians that’s expected to intensify over the next decade. The shortfall is estimated to be about 44,000 physicians by 2028, with family doctors accounting for 72% of the deficit.

“Reducing licensing barriers should make Canada a more attractive option for U.S. doctors who may be considering a move north,” said Tom Florence, president of AMN Healthcare’s Physician Solutions division, which recruits American physicians to work in Canada.

“Canada also has a truly expedited work visa process for qualifying physicians who have a job offer and wish to practice there,” said Mr. Florence. It usually takes about 6 months compared with at least 18 months for Canadian physicians who want to work in the United States, he said.

Few U.S.-trained physicians work in Canada, which has a population of nearly 39 million. Just 812 of them practiced in Canada in 2019, the last year data was collected, according to the Canadian Medical Association.

But Canada may attract American physicians who find U.S. medicine to be fraught with ethical dilemmas and restrictions from insurance companies and elected officials, said Theresa Rohr-Kirchgraber, MD, an internist and immediate past president of the American Medical Women’s Association.

“Rather than give up practicing medicine, a move to Canada may be a welcome respite for some U.S. physicians,” she said.

Physician recruiters in Ontario and Nova Scotia welcomed the news. About 13% of the population is without a family doctor, according to news reports.

A number of U.S. physicians have started practices in Nova Scotia in recent years, said Katrina Philopoulos, Nova Scotia Health’s director of physician recruitment. “I think this momentum will help us,” she said.

Other Canadian provinces with physician shortages are also considering making similar changes. Alberta recently announced a 5-year pilot project to waive some licensing requirements for family doctors and general practitioners trained in Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom, and the United States.
 

What are the pros and cons of working in Canada?

“Some U.S. physicians may be attracted by a single-payer system in which all patients have access to coverage, but there are a range of drawbacks and benefits to consider in both systems,” said Mr. Florence.

U.S. physicians generally earn more than their Canadian counterparts, so income is not likely to be a draw, he said.

That appears to be the case for both family medicine physicians and specialists when comparing average net annual salaries. (To obtain Canadian salaries, 2021 gross income data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information were used; 20% was deducted for operation costs; and Canadian dollars were converted into U.S. dollars based on the current exchange rate.)

A family medicine doctor in Canada will earn an annual average salary of $195,853 USD compared with $236,000 in the United States. A cardiologist in Canada will earn $314,051 USD annually compared with $459,000 in the United States. A dermatologist in Canada will earn $270,018 annually compared with $394,000 in the United States.

Everett Fuller, MD, an emergency medicine physician who moved from Texas to Nova Scotia in 2015 for his Canadian wife, recently wrote about the pros and cons of working there compared with the United States. For him, it was a worthwhile move.

“It’s getting back to making medicine and patient care the priority instead of the business of medicine,” Dr. Fuller wrote.

“I have the comfort of knowing that a patient and their family will not go bankrupt trying to pay medical bills if I make a catastrophic diagnosis. There’s no out-of-pocket cost, other than prescriptions (depending on their drug plan).”

Dr. Fuller also doesn’t have to fight insurers for reimbursement or preapprovals, and he pays much less for medical malpractice premiums in a less litigious environment, he said.

But he mentioned a few negatives. Some treatment is rationed, which can lead to long wait times for patients to get appointments. Also, “hospitals aren’t in it for the profit, so you’re not going to get a CT, MRI, and cath lab in every hospital,” he noted.

Mr. Florence doesn’t think either system “offers a panacea for many of the challenges physicians face today. Even with reduced barriers to licensure, we do not anticipate an exodus to U.S. physicians to the north.”
 

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

Hoping to lure U.S. physicians northward, the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and Ontario are now allowing those who are board certified to start practicing medicine immediately with full licensure. They’ll no longer have to start with a limited license and take additional exams or be supervised for up to a year to become fully licensed.

Canada is experiencing an acute shortage of licensed physicians that’s expected to intensify over the next decade. The shortfall is estimated to be about 44,000 physicians by 2028, with family doctors accounting for 72% of the deficit.

“Reducing licensing barriers should make Canada a more attractive option for U.S. doctors who may be considering a move north,” said Tom Florence, president of AMN Healthcare’s Physician Solutions division, which recruits American physicians to work in Canada.

“Canada also has a truly expedited work visa process for qualifying physicians who have a job offer and wish to practice there,” said Mr. Florence. It usually takes about 6 months compared with at least 18 months for Canadian physicians who want to work in the United States, he said.

Few U.S.-trained physicians work in Canada, which has a population of nearly 39 million. Just 812 of them practiced in Canada in 2019, the last year data was collected, according to the Canadian Medical Association.

But Canada may attract American physicians who find U.S. medicine to be fraught with ethical dilemmas and restrictions from insurance companies and elected officials, said Theresa Rohr-Kirchgraber, MD, an internist and immediate past president of the American Medical Women’s Association.

“Rather than give up practicing medicine, a move to Canada may be a welcome respite for some U.S. physicians,” she said.

Physician recruiters in Ontario and Nova Scotia welcomed the news. About 13% of the population is without a family doctor, according to news reports.

A number of U.S. physicians have started practices in Nova Scotia in recent years, said Katrina Philopoulos, Nova Scotia Health’s director of physician recruitment. “I think this momentum will help us,” she said.

Other Canadian provinces with physician shortages are also considering making similar changes. Alberta recently announced a 5-year pilot project to waive some licensing requirements for family doctors and general practitioners trained in Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom, and the United States.
 

What are the pros and cons of working in Canada?

“Some U.S. physicians may be attracted by a single-payer system in which all patients have access to coverage, but there are a range of drawbacks and benefits to consider in both systems,” said Mr. Florence.

U.S. physicians generally earn more than their Canadian counterparts, so income is not likely to be a draw, he said.

That appears to be the case for both family medicine physicians and specialists when comparing average net annual salaries. (To obtain Canadian salaries, 2021 gross income data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information were used; 20% was deducted for operation costs; and Canadian dollars were converted into U.S. dollars based on the current exchange rate.)

A family medicine doctor in Canada will earn an annual average salary of $195,853 USD compared with $236,000 in the United States. A cardiologist in Canada will earn $314,051 USD annually compared with $459,000 in the United States. A dermatologist in Canada will earn $270,018 annually compared with $394,000 in the United States.

Everett Fuller, MD, an emergency medicine physician who moved from Texas to Nova Scotia in 2015 for his Canadian wife, recently wrote about the pros and cons of working there compared with the United States. For him, it was a worthwhile move.

“It’s getting back to making medicine and patient care the priority instead of the business of medicine,” Dr. Fuller wrote.

“I have the comfort of knowing that a patient and their family will not go bankrupt trying to pay medical bills if I make a catastrophic diagnosis. There’s no out-of-pocket cost, other than prescriptions (depending on their drug plan).”

Dr. Fuller also doesn’t have to fight insurers for reimbursement or preapprovals, and he pays much less for medical malpractice premiums in a less litigious environment, he said.

But he mentioned a few negatives. Some treatment is rationed, which can lead to long wait times for patients to get appointments. Also, “hospitals aren’t in it for the profit, so you’re not going to get a CT, MRI, and cath lab in every hospital,” he noted.

Mr. Florence doesn’t think either system “offers a panacea for many of the challenges physicians face today. Even with reduced barriers to licensure, we do not anticipate an exodus to U.S. physicians to the north.”
 

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

Hoping to lure U.S. physicians northward, the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and Ontario are now allowing those who are board certified to start practicing medicine immediately with full licensure. They’ll no longer have to start with a limited license and take additional exams or be supervised for up to a year to become fully licensed.

Canada is experiencing an acute shortage of licensed physicians that’s expected to intensify over the next decade. The shortfall is estimated to be about 44,000 physicians by 2028, with family doctors accounting for 72% of the deficit.

“Reducing licensing barriers should make Canada a more attractive option for U.S. doctors who may be considering a move north,” said Tom Florence, president of AMN Healthcare’s Physician Solutions division, which recruits American physicians to work in Canada.

“Canada also has a truly expedited work visa process for qualifying physicians who have a job offer and wish to practice there,” said Mr. Florence. It usually takes about 6 months compared with at least 18 months for Canadian physicians who want to work in the United States, he said.

Few U.S.-trained physicians work in Canada, which has a population of nearly 39 million. Just 812 of them practiced in Canada in 2019, the last year data was collected, according to the Canadian Medical Association.

But Canada may attract American physicians who find U.S. medicine to be fraught with ethical dilemmas and restrictions from insurance companies and elected officials, said Theresa Rohr-Kirchgraber, MD, an internist and immediate past president of the American Medical Women’s Association.

“Rather than give up practicing medicine, a move to Canada may be a welcome respite for some U.S. physicians,” she said.

Physician recruiters in Ontario and Nova Scotia welcomed the news. About 13% of the population is without a family doctor, according to news reports.

A number of U.S. physicians have started practices in Nova Scotia in recent years, said Katrina Philopoulos, Nova Scotia Health’s director of physician recruitment. “I think this momentum will help us,” she said.

Other Canadian provinces with physician shortages are also considering making similar changes. Alberta recently announced a 5-year pilot project to waive some licensing requirements for family doctors and general practitioners trained in Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom, and the United States.
 

What are the pros and cons of working in Canada?

“Some U.S. physicians may be attracted by a single-payer system in which all patients have access to coverage, but there are a range of drawbacks and benefits to consider in both systems,” said Mr. Florence.

U.S. physicians generally earn more than their Canadian counterparts, so income is not likely to be a draw, he said.

That appears to be the case for both family medicine physicians and specialists when comparing average net annual salaries. (To obtain Canadian salaries, 2021 gross income data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information were used; 20% was deducted for operation costs; and Canadian dollars were converted into U.S. dollars based on the current exchange rate.)

A family medicine doctor in Canada will earn an annual average salary of $195,853 USD compared with $236,000 in the United States. A cardiologist in Canada will earn $314,051 USD annually compared with $459,000 in the United States. A dermatologist in Canada will earn $270,018 annually compared with $394,000 in the United States.

Everett Fuller, MD, an emergency medicine physician who moved from Texas to Nova Scotia in 2015 for his Canadian wife, recently wrote about the pros and cons of working there compared with the United States. For him, it was a worthwhile move.

“It’s getting back to making medicine and patient care the priority instead of the business of medicine,” Dr. Fuller wrote.

“I have the comfort of knowing that a patient and their family will not go bankrupt trying to pay medical bills if I make a catastrophic diagnosis. There’s no out-of-pocket cost, other than prescriptions (depending on their drug plan).”

Dr. Fuller also doesn’t have to fight insurers for reimbursement or preapprovals, and he pays much less for medical malpractice premiums in a less litigious environment, he said.

But he mentioned a few negatives. Some treatment is rationed, which can lead to long wait times for patients to get appointments. Also, “hospitals aren’t in it for the profit, so you’re not going to get a CT, MRI, and cath lab in every hospital,” he noted.

Mr. Florence doesn’t think either system “offers a panacea for many of the challenges physicians face today. Even with reduced barriers to licensure, we do not anticipate an exodus to U.S. physicians to the north.”
 

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

Taking a swing against arthritis

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

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

jacoblund/Getty Images

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

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

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

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

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

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

Dog walking is dangerous business

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

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

freestocks/Unsplash

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

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

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

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

Taking a swing against arthritis

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

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

jacoblund/Getty Images

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

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

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

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

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

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

Dog walking is dangerous business

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

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

freestocks/Unsplash

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

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

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

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

Taking a swing against arthritis

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

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

jacoblund/Getty Images

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

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

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

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

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

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

Dog walking is dangerous business

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

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

freestocks/Unsplash

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

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

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

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

Exposure to four or more CT scans before age 18 years is associated with more than double the risk for certain cancers into early adulthood, data indicate.
 

In a population-based case-control study that included more than 85,000 participants, researchers found a ninefold increased risk of intracranial tumors among children who received four or more CT scans.

The results “indicate that judicious CT usage and radiation-reducing techniques should be advocated,” Yu-Hsuan Joni Shao, PhD, professor of biomedical informatics at Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Dose-response relationship

The investigators used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify 7,807 patients under age 25 years with intracranial tumors (grades I-IV), leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or Hodgkin lymphomas that had been diagnosed in a 14-year span between the years 2000 and 2013. They matched each case with 10 control participants without cancer by sex, date of birth, and date of entry into the cohort.

Radiation exposure was calculated for each patient according to number and type of CT scans received and an estimated organ-specific cumulative dose based on previously published models. The investigators excluded patients from the analysis if they had a diagnosis of any malignant disease before the study period or if they had any cancer-predisposing conditions, such as Down syndrome (which entails an increased risk of leukemia) or immunodeficiency (which may require multiple CT scans).

Compared with no exposure, exposure to a single pediatric CT scan was not associated with increased cancer risk. Exposure to two to three CT scans, however, was associated with an increased risk for intracranial tumour (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36), but not for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.  Exposure to four or more CT scans was associated with increased risk for intracranial tumor (aOR, 9.01), leukemia (aOR, 4.80), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 6.76), but not for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship. Participants in the top quintile of cumulative brain radiation dose had a significantly higher risk for intracranial tumor, compared with nonexposed participants (aOR, 3.61), although this relationship was not seen with the other cancers.

Age at exposure was also a significant factor. Children exposed to four or more CT scans at or before age 6 years had the highest risk for cancer (aOR, 22.95), followed by the same number of scans in those aged 7-12 years (aOR, 5.69) and those aged 13-18 years (aOR, 3.20).

The authors noted that, although these cancers are uncommon in children, “our work reinforces the importance of radiation protection strategies, addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unnecessary CT scans should be avoided, and special attention should be paid to patients who require repeated CT scans. Parents and pediatric patients should be well informed on risks and benefits before radiological procedures and encouraged to participate in decision-making around imaging.”
 

True risks underestimated?  

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the impact of CT scans on patient outcomes, said that she trusts the authors’ overall findings. But “because of the direction of their biases,” the study design “doesn’t let me accept their conclusion that one CT does not elevate the risk.

“It’s an interesting study that found the risk of brain cancer is more than doubled in children who undergo two or more CT scans, but in many ways, their assumptions will underestimate the true risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman, who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. She said reasons for this include the fact that the investigators used estimated, rather than actual radiation doses; that their estimates “reflect doses far lower than we have found actually occur in clinical practice”; that they do not differentiate between a low-dose or a high-dose CT; and that that they include a long, 3-year lag during which leukemia can develop after a CT scan.

“They did a lot of really well-done adjustments to ensure that they were not overestimating risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They made sure to delete children who had cancer susceptibility syndrome, they included a lag of 3 years, assuming that there could be hidden cancers for up to 3 years after the first imaging study when they might have had a preexisting cancer. These are decisions that ensure that any cancer risk they find is real, but it also means that the risks that are estimated are almost certainly an underestimate of the true risks.”

The study was conducted without external funding. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Smith-Bindman is a cofounder of Alara Imaging, a company focused on collecting and reporting radiation dose information associated with CT.

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

Exposure to four or more CT scans before age 18 years is associated with more than double the risk for certain cancers into early adulthood, data indicate.
 

In a population-based case-control study that included more than 85,000 participants, researchers found a ninefold increased risk of intracranial tumors among children who received four or more CT scans.

The results “indicate that judicious CT usage and radiation-reducing techniques should be advocated,” Yu-Hsuan Joni Shao, PhD, professor of biomedical informatics at Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Dose-response relationship

The investigators used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify 7,807 patients under age 25 years with intracranial tumors (grades I-IV), leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or Hodgkin lymphomas that had been diagnosed in a 14-year span between the years 2000 and 2013. They matched each case with 10 control participants without cancer by sex, date of birth, and date of entry into the cohort.

Radiation exposure was calculated for each patient according to number and type of CT scans received and an estimated organ-specific cumulative dose based on previously published models. The investigators excluded patients from the analysis if they had a diagnosis of any malignant disease before the study period or if they had any cancer-predisposing conditions, such as Down syndrome (which entails an increased risk of leukemia) or immunodeficiency (which may require multiple CT scans).

Compared with no exposure, exposure to a single pediatric CT scan was not associated with increased cancer risk. Exposure to two to three CT scans, however, was associated with an increased risk for intracranial tumour (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36), but not for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.  Exposure to four or more CT scans was associated with increased risk for intracranial tumor (aOR, 9.01), leukemia (aOR, 4.80), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 6.76), but not for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship. Participants in the top quintile of cumulative brain radiation dose had a significantly higher risk for intracranial tumor, compared with nonexposed participants (aOR, 3.61), although this relationship was not seen with the other cancers.

Age at exposure was also a significant factor. Children exposed to four or more CT scans at or before age 6 years had the highest risk for cancer (aOR, 22.95), followed by the same number of scans in those aged 7-12 years (aOR, 5.69) and those aged 13-18 years (aOR, 3.20).

The authors noted that, although these cancers are uncommon in children, “our work reinforces the importance of radiation protection strategies, addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unnecessary CT scans should be avoided, and special attention should be paid to patients who require repeated CT scans. Parents and pediatric patients should be well informed on risks and benefits before radiological procedures and encouraged to participate in decision-making around imaging.”
 

True risks underestimated?  

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the impact of CT scans on patient outcomes, said that she trusts the authors’ overall findings. But “because of the direction of their biases,” the study design “doesn’t let me accept their conclusion that one CT does not elevate the risk.

“It’s an interesting study that found the risk of brain cancer is more than doubled in children who undergo two or more CT scans, but in many ways, their assumptions will underestimate the true risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman, who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. She said reasons for this include the fact that the investigators used estimated, rather than actual radiation doses; that their estimates “reflect doses far lower than we have found actually occur in clinical practice”; that they do not differentiate between a low-dose or a high-dose CT; and that that they include a long, 3-year lag during which leukemia can develop after a CT scan.

“They did a lot of really well-done adjustments to ensure that they were not overestimating risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They made sure to delete children who had cancer susceptibility syndrome, they included a lag of 3 years, assuming that there could be hidden cancers for up to 3 years after the first imaging study when they might have had a preexisting cancer. These are decisions that ensure that any cancer risk they find is real, but it also means that the risks that are estimated are almost certainly an underestimate of the true risks.”

The study was conducted without external funding. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Smith-Bindman is a cofounder of Alara Imaging, a company focused on collecting and reporting radiation dose information associated with CT.

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

Exposure to four or more CT scans before age 18 years is associated with more than double the risk for certain cancers into early adulthood, data indicate.
 

In a population-based case-control study that included more than 85,000 participants, researchers found a ninefold increased risk of intracranial tumors among children who received four or more CT scans.

The results “indicate that judicious CT usage and radiation-reducing techniques should be advocated,” Yu-Hsuan Joni Shao, PhD, professor of biomedical informatics at Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Dose-response relationship

The investigators used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify 7,807 patients under age 25 years with intracranial tumors (grades I-IV), leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or Hodgkin lymphomas that had been diagnosed in a 14-year span between the years 2000 and 2013. They matched each case with 10 control participants without cancer by sex, date of birth, and date of entry into the cohort.

Radiation exposure was calculated for each patient according to number and type of CT scans received and an estimated organ-specific cumulative dose based on previously published models. The investigators excluded patients from the analysis if they had a diagnosis of any malignant disease before the study period or if they had any cancer-predisposing conditions, such as Down syndrome (which entails an increased risk of leukemia) or immunodeficiency (which may require multiple CT scans).

Compared with no exposure, exposure to a single pediatric CT scan was not associated with increased cancer risk. Exposure to two to three CT scans, however, was associated with an increased risk for intracranial tumour (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36), but not for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.  Exposure to four or more CT scans was associated with increased risk for intracranial tumor (aOR, 9.01), leukemia (aOR, 4.80), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 6.76), but not for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship. Participants in the top quintile of cumulative brain radiation dose had a significantly higher risk for intracranial tumor, compared with nonexposed participants (aOR, 3.61), although this relationship was not seen with the other cancers.

Age at exposure was also a significant factor. Children exposed to four or more CT scans at or before age 6 years had the highest risk for cancer (aOR, 22.95), followed by the same number of scans in those aged 7-12 years (aOR, 5.69) and those aged 13-18 years (aOR, 3.20).

The authors noted that, although these cancers are uncommon in children, “our work reinforces the importance of radiation protection strategies, addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unnecessary CT scans should be avoided, and special attention should be paid to patients who require repeated CT scans. Parents and pediatric patients should be well informed on risks and benefits before radiological procedures and encouraged to participate in decision-making around imaging.”
 

True risks underestimated?  

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the impact of CT scans on patient outcomes, said that she trusts the authors’ overall findings. But “because of the direction of their biases,” the study design “doesn’t let me accept their conclusion that one CT does not elevate the risk.

“It’s an interesting study that found the risk of brain cancer is more than doubled in children who undergo two or more CT scans, but in many ways, their assumptions will underestimate the true risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman, who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. She said reasons for this include the fact that the investigators used estimated, rather than actual radiation doses; that their estimates “reflect doses far lower than we have found actually occur in clinical practice”; that they do not differentiate between a low-dose or a high-dose CT; and that that they include a long, 3-year lag during which leukemia can develop after a CT scan.

“They did a lot of really well-done adjustments to ensure that they were not overestimating risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They made sure to delete children who had cancer susceptibility syndrome, they included a lag of 3 years, assuming that there could be hidden cancers for up to 3 years after the first imaging study when they might have had a preexisting cancer. These are decisions that ensure that any cancer risk they find is real, but it also means that the risks that are estimated are almost certainly an underestimate of the true risks.”

The study was conducted without external funding. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Smith-Bindman is a cofounder of Alara Imaging, a company focused on collecting and reporting radiation dose information associated with CT.

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

The vast majority of melatonin gummies sold in the United States may contain up to 347% more melatonin than is listed on the label, and some products also contain cannabidiol. New data may explain the recent massive jump in pediatric hospitalizations.
 

Thenvestigators found that consuming some products as directed could expose consumers, including children, to doses that are 40-130 times greater than what’s recommended.

“The results were quite shocking,” lead researcher Pieter Cohen, MD, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass., said in an interview.

“Melatonin gummies contained up to 347% more melatonin than what was listed on the label, and some products also contained cannabidiol; in one brand of melatonin gummies, there was zero melatonin, just CBD,” Dr. Cohen said.

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

530% jump in pediatric hospitalizations

Melatonin products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration but are sold over the counter or online.

Previous research from JAMA has shown the use of melatonin has increased over the past 2 decades among people of all ages.

With increased use has come a spike in reports of melatonin overdose, calls to poison control centers, and related ED visits for children.

Federal data show the number of U.S. children who unintentionally ingested melatonin supplements jumped 530% from 2012 to 2021. More than 4,000 of the reported ingestions led to a hospital stay; 287 children required intensive care, and two children died.

It was unclear why melatonin supplements were causing these harms, which led Dr. Cohen’s team to analyze 25 unique brands of “melatonin” gummies purchased online.

One product didn’t contain any melatonin but did contain 31.3 mg of CBD.

In the remaining products, the quantity of melatonin ranged from 1.3 mg to 13.1 mg per serving. The actual quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity, the researchers found.

They note that for a young adult who takes as little as 0.1-0.3 mg of melatonin, plasma concentrations can increase into the normal night-time range.

Of the 25 products (88%) analyzed, 22 were inaccurately labeled, and only 3 (12%) contained a quantity of melatonin that was within 10% (plus or minus) of the declared quantity.

Five products listed CBD as an ingredient. The listed quantity ranged from 10.6 mg to 31.3 mg per serving, although the actual quantity of CBD ranged from 104% to 118% of the labeled quantity.
 

Inquire about use in kids

A limitation of the study is that only one sample of each brand was analyzed, and only gummies were analyzed. It is not known whether the results are generalizable to melatonin products sold as tablets and capsules in the United States or whether the quantity of melatonin within an individual brand may vary from batch to batch.

A recent study from Canada showed similar results. In an analysis of 16 Canadian melatonin brands, the actual dose of melatonin ranged from 17% to 478% of the declared quantity.

It’s estimated that more than 1% of all U.S. children use melatonin supplements, most commonly for sleep, stress, and relaxation.

“Given new research as to the excessive quantities of melatonin in gummies, caution should be used if considering their use,” said Dr. Cohen.

“It’s important to inquire about melatonin use when caring for children, particularly when parents express concerns about their child’s sleep,” he added.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recently issued a health advisory encouraging parents to talk to a health care professional before giving melatonin or any supplement to children.
 

Children don’t need melatonin

Commenting on the study, Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, agreed that analyzing only one sample of each brand is a key limitation “because supplements are made in batches, and gummies in particular are difficult to distribute the active ingredient evenly.

“But even with that being said, 88% of them were labeled incorrectly, so even if there were a few single-sample issues, I kind of doubt its all of them,” Dr. Breus said.

“Kids as a general rule do not need melatonin. Their brains make almost four times the necessary amount already. If you start giving kids pills to help them sleep, then they start to have a pill problem, causing another issue,” Dr. Breus added.

“Most children’s falling asleep and staying sleep issues can be treated with behavioral measures like cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cohen has received research support from Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UptoDate. Dr. Breus disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of melatonin gummies sold in the United States may contain up to 347% more melatonin than is listed on the label, and some products also contain cannabidiol. New data may explain the recent massive jump in pediatric hospitalizations.
 

Thenvestigators found that consuming some products as directed could expose consumers, including children, to doses that are 40-130 times greater than what’s recommended.

“The results were quite shocking,” lead researcher Pieter Cohen, MD, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass., said in an interview.

“Melatonin gummies contained up to 347% more melatonin than what was listed on the label, and some products also contained cannabidiol; in one brand of melatonin gummies, there was zero melatonin, just CBD,” Dr. Cohen said.

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

530% jump in pediatric hospitalizations

Melatonin products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration but are sold over the counter or online.

Previous research from JAMA has shown the use of melatonin has increased over the past 2 decades among people of all ages.

With increased use has come a spike in reports of melatonin overdose, calls to poison control centers, and related ED visits for children.

Federal data show the number of U.S. children who unintentionally ingested melatonin supplements jumped 530% from 2012 to 2021. More than 4,000 of the reported ingestions led to a hospital stay; 287 children required intensive care, and two children died.

It was unclear why melatonin supplements were causing these harms, which led Dr. Cohen’s team to analyze 25 unique brands of “melatonin” gummies purchased online.

One product didn’t contain any melatonin but did contain 31.3 mg of CBD.

In the remaining products, the quantity of melatonin ranged from 1.3 mg to 13.1 mg per serving. The actual quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity, the researchers found.

They note that for a young adult who takes as little as 0.1-0.3 mg of melatonin, plasma concentrations can increase into the normal night-time range.

Of the 25 products (88%) analyzed, 22 were inaccurately labeled, and only 3 (12%) contained a quantity of melatonin that was within 10% (plus or minus) of the declared quantity.

Five products listed CBD as an ingredient. The listed quantity ranged from 10.6 mg to 31.3 mg per serving, although the actual quantity of CBD ranged from 104% to 118% of the labeled quantity.
 

Inquire about use in kids

A limitation of the study is that only one sample of each brand was analyzed, and only gummies were analyzed. It is not known whether the results are generalizable to melatonin products sold as tablets and capsules in the United States or whether the quantity of melatonin within an individual brand may vary from batch to batch.

A recent study from Canada showed similar results. In an analysis of 16 Canadian melatonin brands, the actual dose of melatonin ranged from 17% to 478% of the declared quantity.

It’s estimated that more than 1% of all U.S. children use melatonin supplements, most commonly for sleep, stress, and relaxation.

“Given new research as to the excessive quantities of melatonin in gummies, caution should be used if considering their use,” said Dr. Cohen.

“It’s important to inquire about melatonin use when caring for children, particularly when parents express concerns about their child’s sleep,” he added.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recently issued a health advisory encouraging parents to talk to a health care professional before giving melatonin or any supplement to children.
 

Children don’t need melatonin

Commenting on the study, Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, agreed that analyzing only one sample of each brand is a key limitation “because supplements are made in batches, and gummies in particular are difficult to distribute the active ingredient evenly.

“But even with that being said, 88% of them were labeled incorrectly, so even if there were a few single-sample issues, I kind of doubt its all of them,” Dr. Breus said.

“Kids as a general rule do not need melatonin. Their brains make almost four times the necessary amount already. If you start giving kids pills to help them sleep, then they start to have a pill problem, causing another issue,” Dr. Breus added.

“Most children’s falling asleep and staying sleep issues can be treated with behavioral measures like cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cohen has received research support from Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UptoDate. Dr. Breus disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of melatonin gummies sold in the United States may contain up to 347% more melatonin than is listed on the label, and some products also contain cannabidiol. New data may explain the recent massive jump in pediatric hospitalizations.
 

Thenvestigators found that consuming some products as directed could expose consumers, including children, to doses that are 40-130 times greater than what’s recommended.

“The results were quite shocking,” lead researcher Pieter Cohen, MD, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass., said in an interview.

“Melatonin gummies contained up to 347% more melatonin than what was listed on the label, and some products also contained cannabidiol; in one brand of melatonin gummies, there was zero melatonin, just CBD,” Dr. Cohen said.

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

530% jump in pediatric hospitalizations

Melatonin products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration but are sold over the counter or online.

Previous research from JAMA has shown the use of melatonin has increased over the past 2 decades among people of all ages.

With increased use has come a spike in reports of melatonin overdose, calls to poison control centers, and related ED visits for children.

Federal data show the number of U.S. children who unintentionally ingested melatonin supplements jumped 530% from 2012 to 2021. More than 4,000 of the reported ingestions led to a hospital stay; 287 children required intensive care, and two children died.

It was unclear why melatonin supplements were causing these harms, which led Dr. Cohen’s team to analyze 25 unique brands of “melatonin” gummies purchased online.

One product didn’t contain any melatonin but did contain 31.3 mg of CBD.

In the remaining products, the quantity of melatonin ranged from 1.3 mg to 13.1 mg per serving. The actual quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity, the researchers found.

They note that for a young adult who takes as little as 0.1-0.3 mg of melatonin, plasma concentrations can increase into the normal night-time range.

Of the 25 products (88%) analyzed, 22 were inaccurately labeled, and only 3 (12%) contained a quantity of melatonin that was within 10% (plus or minus) of the declared quantity.

Five products listed CBD as an ingredient. The listed quantity ranged from 10.6 mg to 31.3 mg per serving, although the actual quantity of CBD ranged from 104% to 118% of the labeled quantity.
 

Inquire about use in kids

A limitation of the study is that only one sample of each brand was analyzed, and only gummies were analyzed. It is not known whether the results are generalizable to melatonin products sold as tablets and capsules in the United States or whether the quantity of melatonin within an individual brand may vary from batch to batch.

A recent study from Canada showed similar results. In an analysis of 16 Canadian melatonin brands, the actual dose of melatonin ranged from 17% to 478% of the declared quantity.

It’s estimated that more than 1% of all U.S. children use melatonin supplements, most commonly for sleep, stress, and relaxation.

“Given new research as to the excessive quantities of melatonin in gummies, caution should be used if considering their use,” said Dr. Cohen.

“It’s important to inquire about melatonin use when caring for children, particularly when parents express concerns about their child’s sleep,” he added.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recently issued a health advisory encouraging parents to talk to a health care professional before giving melatonin or any supplement to children.
 

Children don’t need melatonin

Commenting on the study, Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, agreed that analyzing only one sample of each brand is a key limitation “because supplements are made in batches, and gummies in particular are difficult to distribute the active ingredient evenly.

“But even with that being said, 88% of them were labeled incorrectly, so even if there were a few single-sample issues, I kind of doubt its all of them,” Dr. Breus said.

“Kids as a general rule do not need melatonin. Their brains make almost four times the necessary amount already. If you start giving kids pills to help them sleep, then they start to have a pill problem, causing another issue,” Dr. Breus added.

“Most children’s falling asleep and staying sleep issues can be treated with behavioral measures like cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cohen has received research support from Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UptoDate. Dr. Breus disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Abdul Moiz Hafiz, MD, was flabbergasted when he received a phone call from his institution’s credentialing office telling him that he was not certified for interventional cardiology – even though he had passed that exam in 2016.

Dr. Hafiz, who directs the Advanced Structural Heart Disease Program at Southern Illinois University, phoned the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), where he learned that to restore his credentials, he would need to pay $1,225 in maintenance of certification (MOC) fees.

Like Dr. Hafiz, many physicians have been dismayed to learn that the ABIM is now listing as “not certified” physicians who have passed board exams but have not paid annual MOC fees of $220 per year for the first certificate and $120 for each additional certificate.

Even doctors who are participating in mandatory continuing education outside the ABIM’s auspices are finding themselves listed as “not certified.” Some physicians learned of the policy change only after applying for hospital privileges or for jobs that require ABIM certification.

Now that increasing numbers of physicians are employed by hospitals and health care organizations that require ABIM certification, many doctors have no option but to pony up the fees if they want to continue to practice medicine.

“We have no say in the matter,” said Dr. Hafiz, “and there’s no appeal process.”

The change affects nearly 330,000 physicians. Responses to the policy on Twitter included accusations of extortion and denunciations of the ABIM’s “money grab policies.”

Sunil Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health and president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), has heard from many SCAI members who had experiences similar to Dr. Hafiz’s. While Dr. Rao describes some of the Twitter outrage as “emotional,” he does acknowledge that the ABIM’s moves appear to be financially motivated.

“The issue here was that as soon as they paid the fee, all of a sudden, ABIM flipped the switch and said they were certified,” he said. “It certainly sounds like a purely financial kind of structure.”

Richard Baron, MD, president and CEO of the ABIM, said doctors are misunderstanding the policy change.

“No doctor loses certification solely for failure to pay fees,” Dr. Baron told this news organization. “What caused them to be reported as not certified was that we didn’t have evidence that they had met program requirements. They could say, ‘But I did meet program requirements, you just didn’t know it.’ To which our answer would be, for us to know it, we have to process them. And our policy is that we don’t process them unless you are current on your fees.”

This is not the first time ABIM policies have alienated physicians.

Last year, the ABIM raised its MOC fees from $165 to $220. That also prompted a wave of outrage. Other grievances go further back. At one time, being board certified was a lifetime credential. However, in 1990 the ABIM made periodic recertification mandatory.

The process, which came to be known as “maintenance of certification,” had to be completed every 10 years, and fees were charged for each certification. At that point, said Dr. Baron, the relationship between the ABIM and physicians changed from a one-time interaction to a career-long relationship. He advises doctors to check in periodically on their portal page at the ABIM or download the app so they will always know their status.

Many physicians would prefer not to be bound to a lifetime relationship with the ABIM. There is an alternative licensing board, the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), but it is accepted by only a limited number of hospitals.

“Until the NBPAS gains wide recognition,” said Dr. Hafiz, “the ABIM is going to continue to have basically a monopoly over the market.”

The value of MOC itself has been called into question. “There are no direct data supporting the value of the MOC process in either improving care, making patient care safer, or making patient care higher quality,” said Dr. Rao. This feeds frustration in a clinical community already dealing with onerous training requirements and expensive board certification exams and adds to the perception that it is a purely financial transaction, he said. (Studies examining whether the MOC system improves patient care have shown mixed results.)

The true value of the ABIM to physicians, Dr. Baron contends, is that the organization is an independent third party that differentiates those doctors from people who don’t have their skills, training, and expertise. “In these days, where anyone can be an ‘expert’ on the Internet, that’s more valuable than ever before,” he said.
 

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

Abdul Moiz Hafiz, MD, was flabbergasted when he received a phone call from his institution’s credentialing office telling him that he was not certified for interventional cardiology – even though he had passed that exam in 2016.

Dr. Hafiz, who directs the Advanced Structural Heart Disease Program at Southern Illinois University, phoned the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), where he learned that to restore his credentials, he would need to pay $1,225 in maintenance of certification (MOC) fees.

Like Dr. Hafiz, many physicians have been dismayed to learn that the ABIM is now listing as “not certified” physicians who have passed board exams but have not paid annual MOC fees of $220 per year for the first certificate and $120 for each additional certificate.

Even doctors who are participating in mandatory continuing education outside the ABIM’s auspices are finding themselves listed as “not certified.” Some physicians learned of the policy change only after applying for hospital privileges or for jobs that require ABIM certification.

Now that increasing numbers of physicians are employed by hospitals and health care organizations that require ABIM certification, many doctors have no option but to pony up the fees if they want to continue to practice medicine.

“We have no say in the matter,” said Dr. Hafiz, “and there’s no appeal process.”

The change affects nearly 330,000 physicians. Responses to the policy on Twitter included accusations of extortion and denunciations of the ABIM’s “money grab policies.”

Sunil Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health and president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), has heard from many SCAI members who had experiences similar to Dr. Hafiz’s. While Dr. Rao describes some of the Twitter outrage as “emotional,” he does acknowledge that the ABIM’s moves appear to be financially motivated.

“The issue here was that as soon as they paid the fee, all of a sudden, ABIM flipped the switch and said they were certified,” he said. “It certainly sounds like a purely financial kind of structure.”

Richard Baron, MD, president and CEO of the ABIM, said doctors are misunderstanding the policy change.

“No doctor loses certification solely for failure to pay fees,” Dr. Baron told this news organization. “What caused them to be reported as not certified was that we didn’t have evidence that they had met program requirements. They could say, ‘But I did meet program requirements, you just didn’t know it.’ To which our answer would be, for us to know it, we have to process them. And our policy is that we don’t process them unless you are current on your fees.”

This is not the first time ABIM policies have alienated physicians.

Last year, the ABIM raised its MOC fees from $165 to $220. That also prompted a wave of outrage. Other grievances go further back. At one time, being board certified was a lifetime credential. However, in 1990 the ABIM made periodic recertification mandatory.

The process, which came to be known as “maintenance of certification,” had to be completed every 10 years, and fees were charged for each certification. At that point, said Dr. Baron, the relationship between the ABIM and physicians changed from a one-time interaction to a career-long relationship. He advises doctors to check in periodically on their portal page at the ABIM or download the app so they will always know their status.

Many physicians would prefer not to be bound to a lifetime relationship with the ABIM. There is an alternative licensing board, the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), but it is accepted by only a limited number of hospitals.

“Until the NBPAS gains wide recognition,” said Dr. Hafiz, “the ABIM is going to continue to have basically a monopoly over the market.”

The value of MOC itself has been called into question. “There are no direct data supporting the value of the MOC process in either improving care, making patient care safer, or making patient care higher quality,” said Dr. Rao. This feeds frustration in a clinical community already dealing with onerous training requirements and expensive board certification exams and adds to the perception that it is a purely financial transaction, he said. (Studies examining whether the MOC system improves patient care have shown mixed results.)

The true value of the ABIM to physicians, Dr. Baron contends, is that the organization is an independent third party that differentiates those doctors from people who don’t have their skills, training, and expertise. “In these days, where anyone can be an ‘expert’ on the Internet, that’s more valuable than ever before,” he said.
 

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

Abdul Moiz Hafiz, MD, was flabbergasted when he received a phone call from his institution’s credentialing office telling him that he was not certified for interventional cardiology – even though he had passed that exam in 2016.

Dr. Hafiz, who directs the Advanced Structural Heart Disease Program at Southern Illinois University, phoned the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), where he learned that to restore his credentials, he would need to pay $1,225 in maintenance of certification (MOC) fees.

Like Dr. Hafiz, many physicians have been dismayed to learn that the ABIM is now listing as “not certified” physicians who have passed board exams but have not paid annual MOC fees of $220 per year for the first certificate and $120 for each additional certificate.

Even doctors who are participating in mandatory continuing education outside the ABIM’s auspices are finding themselves listed as “not certified.” Some physicians learned of the policy change only after applying for hospital privileges or for jobs that require ABIM certification.

Now that increasing numbers of physicians are employed by hospitals and health care organizations that require ABIM certification, many doctors have no option but to pony up the fees if they want to continue to practice medicine.

“We have no say in the matter,” said Dr. Hafiz, “and there’s no appeal process.”

The change affects nearly 330,000 physicians. Responses to the policy on Twitter included accusations of extortion and denunciations of the ABIM’s “money grab policies.”

Sunil Rao, MD, director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Health and president of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), has heard from many SCAI members who had experiences similar to Dr. Hafiz’s. While Dr. Rao describes some of the Twitter outrage as “emotional,” he does acknowledge that the ABIM’s moves appear to be financially motivated.

“The issue here was that as soon as they paid the fee, all of a sudden, ABIM flipped the switch and said they were certified,” he said. “It certainly sounds like a purely financial kind of structure.”

Richard Baron, MD, president and CEO of the ABIM, said doctors are misunderstanding the policy change.

“No doctor loses certification solely for failure to pay fees,” Dr. Baron told this news organization. “What caused them to be reported as not certified was that we didn’t have evidence that they had met program requirements. They could say, ‘But I did meet program requirements, you just didn’t know it.’ To which our answer would be, for us to know it, we have to process them. And our policy is that we don’t process them unless you are current on your fees.”

This is not the first time ABIM policies have alienated physicians.

Last year, the ABIM raised its MOC fees from $165 to $220. That also prompted a wave of outrage. Other grievances go further back. At one time, being board certified was a lifetime credential. However, in 1990 the ABIM made periodic recertification mandatory.

The process, which came to be known as “maintenance of certification,” had to be completed every 10 years, and fees were charged for each certification. At that point, said Dr. Baron, the relationship between the ABIM and physicians changed from a one-time interaction to a career-long relationship. He advises doctors to check in periodically on their portal page at the ABIM or download the app so they will always know their status.

Many physicians would prefer not to be bound to a lifetime relationship with the ABIM. There is an alternative licensing board, the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), but it is accepted by only a limited number of hospitals.

“Until the NBPAS gains wide recognition,” said Dr. Hafiz, “the ABIM is going to continue to have basically a monopoly over the market.”

The value of MOC itself has been called into question. “There are no direct data supporting the value of the MOC process in either improving care, making patient care safer, or making patient care higher quality,” said Dr. Rao. This feeds frustration in a clinical community already dealing with onerous training requirements and expensive board certification exams and adds to the perception that it is a purely financial transaction, he said. (Studies examining whether the MOC system improves patient care have shown mixed results.)

The true value of the ABIM to physicians, Dr. Baron contends, is that the organization is an independent third party that differentiates those doctors from people who don’t have their skills, training, and expertise. “In these days, where anyone can be an ‘expert’ on the Internet, that’s more valuable than ever before,” he said.
 

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

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

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

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

Welcome, Lewis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Nelson: Or moderation.

Dr. Glatter: Until research proves further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome, Lewis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Nelson: Or moderation.

Dr. Glatter: Until research proves further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome, Lewis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Nelson: Or moderation.

Dr. Glatter: Until research proves further.

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

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

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

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

Beating the allegory of the cave

When Beatriz Flamini spoke with reporters on April 14, she knew nothing of the previous 18 months. The Russian invasion of Ukraine? Nope. The death of Queen Elizabeth? Also no. But before you make fun of her, she has an excuse. She’s been living under a rock.

As part of an experiment to test how social isolation and disorientation affect a person’s mind, sense of time, and sleeping patterns, Ms. Flamini lived in a 70-meter-deep cave in southern Spain for 500 days, starting in November 2021. Alone. No outside communication with the outside world in any way, though she was constantly monitored by a team of researchers. She also had multiple cameras filming her for an upcoming documentary.

Joshua Sortino/Negative Space

This is a massive step up from the previous record for time spent underground for science: A team of 15 spent 50 days underground in 2021 to similar study of isolation and how it affected circadian rhythms. It’s also almost certainly a world record for time spent underground.

All that time alone certainly sounds like some sort of medieval torture, but Ms. Flamini had access to food, water, and a library of books. Which she made liberal use of, reading at least 60 books during her stay. She also had a panic button in case the isolation became too much or an emergency developed, but she never considered using it.

She lost track of time after 2 months, flies invaded the cave on occasion, and maintaining coherence was occasionally a struggle, but she kept things together very well. In fact, she didn’t even want to leave when her team came for her. She wasn’t even finished with her 61st book.

When she spoke with gathered reporters after the ordeal, words were obviously difficult to come by for her, having not spoken in nearly 18 months, but her mind was clearly still sharp and she had a very important question for everyone gathered around her.

Who’s buying the beer?

We approve of this request.
 

Staphylococcus and the speed of evolution

Bacteria, we know, are tough little buggers that are hard to see and even harder to get rid of. So hard, actually, that human bodies eventually gave up on the task and decided to just incorporate them into our organ systems. But why are bacteria so hard to eliminate?

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

Two words: rapid evolution. How rapid? For the first time, scientists have directly observed adaptive evolution by Staphylococcus aureus in a single person’s skin microbiome. That’s how rapid.

For their study, the researchers collected samples from the nostrils, backs of knees, insides of elbows, and forearms of 23 children with eczema. They eventually cultured almost 1,500 unique colonies of S. aureus cells from those samples and sequenced the cells’ genomes.

All that sampling and culturing and sequencing showed that it was rare for a new S. aureus strain to come in and replace the existing strain. “Despite the stability at the lineage level, we see a lot of dynamics at the whole genome level, where new mutations are constantly arising in these bacteria and then spreading throughout the entire body,” Tami D. Lieberman, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, said in a written statement from MIT.

One frequent mutation involved a gene called capD, which encodes an enzyme necessary for synthesizing the capsular polysaccharide – a coating that protects S. aureus from recognition by immune cells. In one patient, four different mutations of capD arose independently in different samples before one variant became dominant and spread over the entire microbiome, MIT reported.

The mutation, which actually results in the loss of the polysaccharide capsule, may allow cells to grow faster than those without the mutation because they have more fuel to power their own growth, the researchers suggested. It’s also possible that loss of the capsule allows S. aureus cells to stick to the skin better because proteins that allow them to adhere to the skin are more exposed.

Dr. Lieberman and her associates hope that these variant-containing cells could be a new target for eczema treatments, but we’re never optimistic when it comes to bacteria. That’s because some of us are old enough to remember evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote in his book “Full House”: “Our planet has always been in the ‘Age of Bacteria,’ ever since the first fossils – bacteria, of course – were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago. On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are – and always have been – the dominant forms of life on Earth.”

In the distant future, long after humans have left the scene, the bacteria will be laughing at the last rats and cockroaches scurrying across the landscape. Wanna bet?
 

The height of genetic prediction

Genetics are practically a DNA Scrabble bag. Traits like eye color and hair texture are chosen in the same fashion, based on what gets pulled from our own genetic bag of letters, but what about height? Researchers may now have a way to predict adult height and make it more than just an educated guess.

How? By looking at the genes in our growth plates. The cartilage on the ends of our bones hardens as we age, eventually deciding an individual’s stature. In a recently published study, a research team looked at 600 million cartilage cells linked to maturation and cell growth in mice. Because everything starts with rodents.

Mayberry Health and Home

After that search identified 145 genes linked to growth plate maturation and formation of the bones, they compared the mouse genes with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of human height to look for hotspots where the height genes exist in human DNA.

The results showed which genes play a role in deciding height, and the GWAS data also suggested that genetic changes affecting cartilage cell maturation may strongly influence adult height, said the investigators, who hope that earlier interventions can improve outcomes in patients with conditions such as skeletal dysplasia.

So, yeah, you may want to be a little taller or shorter, but the outcome of that particular Scrabble game was determined when your parents, you know, dropped the letters in the bag.

Beating the allegory of the cave

When Beatriz Flamini spoke with reporters on April 14, she knew nothing of the previous 18 months. The Russian invasion of Ukraine? Nope. The death of Queen Elizabeth? Also no. But before you make fun of her, she has an excuse. She’s been living under a rock.

As part of an experiment to test how social isolation and disorientation affect a person’s mind, sense of time, and sleeping patterns, Ms. Flamini lived in a 70-meter-deep cave in southern Spain for 500 days, starting in November 2021. Alone. No outside communication with the outside world in any way, though she was constantly monitored by a team of researchers. She also had multiple cameras filming her for an upcoming documentary.

Joshua Sortino/Negative Space

This is a massive step up from the previous record for time spent underground for science: A team of 15 spent 50 days underground in 2021 to similar study of isolation and how it affected circadian rhythms. It’s also almost certainly a world record for time spent underground.

All that time alone certainly sounds like some sort of medieval torture, but Ms. Flamini had access to food, water, and a library of books. Which she made liberal use of, reading at least 60 books during her stay. She also had a panic button in case the isolation became too much or an emergency developed, but she never considered using it.

She lost track of time after 2 months, flies invaded the cave on occasion, and maintaining coherence was occasionally a struggle, but she kept things together very well. In fact, she didn’t even want to leave when her team came for her. She wasn’t even finished with her 61st book.

When she spoke with gathered reporters after the ordeal, words were obviously difficult to come by for her, having not spoken in nearly 18 months, but her mind was clearly still sharp and she had a very important question for everyone gathered around her.

Who’s buying the beer?

We approve of this request.
 

Staphylococcus and the speed of evolution

Bacteria, we know, are tough little buggers that are hard to see and even harder to get rid of. So hard, actually, that human bodies eventually gave up on the task and decided to just incorporate them into our organ systems. But why are bacteria so hard to eliminate?

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

Two words: rapid evolution. How rapid? For the first time, scientists have directly observed adaptive evolution by Staphylococcus aureus in a single person’s skin microbiome. That’s how rapid.

For their study, the researchers collected samples from the nostrils, backs of knees, insides of elbows, and forearms of 23 children with eczema. They eventually cultured almost 1,500 unique colonies of S. aureus cells from those samples and sequenced the cells’ genomes.

All that sampling and culturing and sequencing showed that it was rare for a new S. aureus strain to come in and replace the existing strain. “Despite the stability at the lineage level, we see a lot of dynamics at the whole genome level, where new mutations are constantly arising in these bacteria and then spreading throughout the entire body,” Tami D. Lieberman, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, said in a written statement from MIT.

One frequent mutation involved a gene called capD, which encodes an enzyme necessary for synthesizing the capsular polysaccharide – a coating that protects S. aureus from recognition by immune cells. In one patient, four different mutations of capD arose independently in different samples before one variant became dominant and spread over the entire microbiome, MIT reported.

The mutation, which actually results in the loss of the polysaccharide capsule, may allow cells to grow faster than those without the mutation because they have more fuel to power their own growth, the researchers suggested. It’s also possible that loss of the capsule allows S. aureus cells to stick to the skin better because proteins that allow them to adhere to the skin are more exposed.

Dr. Lieberman and her associates hope that these variant-containing cells could be a new target for eczema treatments, but we’re never optimistic when it comes to bacteria. That’s because some of us are old enough to remember evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote in his book “Full House”: “Our planet has always been in the ‘Age of Bacteria,’ ever since the first fossils – bacteria, of course – were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago. On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are – and always have been – the dominant forms of life on Earth.”

In the distant future, long after humans have left the scene, the bacteria will be laughing at the last rats and cockroaches scurrying across the landscape. Wanna bet?
 

The height of genetic prediction

Genetics are practically a DNA Scrabble bag. Traits like eye color and hair texture are chosen in the same fashion, based on what gets pulled from our own genetic bag of letters, but what about height? Researchers may now have a way to predict adult height and make it more than just an educated guess.

How? By looking at the genes in our growth plates. The cartilage on the ends of our bones hardens as we age, eventually deciding an individual’s stature. In a recently published study, a research team looked at 600 million cartilage cells linked to maturation and cell growth in mice. Because everything starts with rodents.

Mayberry Health and Home

After that search identified 145 genes linked to growth plate maturation and formation of the bones, they compared the mouse genes with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of human height to look for hotspots where the height genes exist in human DNA.

The results showed which genes play a role in deciding height, and the GWAS data also suggested that genetic changes affecting cartilage cell maturation may strongly influence adult height, said the investigators, who hope that earlier interventions can improve outcomes in patients with conditions such as skeletal dysplasia.

So, yeah, you may want to be a little taller or shorter, but the outcome of that particular Scrabble game was determined when your parents, you know, dropped the letters in the bag.

Beating the allegory of the cave

When Beatriz Flamini spoke with reporters on April 14, she knew nothing of the previous 18 months. The Russian invasion of Ukraine? Nope. The death of Queen Elizabeth? Also no. But before you make fun of her, she has an excuse. She’s been living under a rock.

As part of an experiment to test how social isolation and disorientation affect a person’s mind, sense of time, and sleeping patterns, Ms. Flamini lived in a 70-meter-deep cave in southern Spain for 500 days, starting in November 2021. Alone. No outside communication with the outside world in any way, though she was constantly monitored by a team of researchers. She also had multiple cameras filming her for an upcoming documentary.

Joshua Sortino/Negative Space

This is a massive step up from the previous record for time spent underground for science: A team of 15 spent 50 days underground in 2021 to similar study of isolation and how it affected circadian rhythms. It’s also almost certainly a world record for time spent underground.

All that time alone certainly sounds like some sort of medieval torture, but Ms. Flamini had access to food, water, and a library of books. Which she made liberal use of, reading at least 60 books during her stay. She also had a panic button in case the isolation became too much or an emergency developed, but she never considered using it.

She lost track of time after 2 months, flies invaded the cave on occasion, and maintaining coherence was occasionally a struggle, but she kept things together very well. In fact, she didn’t even want to leave when her team came for her. She wasn’t even finished with her 61st book.

When she spoke with gathered reporters after the ordeal, words were obviously difficult to come by for her, having not spoken in nearly 18 months, but her mind was clearly still sharp and she had a very important question for everyone gathered around her.

Who’s buying the beer?

We approve of this request.
 

Staphylococcus and the speed of evolution

Bacteria, we know, are tough little buggers that are hard to see and even harder to get rid of. So hard, actually, that human bodies eventually gave up on the task and decided to just incorporate them into our organ systems. But why are bacteria so hard to eliminate?

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

Two words: rapid evolution. How rapid? For the first time, scientists have directly observed adaptive evolution by Staphylococcus aureus in a single person’s skin microbiome. That’s how rapid.

For their study, the researchers collected samples from the nostrils, backs of knees, insides of elbows, and forearms of 23 children with eczema. They eventually cultured almost 1,500 unique colonies of S. aureus cells from those samples and sequenced the cells’ genomes.

All that sampling and culturing and sequencing showed that it was rare for a new S. aureus strain to come in and replace the existing strain. “Despite the stability at the lineage level, we see a lot of dynamics at the whole genome level, where new mutations are constantly arising in these bacteria and then spreading throughout the entire body,” Tami D. Lieberman, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, said in a written statement from MIT.

One frequent mutation involved a gene called capD, which encodes an enzyme necessary for synthesizing the capsular polysaccharide – a coating that protects S. aureus from recognition by immune cells. In one patient, four different mutations of capD arose independently in different samples before one variant became dominant and spread over the entire microbiome, MIT reported.

The mutation, which actually results in the loss of the polysaccharide capsule, may allow cells to grow faster than those without the mutation because they have more fuel to power their own growth, the researchers suggested. It’s also possible that loss of the capsule allows S. aureus cells to stick to the skin better because proteins that allow them to adhere to the skin are more exposed.

Dr. Lieberman and her associates hope that these variant-containing cells could be a new target for eczema treatments, but we’re never optimistic when it comes to bacteria. That’s because some of us are old enough to remember evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote in his book “Full House”: “Our planet has always been in the ‘Age of Bacteria,’ ever since the first fossils – bacteria, of course – were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago. On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are – and always have been – the dominant forms of life on Earth.”

In the distant future, long after humans have left the scene, the bacteria will be laughing at the last rats and cockroaches scurrying across the landscape. Wanna bet?
 

The height of genetic prediction

Genetics are practically a DNA Scrabble bag. Traits like eye color and hair texture are chosen in the same fashion, based on what gets pulled from our own genetic bag of letters, but what about height? Researchers may now have a way to predict adult height and make it more than just an educated guess.

How? By looking at the genes in our growth plates. The cartilage on the ends of our bones hardens as we age, eventually deciding an individual’s stature. In a recently published study, a research team looked at 600 million cartilage cells linked to maturation and cell growth in mice. Because everything starts with rodents.

Mayberry Health and Home

After that search identified 145 genes linked to growth plate maturation and formation of the bones, they compared the mouse genes with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of human height to look for hotspots where the height genes exist in human DNA.

The results showed which genes play a role in deciding height, and the GWAS data also suggested that genetic changes affecting cartilage cell maturation may strongly influence adult height, said the investigators, who hope that earlier interventions can improve outcomes in patients with conditions such as skeletal dysplasia.

So, yeah, you may want to be a little taller or shorter, but the outcome of that particular Scrabble game was determined when your parents, you know, dropped the letters in the bag.

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

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

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

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

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

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

A Massachusetts hospital must pay $20 million to a man who lost his left leg after a blood clot was misdiagnosed as sciatica, according to a story posted on boston.com, the news site of The Boston Globe.

On March 7, 2015, Steven Luppold, at the time a construction worker, went to the emergency department at Lowell General Hospital, in Lowell, Mass. He had a long history of sciatica. The pain often radiated down his left leg. This time, though, his discomfort in his left foot felt different.

At the ED, Mr. Luppold was initially examined by two nurses, who wrote in the patient’s chart that his foot was turning purple and felt cool to the touch. He was next examined by a physician assistant, Charles Loucraft, who made a diagnosis of worsening sciatica and sent the patient home. Court records suggest Mr. Loucraft made this diagnosis without having read the patient’s chart.

Six days later, Mr. Luppold returned to the ED with severe pain – a 9 on a scale of 10, as he reported at the time. Again, he was seen by two nurses, one of whom had examined him the previous week. He was then examined by Carlos Flores, a nurse practitioner, who reiterated the PA’s initial diagnosis of sciatica. Once more, Mr. Luppold was sent home.

Four days later, on March 17, Mr. Luppold placed a call to his primary care physician (PCP), who worked at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, in Burlington, Mass., about 18 miles south of Lowell.

The PCP administered an ultrasound and diagnosed the patient as having a deep-vein thrombosis and an arterial thrombosis in his left leg. Mr. Luppold was taken immediately to the Lahey Hospital ED. A vascular surgeon ordered a CT scan, which indicated that the tissue in the patient’s left leg was necrotic. The following day, with few options open to them, surgeons amputated the patient’s left leg above the knee.

At some point after the surgery, Mr. Luppold filed a medical malpractice suit that named the PA, NP, and their physician-group employer, Merrimack Valley Emergency Associates, in Lowell. Also named in the suit were the three ED nurses who had examined him.

“Honestly, the reason this happened was because the communication ... in the emergency department between the nurses and providers was nonexistent,” says Robert M. Higgins, a partner at Lubin & Meyer, in Boston, who represented the plaintiff. Had providers ordered “a simple ultrasound” during either of Mr. Luppold’s visits to the ED, Mr. Higgins added, his leg could have been saved.

The jury agreed. It awarded Mr. Luppold $10 million for pain and suffering and another $10 million in compensatory damages.

At press time, there was no word on whether the defendants planned to appeal.
 

Doctors at risk for providing trans care to minors

Arkansas doctors who “perform a gender transition procedure” for persons younger than 18 years could be in legal jeopardy for well beyond the date of treatment, reports a story in the Arkansas Advocate, among other news sites.

That prospect is the result of a bill signed into law in March by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Under the law, slated to take effect this summer, a doctor who provides gender-affirming care to a minor can be sued for a period of up to 15 years after that patient turns 18. (Under current state law, plaintiffs must file a med-mal claim within 2 years of an injury.)

A federal judge is considering whether to strike down a similar measure that was signed into law by Gov. Sanders’s predecessor, Asa Hutchinson, in 2021. That statute prohibits doctors from providing or from referring a minor to someone who would provide gender-affirming hormone or puberty blockers. (Minors in the state do not qualify for gender-related surgery.)

Opponents of such care are hopeful that the 2021 statute will survive judicial review. Even if it doesn’t, though, they believe the new med-mal law will have a similar effect: to dissuade Arkansas doctors from treating minors seeking gender-related treatment.

It’s possible that the new law could itself be subject to a court review. But at least one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Gary Stubblefield, a Republican member of the Arkansas senate, is cautiously optimistic: “I know what we did was what we thought was best for our children.”

Opponents argue, though, that the new law will end up harming children who identify as transgender.

“You might not understand what it means to be gay or trans or a member of the LGBTQ community,” explained House Minority Leader Tippi McCullough during debate over the bill in the GOP-led chamber. “I get that, but I’m standing here as the only member of that community in the entire General Assembly, a caucus of one, telling you ... [the bill] denies trans kids the most affirming care they may ever receive in their lives, and that’s cruel.”
 

Appeals court slashes jury award

A Pennsylvania doctor who faced paying a $2.7 million award has had it cut nearly in half by a three-judge Superior Court panel, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

The underlying case stems from a suit brought by the estate of a man who died in 2018. At the time of his death, he had been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and liver cancer. The suit by the family estate was initially centered on the doctor’s alleged negligence in treating the man’s prostate cancer. At some point during the 2021 trial, though, the suit was amended to include a second claim – an allegation that the doctor had also been negligent in treating the patient’s liver cancer, which had been belatedly diagnosed. The doctor’s medical practice was also a named defendant in the suit.

On March 2, 2022, a jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding them compensatory damages of $1.5 million for the prostate cancer claim and $1.2 million for the liver cancer claim.

The doctor and other defendants appealed, arguing two essential points: first, the liver cancer claim amounted to a new cause of action, one for which they had not been given adequate notice.

Second, and more significantly, plaintiff action relating to this second claim had only begun in earnest on July 6, 2021, when an expert report was first filed with the court. But this filing was nearly a full year beyond the state’s 2-year statute of limitations, which, given the patient’s death in 2018, was at the very limit, said defendants. For these reasons, they argued, the appeals court should forthwith order a new trial.

That court, however, ended up walking a middle road. Although the court found that the liver claim was “time-barred,” since it had exceeded the 2-year statute of limitations, the court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Instead, the court cut $1.2 million from the portion of the jury award that applied to the liver cancer claim but left intact the $1.5 million that related to the cause of action regarding prostate cancer.

It was a Solomonic decision that undoubtedly displeased both sides equally.

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

A Massachusetts hospital must pay $20 million to a man who lost his left leg after a blood clot was misdiagnosed as sciatica, according to a story posted on boston.com, the news site of The Boston Globe.

On March 7, 2015, Steven Luppold, at the time a construction worker, went to the emergency department at Lowell General Hospital, in Lowell, Mass. He had a long history of sciatica. The pain often radiated down his left leg. This time, though, his discomfort in his left foot felt different.

At the ED, Mr. Luppold was initially examined by two nurses, who wrote in the patient’s chart that his foot was turning purple and felt cool to the touch. He was next examined by a physician assistant, Charles Loucraft, who made a diagnosis of worsening sciatica and sent the patient home. Court records suggest Mr. Loucraft made this diagnosis without having read the patient’s chart.

Six days later, Mr. Luppold returned to the ED with severe pain – a 9 on a scale of 10, as he reported at the time. Again, he was seen by two nurses, one of whom had examined him the previous week. He was then examined by Carlos Flores, a nurse practitioner, who reiterated the PA’s initial diagnosis of sciatica. Once more, Mr. Luppold was sent home.

Four days later, on March 17, Mr. Luppold placed a call to his primary care physician (PCP), who worked at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, in Burlington, Mass., about 18 miles south of Lowell.

The PCP administered an ultrasound and diagnosed the patient as having a deep-vein thrombosis and an arterial thrombosis in his left leg. Mr. Luppold was taken immediately to the Lahey Hospital ED. A vascular surgeon ordered a CT scan, which indicated that the tissue in the patient’s left leg was necrotic. The following day, with few options open to them, surgeons amputated the patient’s left leg above the knee.

At some point after the surgery, Mr. Luppold filed a medical malpractice suit that named the PA, NP, and their physician-group employer, Merrimack Valley Emergency Associates, in Lowell. Also named in the suit were the three ED nurses who had examined him.

“Honestly, the reason this happened was because the communication ... in the emergency department between the nurses and providers was nonexistent,” says Robert M. Higgins, a partner at Lubin & Meyer, in Boston, who represented the plaintiff. Had providers ordered “a simple ultrasound” during either of Mr. Luppold’s visits to the ED, Mr. Higgins added, his leg could have been saved.

The jury agreed. It awarded Mr. Luppold $10 million for pain and suffering and another $10 million in compensatory damages.

At press time, there was no word on whether the defendants planned to appeal.
 

Doctors at risk for providing trans care to minors

Arkansas doctors who “perform a gender transition procedure” for persons younger than 18 years could be in legal jeopardy for well beyond the date of treatment, reports a story in the Arkansas Advocate, among other news sites.

That prospect is the result of a bill signed into law in March by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Under the law, slated to take effect this summer, a doctor who provides gender-affirming care to a minor can be sued for a period of up to 15 years after that patient turns 18. (Under current state law, plaintiffs must file a med-mal claim within 2 years of an injury.)

A federal judge is considering whether to strike down a similar measure that was signed into law by Gov. Sanders’s predecessor, Asa Hutchinson, in 2021. That statute prohibits doctors from providing or from referring a minor to someone who would provide gender-affirming hormone or puberty blockers. (Minors in the state do not qualify for gender-related surgery.)

Opponents of such care are hopeful that the 2021 statute will survive judicial review. Even if it doesn’t, though, they believe the new med-mal law will have a similar effect: to dissuade Arkansas doctors from treating minors seeking gender-related treatment.

It’s possible that the new law could itself be subject to a court review. But at least one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Gary Stubblefield, a Republican member of the Arkansas senate, is cautiously optimistic: “I know what we did was what we thought was best for our children.”

Opponents argue, though, that the new law will end up harming children who identify as transgender.

“You might not understand what it means to be gay or trans or a member of the LGBTQ community,” explained House Minority Leader Tippi McCullough during debate over the bill in the GOP-led chamber. “I get that, but I’m standing here as the only member of that community in the entire General Assembly, a caucus of one, telling you ... [the bill] denies trans kids the most affirming care they may ever receive in their lives, and that’s cruel.”
 

Appeals court slashes jury award

A Pennsylvania doctor who faced paying a $2.7 million award has had it cut nearly in half by a three-judge Superior Court panel, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

The underlying case stems from a suit brought by the estate of a man who died in 2018. At the time of his death, he had been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and liver cancer. The suit by the family estate was initially centered on the doctor’s alleged negligence in treating the man’s prostate cancer. At some point during the 2021 trial, though, the suit was amended to include a second claim – an allegation that the doctor had also been negligent in treating the patient’s liver cancer, which had been belatedly diagnosed. The doctor’s medical practice was also a named defendant in the suit.

On March 2, 2022, a jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding them compensatory damages of $1.5 million for the prostate cancer claim and $1.2 million for the liver cancer claim.

The doctor and other defendants appealed, arguing two essential points: first, the liver cancer claim amounted to a new cause of action, one for which they had not been given adequate notice.

Second, and more significantly, plaintiff action relating to this second claim had only begun in earnest on July 6, 2021, when an expert report was first filed with the court. But this filing was nearly a full year beyond the state’s 2-year statute of limitations, which, given the patient’s death in 2018, was at the very limit, said defendants. For these reasons, they argued, the appeals court should forthwith order a new trial.

That court, however, ended up walking a middle road. Although the court found that the liver claim was “time-barred,” since it had exceeded the 2-year statute of limitations, the court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Instead, the court cut $1.2 million from the portion of the jury award that applied to the liver cancer claim but left intact the $1.5 million that related to the cause of action regarding prostate cancer.

It was a Solomonic decision that undoubtedly displeased both sides equally.

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

A Massachusetts hospital must pay $20 million to a man who lost his left leg after a blood clot was misdiagnosed as sciatica, according to a story posted on boston.com, the news site of The Boston Globe.

On March 7, 2015, Steven Luppold, at the time a construction worker, went to the emergency department at Lowell General Hospital, in Lowell, Mass. He had a long history of sciatica. The pain often radiated down his left leg. This time, though, his discomfort in his left foot felt different.

At the ED, Mr. Luppold was initially examined by two nurses, who wrote in the patient’s chart that his foot was turning purple and felt cool to the touch. He was next examined by a physician assistant, Charles Loucraft, who made a diagnosis of worsening sciatica and sent the patient home. Court records suggest Mr. Loucraft made this diagnosis without having read the patient’s chart.

Six days later, Mr. Luppold returned to the ED with severe pain – a 9 on a scale of 10, as he reported at the time. Again, he was seen by two nurses, one of whom had examined him the previous week. He was then examined by Carlos Flores, a nurse practitioner, who reiterated the PA’s initial diagnosis of sciatica. Once more, Mr. Luppold was sent home.

Four days later, on March 17, Mr. Luppold placed a call to his primary care physician (PCP), who worked at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, in Burlington, Mass., about 18 miles south of Lowell.

The PCP administered an ultrasound and diagnosed the patient as having a deep-vein thrombosis and an arterial thrombosis in his left leg. Mr. Luppold was taken immediately to the Lahey Hospital ED. A vascular surgeon ordered a CT scan, which indicated that the tissue in the patient’s left leg was necrotic. The following day, with few options open to them, surgeons amputated the patient’s left leg above the knee.

At some point after the surgery, Mr. Luppold filed a medical malpractice suit that named the PA, NP, and their physician-group employer, Merrimack Valley Emergency Associates, in Lowell. Also named in the suit were the three ED nurses who had examined him.

“Honestly, the reason this happened was because the communication ... in the emergency department between the nurses and providers was nonexistent,” says Robert M. Higgins, a partner at Lubin & Meyer, in Boston, who represented the plaintiff. Had providers ordered “a simple ultrasound” during either of Mr. Luppold’s visits to the ED, Mr. Higgins added, his leg could have been saved.

The jury agreed. It awarded Mr. Luppold $10 million for pain and suffering and another $10 million in compensatory damages.

At press time, there was no word on whether the defendants planned to appeal.
 

Doctors at risk for providing trans care to minors

Arkansas doctors who “perform a gender transition procedure” for persons younger than 18 years could be in legal jeopardy for well beyond the date of treatment, reports a story in the Arkansas Advocate, among other news sites.

That prospect is the result of a bill signed into law in March by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Under the law, slated to take effect this summer, a doctor who provides gender-affirming care to a minor can be sued for a period of up to 15 years after that patient turns 18. (Under current state law, plaintiffs must file a med-mal claim within 2 years of an injury.)

A federal judge is considering whether to strike down a similar measure that was signed into law by Gov. Sanders’s predecessor, Asa Hutchinson, in 2021. That statute prohibits doctors from providing or from referring a minor to someone who would provide gender-affirming hormone or puberty blockers. (Minors in the state do not qualify for gender-related surgery.)

Opponents of such care are hopeful that the 2021 statute will survive judicial review. Even if it doesn’t, though, they believe the new med-mal law will have a similar effect: to dissuade Arkansas doctors from treating minors seeking gender-related treatment.

It’s possible that the new law could itself be subject to a court review. But at least one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Gary Stubblefield, a Republican member of the Arkansas senate, is cautiously optimistic: “I know what we did was what we thought was best for our children.”

Opponents argue, though, that the new law will end up harming children who identify as transgender.

“You might not understand what it means to be gay or trans or a member of the LGBTQ community,” explained House Minority Leader Tippi McCullough during debate over the bill in the GOP-led chamber. “I get that, but I’m standing here as the only member of that community in the entire General Assembly, a caucus of one, telling you ... [the bill] denies trans kids the most affirming care they may ever receive in their lives, and that’s cruel.”
 

Appeals court slashes jury award

A Pennsylvania doctor who faced paying a $2.7 million award has had it cut nearly in half by a three-judge Superior Court panel, as a story in the Claims Journal reports.

The underlying case stems from a suit brought by the estate of a man who died in 2018. At the time of his death, he had been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and liver cancer. The suit by the family estate was initially centered on the doctor’s alleged negligence in treating the man’s prostate cancer. At some point during the 2021 trial, though, the suit was amended to include a second claim – an allegation that the doctor had also been negligent in treating the patient’s liver cancer, which had been belatedly diagnosed. The doctor’s medical practice was also a named defendant in the suit.

On March 2, 2022, a jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding them compensatory damages of $1.5 million for the prostate cancer claim and $1.2 million for the liver cancer claim.

The doctor and other defendants appealed, arguing two essential points: first, the liver cancer claim amounted to a new cause of action, one for which they had not been given adequate notice.

Second, and more significantly, plaintiff action relating to this second claim had only begun in earnest on July 6, 2021, when an expert report was first filed with the court. But this filing was nearly a full year beyond the state’s 2-year statute of limitations, which, given the patient’s death in 2018, was at the very limit, said defendants. For these reasons, they argued, the appeals court should forthwith order a new trial.

That court, however, ended up walking a middle road. Although the court found that the liver claim was “time-barred,” since it had exceeded the 2-year statute of limitations, the court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Instead, the court cut $1.2 million from the portion of the jury award that applied to the liver cancer claim but left intact the $1.5 million that related to the cause of action regarding prostate cancer.

It was a Solomonic decision that undoubtedly displeased both sides equally.

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