Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has an unpredictable disease course and poses substantial therapeutic challenges. It carries an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. It also is associated with comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and autoimmune diseases, which can complicate its management and considerably affect patients’ quality of life (QOL).¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa also disproportionately affects minority groups and has far-reaching inequities; for example, the condition has a notable economic impact on patients, including higher unemployment and disability rates, lower-paying jobs, less paid time off, and other indirect costs.^2,3 Race can impact how pain itself is treated. In one study (N = 217), Black patients with extremity fractures presenting to anemergency department were significantly less likely to receive analgesia compared to White patients despite reporting similar pain (57% vs 74%, respectively; P = .01).⁴ In another study, Hispanic patients were 7-times less likely to be treated with opioids compared to non-Hispanic patients with long-bone fractures.⁵ Herein, we highlight pain management disparities in HS patients.

Treating HS Comorbidities Helps Improve Pain

Pain is reported by almost all HS patients and is the symptom most associated with QOL impairment.^6,7 Pain in HS is multifactorial, with other symptoms and comorbidities affecting its severity. Treatment of acute flares often is painful and procedural, including intralesional steroid injections or incision and drainage.⁸ Algorithms for addressing pain through the treatment of comorbidities also have been developed.⁶ Although there are few studies on the medications that treat related comorbidities in HS, there is evidence of their benefits in similar diseases; for example, treating depression in patients with irritable bowel disease (IBD) improved pain perception, cognitive function, and sexual dysfunction.⁹

Depression exacerbates pain, and higher levels of depression have been observed in severe HS.^10,11 Additionally, more than 80% of individuals with HS report tobacco smoking.¹ Nicotine not only increases pain sensitivity and decreases pain tolerance but also worsens neuropathic, nociceptive, and psychosocial pain, as well as mood disorders and sleep disturbances.¹² Given the higher prevalence of depression and smoking in HS patients and the impact on pain, addressing these comorbidities is crucial. Additionally, poor sleep amplifies pain sensitivity and affects neurologic pain modulation.¹³ Chronic pain also is associated with obesity and sleep dysfunction.¹⁴

Treatments Targeting Pain and Comorbidities

Treatments that target comorbidities and other symptoms of HS also may improve pain. Bupropion is a well-studied antidepressant and first-line option to aid in smoking cessation. It provides acute and chronic pain relief associated with IBD and may perform similarly in patients with HS.^15-18 Bupropion also demonstrated dose-dependent weight reduction in obese and overweight individuals.^19,20 Additionally, varenicline is a first-line option to aid in smoking cessation and can be combined with bupropion to increase long-term efficacy.^21,22

Other antidepressants may alleviate HS pain. The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine are recommended for chronic pain in HS.⁶ Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine are inexpensive and widely available antidepressants. Citalopram is as efficacious as duloxetine for chronic pain with fewer side effects.²³ Paroxetine has been shown to improve pain and pruritus, QOL, and depression in patients with IBD.²⁴ Benefits such as improved weight and sexual dysfunction also have been reported.²⁵

Metformin is well studied in Black patients, and greater glycemic response supports its efficacy for diabetes as well as HS, which disproportionately affects individuals with skin of color.²⁶ Metformin also targets other comorbidities of HS, such as improving insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne vulgaris, weight loss, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular risk, and neuropsychologic conditions.²⁷ Growing evidence supports the use of metformin as a new agent in chronic pain management, specifically for patients with HS.^28,29

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex medical condition seen disproportionately in minority groups. Understanding common comorbidities as well as the biases associated with pain management will allow providers to treat HS patients more effectively. Dermatologists who see many HS patients should become more familiar with treating these associated comorbidities to provide patient care that is more holistic and effective.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has an unpredictable disease course and poses substantial therapeutic challenges. It carries an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. It also is associated with comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and autoimmune diseases, which can complicate its management and considerably affect patients’ quality of life (QOL).¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa also disproportionately affects minority groups and has far-reaching inequities; for example, the condition has a notable economic impact on patients, including higher unemployment and disability rates, lower-paying jobs, less paid time off, and other indirect costs.^2,3 Race can impact how pain itself is treated. In one study (N = 217), Black patients with extremity fractures presenting to anemergency department were significantly less likely to receive analgesia compared to White patients despite reporting similar pain (57% vs 74%, respectively; P = .01).⁴ In another study, Hispanic patients were 7-times less likely to be treated with opioids compared to non-Hispanic patients with long-bone fractures.⁵ Herein, we highlight pain management disparities in HS patients.

Treating HS Comorbidities Helps Improve Pain

Pain is reported by almost all HS patients and is the symptom most associated with QOL impairment.^6,7 Pain in HS is multifactorial, with other symptoms and comorbidities affecting its severity. Treatment of acute flares often is painful and procedural, including intralesional steroid injections or incision and drainage.⁸ Algorithms for addressing pain through the treatment of comorbidities also have been developed.⁶ Although there are few studies on the medications that treat related comorbidities in HS, there is evidence of their benefits in similar diseases; for example, treating depression in patients with irritable bowel disease (IBD) improved pain perception, cognitive function, and sexual dysfunction.⁹

Depression exacerbates pain, and higher levels of depression have been observed in severe HS.^10,11 Additionally, more than 80% of individuals with HS report tobacco smoking.¹ Nicotine not only increases pain sensitivity and decreases pain tolerance but also worsens neuropathic, nociceptive, and psychosocial pain, as well as mood disorders and sleep disturbances.¹² Given the higher prevalence of depression and smoking in HS patients and the impact on pain, addressing these comorbidities is crucial. Additionally, poor sleep amplifies pain sensitivity and affects neurologic pain modulation.¹³ Chronic pain also is associated with obesity and sleep dysfunction.¹⁴

Treatments Targeting Pain and Comorbidities

Treatments that target comorbidities and other symptoms of HS also may improve pain. Bupropion is a well-studied antidepressant and first-line option to aid in smoking cessation. It provides acute and chronic pain relief associated with IBD and may perform similarly in patients with HS.^15-18 Bupropion also demonstrated dose-dependent weight reduction in obese and overweight individuals.^19,20 Additionally, varenicline is a first-line option to aid in smoking cessation and can be combined with bupropion to increase long-term efficacy.^21,22

Other antidepressants may alleviate HS pain. The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine are recommended for chronic pain in HS.⁶ Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine are inexpensive and widely available antidepressants. Citalopram is as efficacious as duloxetine for chronic pain with fewer side effects.²³ Paroxetine has been shown to improve pain and pruritus, QOL, and depression in patients with IBD.²⁴ Benefits such as improved weight and sexual dysfunction also have been reported.²⁵

Metformin is well studied in Black patients, and greater glycemic response supports its efficacy for diabetes as well as HS, which disproportionately affects individuals with skin of color.²⁶ Metformin also targets other comorbidities of HS, such as improving insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne vulgaris, weight loss, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular risk, and neuropsychologic conditions.²⁷ Growing evidence supports the use of metformin as a new agent in chronic pain management, specifically for patients with HS.^28,29

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex medical condition seen disproportionately in minority groups. Understanding common comorbidities as well as the biases associated with pain management will allow providers to treat HS patients more effectively. Dermatologists who see many HS patients should become more familiar with treating these associated comorbidities to provide patient care that is more holistic and effective.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has an unpredictable disease course and poses substantial therapeutic challenges. It carries an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. It also is associated with comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, and autoimmune diseases, which can complicate its management and considerably affect patients’ quality of life (QOL).¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa also disproportionately affects minority groups and has far-reaching inequities; for example, the condition has a notable economic impact on patients, including higher unemployment and disability rates, lower-paying jobs, less paid time off, and other indirect costs.^2,3 Race can impact how pain itself is treated. In one study (N = 217), Black patients with extremity fractures presenting to anemergency department were significantly less likely to receive analgesia compared to White patients despite reporting similar pain (57% vs 74%, respectively; P = .01).⁴ In another study, Hispanic patients were 7-times less likely to be treated with opioids compared to non-Hispanic patients with long-bone fractures.⁵ Herein, we highlight pain management disparities in HS patients.

Treating HS Comorbidities Helps Improve Pain

Pain is reported by almost all HS patients and is the symptom most associated with QOL impairment.^6,7 Pain in HS is multifactorial, with other symptoms and comorbidities affecting its severity. Treatment of acute flares often is painful and procedural, including intralesional steroid injections or incision and drainage.⁸ Algorithms for addressing pain through the treatment of comorbidities also have been developed.⁶ Although there are few studies on the medications that treat related comorbidities in HS, there is evidence of their benefits in similar diseases; for example, treating depression in patients with irritable bowel disease (IBD) improved pain perception, cognitive function, and sexual dysfunction.⁹

Depression exacerbates pain, and higher levels of depression have been observed in severe HS.^10,11 Additionally, more than 80% of individuals with HS report tobacco smoking.¹ Nicotine not only increases pain sensitivity and decreases pain tolerance but also worsens neuropathic, nociceptive, and psychosocial pain, as well as mood disorders and sleep disturbances.¹² Given the higher prevalence of depression and smoking in HS patients and the impact on pain, addressing these comorbidities is crucial. Additionally, poor sleep amplifies pain sensitivity and affects neurologic pain modulation.¹³ Chronic pain also is associated with obesity and sleep dysfunction.¹⁴

Treatments Targeting Pain and Comorbidities

Treatments that target comorbidities and other symptoms of HS also may improve pain. Bupropion is a well-studied antidepressant and first-line option to aid in smoking cessation. It provides acute and chronic pain relief associated with IBD and may perform similarly in patients with HS.^15-18 Bupropion also demonstrated dose-dependent weight reduction in obese and overweight individuals.^19,20 Additionally, varenicline is a first-line option to aid in smoking cessation and can be combined with bupropion to increase long-term efficacy.^21,22

Other antidepressants may alleviate HS pain. The selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine are recommended for chronic pain in HS.⁶ Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as citalopram, escitalopram, and paroxetine are inexpensive and widely available antidepressants. Citalopram is as efficacious as duloxetine for chronic pain with fewer side effects.²³ Paroxetine has been shown to improve pain and pruritus, QOL, and depression in patients with IBD.²⁴ Benefits such as improved weight and sexual dysfunction also have been reported.²⁵

Metformin is well studied in Black patients, and greater glycemic response supports its efficacy for diabetes as well as HS, which disproportionately affects individuals with skin of color.²⁶ Metformin also targets other comorbidities of HS, such as improving insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne vulgaris, weight loss, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular risk, and neuropsychologic conditions.²⁷ Growing evidence supports the use of metformin as a new agent in chronic pain management, specifically for patients with HS.^28,29

Final Thoughts

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex medical condition seen disproportionately in minority groups. Understanding common comorbidities as well as the biases associated with pain management will allow providers to treat HS patients more effectively. Dermatologists who see many HS patients should become more familiar with treating these associated comorbidities to provide patient care that is more holistic and effective.

Practice Gap

Scalp defects that extend to or below the periosteum often pose a reconstructive conundrum. Secondary-intention healing is challenging without an intact periosteum, and complex rotational flaps are required in these scenarios.¹ For a tumor that is at high risk for recurrence or when adjuvant therapy is necessary, tissue distortion of flaps can make monitoring for recurrence difficult. Similarly, for patients in poor health or who are elderly and have substantial skin atrophy, extensive closure may be undesirable or more technically challenging with a higher risk for adverse events. In these scenarios, additional strategies are necessary to optimize wound healing and cosmesis. A cadaveric split-thickness skin graft (STSG) consisting of biologically active tissue can be used to expedite granulation.²

Technique

Following tumor clearance on the scalp (Figure 1), wide undermining is performed and 3-0 polyglactin 910 epidermal pulley sutures are placed to partially close the defect. A cadaveric STSG is placed over the remaining exposed periosteum and secured under the pulley sutures (Figure 2). The cadaveric STSG is replaced at 1-week intervals. At 4 weeks, sutures typically are removed. The cadaveric STSG is used until the exposed periosteum is fully granulated and the surgeon decides that granulation arrest is unlikely. The wound then heals by unassisted granulation. This approach provides an excellent final cosmetic outcome while avoiding extensive reconstruction (Figure 3).

Practice Implications

Scalp defects requiring closure are common for dermatologic surgeons. Several techniques to promote tissue granulation in defects that involve exposed periosteum have been reported, including (1) creation of small holes with a scalpel or chisel to access cortical circulation and (2) using laser modalities to stimulate granulation (eg, an erbium:YAG or CO₂ laser).^3,4 Although direct comparative studies are needed, the cadaveric STSG provides an approach that increases tissue granulation but does not require more invasive techniques or equipment.

Autologous STSGs need a wound bed and can fail with an exposed periosteum. Furthermore, an autologous STSG that survives may leave an unsightly, hypopigmented, depressed defect. When a defect involves the periosteum and a primary closure or flap is not ideal, a skin substitute may be an option.

Skin substitutes, including cadaveric STSG, generally are classified as bioengineered skin equivalents, amniotic tissue, or cadaveric bioproducts (Table). Unlike autologous grafts, these skin substitutes can provide rapid coverage of the defect and do not require a highly vascularized wound bed.⁶ They also minimize the inflammatory response and potentially improve the final cosmetic outcome by improving granulation rather than immediate STSG closure creating a step-off in deep wounds.⁶

Cadaveric STSGs also have been used in nonhealing ulcerations; diabetic foot ulcers; and ulcerations in which muscle, tendon, or bone are exposed, demonstrating induction of wound healing with superior scar quality and skin function.^2,7,8 The utility of the cadaveric STSG is further highlighted by its potential to reduce costs⁹ compared to bioengineered skin substitutes, though considerable variability exists in pricing (Table).

Consider using a cadaveric STSG with a guiding closure in cases in which there is concern for delayed or absent tissue granulation or when monitoring for recurrence is essential.

Practice Gap

Scalp defects that extend to or below the periosteum often pose a reconstructive conundrum. Secondary-intention healing is challenging without an intact periosteum, and complex rotational flaps are required in these scenarios.¹ For a tumor that is at high risk for recurrence or when adjuvant therapy is necessary, tissue distortion of flaps can make monitoring for recurrence difficult. Similarly, for patients in poor health or who are elderly and have substantial skin atrophy, extensive closure may be undesirable or more technically challenging with a higher risk for adverse events. In these scenarios, additional strategies are necessary to optimize wound healing and cosmesis. A cadaveric split-thickness skin graft (STSG) consisting of biologically active tissue can be used to expedite granulation.²

Technique

Following tumor clearance on the scalp (Figure 1), wide undermining is performed and 3-0 polyglactin 910 epidermal pulley sutures are placed to partially close the defect. A cadaveric STSG is placed over the remaining exposed periosteum and secured under the pulley sutures (Figure 2). The cadaveric STSG is replaced at 1-week intervals. At 4 weeks, sutures typically are removed. The cadaveric STSG is used until the exposed periosteum is fully granulated and the surgeon decides that granulation arrest is unlikely. The wound then heals by unassisted granulation. This approach provides an excellent final cosmetic outcome while avoiding extensive reconstruction (Figure 3).

Practice Implications

Scalp defects requiring closure are common for dermatologic surgeons. Several techniques to promote tissue granulation in defects that involve exposed periosteum have been reported, including (1) creation of small holes with a scalpel or chisel to access cortical circulation and (2) using laser modalities to stimulate granulation (eg, an erbium:YAG or CO₂ laser).^3,4 Although direct comparative studies are needed, the cadaveric STSG provides an approach that increases tissue granulation but does not require more invasive techniques or equipment.

Autologous STSGs need a wound bed and can fail with an exposed periosteum. Furthermore, an autologous STSG that survives may leave an unsightly, hypopigmented, depressed defect. When a defect involves the periosteum and a primary closure or flap is not ideal, a skin substitute may be an option.

Skin substitutes, including cadaveric STSG, generally are classified as bioengineered skin equivalents, amniotic tissue, or cadaveric bioproducts (Table). Unlike autologous grafts, these skin substitutes can provide rapid coverage of the defect and do not require a highly vascularized wound bed.⁶ They also minimize the inflammatory response and potentially improve the final cosmetic outcome by improving granulation rather than immediate STSG closure creating a step-off in deep wounds.⁶

Cadaveric STSGs also have been used in nonhealing ulcerations; diabetic foot ulcers; and ulcerations in which muscle, tendon, or bone are exposed, demonstrating induction of wound healing with superior scar quality and skin function.^2,7,8 The utility of the cadaveric STSG is further highlighted by its potential to reduce costs⁹ compared to bioengineered skin substitutes, though considerable variability exists in pricing (Table).

Consider using a cadaveric STSG with a guiding closure in cases in which there is concern for delayed or absent tissue granulation or when monitoring for recurrence is essential.

Practice Gap

Scalp defects that extend to or below the periosteum often pose a reconstructive conundrum. Secondary-intention healing is challenging without an intact periosteum, and complex rotational flaps are required in these scenarios.¹ For a tumor that is at high risk for recurrence or when adjuvant therapy is necessary, tissue distortion of flaps can make monitoring for recurrence difficult. Similarly, for patients in poor health or who are elderly and have substantial skin atrophy, extensive closure may be undesirable or more technically challenging with a higher risk for adverse events. In these scenarios, additional strategies are necessary to optimize wound healing and cosmesis. A cadaveric split-thickness skin graft (STSG) consisting of biologically active tissue can be used to expedite granulation.²

Technique

Following tumor clearance on the scalp (Figure 1), wide undermining is performed and 3-0 polyglactin 910 epidermal pulley sutures are placed to partially close the defect. A cadaveric STSG is placed over the remaining exposed periosteum and secured under the pulley sutures (Figure 2). The cadaveric STSG is replaced at 1-week intervals. At 4 weeks, sutures typically are removed. The cadaveric STSG is used until the exposed periosteum is fully granulated and the surgeon decides that granulation arrest is unlikely. The wound then heals by unassisted granulation. This approach provides an excellent final cosmetic outcome while avoiding extensive reconstruction (Figure 3).

Practice Implications

Scalp defects requiring closure are common for dermatologic surgeons. Several techniques to promote tissue granulation in defects that involve exposed periosteum have been reported, including (1) creation of small holes with a scalpel or chisel to access cortical circulation and (2) using laser modalities to stimulate granulation (eg, an erbium:YAG or CO₂ laser).^3,4 Although direct comparative studies are needed, the cadaveric STSG provides an approach that increases tissue granulation but does not require more invasive techniques or equipment.

Autologous STSGs need a wound bed and can fail with an exposed periosteum. Furthermore, an autologous STSG that survives may leave an unsightly, hypopigmented, depressed defect. When a defect involves the periosteum and a primary closure or flap is not ideal, a skin substitute may be an option.

Skin substitutes, including cadaveric STSG, generally are classified as bioengineered skin equivalents, amniotic tissue, or cadaveric bioproducts (Table). Unlike autologous grafts, these skin substitutes can provide rapid coverage of the defect and do not require a highly vascularized wound bed.⁶ They also minimize the inflammatory response and potentially improve the final cosmetic outcome by improving granulation rather than immediate STSG closure creating a step-off in deep wounds.⁶

Cadaveric STSGs also have been used in nonhealing ulcerations; diabetic foot ulcers; and ulcerations in which muscle, tendon, or bone are exposed, demonstrating induction of wound healing with superior scar quality and skin function.^2,7,8 The utility of the cadaveric STSG is further highlighted by its potential to reduce costs⁹ compared to bioengineered skin substitutes, though considerable variability exists in pricing (Table).

Consider using a cadaveric STSG with a guiding closure in cases in which there is concern for delayed or absent tissue granulation or when monitoring for recurrence is essential.

The practice of body piercing has been present in cultures around the world for centuries. Piercings may be performed for religious or spiritual reasons or as a form of self-expression. In recent years, body piercings have become increasingly popular in all genders, with the most common sites being the ears, mouth, nose, eyebrows, nipples, navel, and genitals.¹ The prevalence of body piercing in the general population is estimated to be as high as 50%.² With the rising popularity of piercings, there also has been an increase in their associated complications, with one study noting that up to 35% of individuals with pierced ears and 30% of all pierced sites developed a complication.³ Common problems following piercing include infections, keloid formation, allergic contact dermatitis, site deformation, and tooth fractures.⁴ It is of utmost importance that health care professionals are aware of the potential complications associated with such a common practice. A comprehensive review of complications associated with cutaneous and mucosal piercings is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the clinical characteristics, complication types and frequency, and treatments reported for cutaneous and mucosal piercings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines.⁵

Search Strategy, Study Eligibility Criteria, and Study Selection

A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed on June 20, 2022, using search terms related to body piercing and possible piercing-induced complications (Supplemental Information online). All studies reporting complications following body piercing were included. In vitro and animal studies were excluded. Title and abstract screening were completed by 6 independent researchers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) using Covidence online systematic review software (www.covidence.org). Six reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify relevant studies. Conflicts were resolved by the senior reviewer (I.M.M.).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Five reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S.) independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized extraction form that included title; authors; year of publication; sample size; and key findings, including mean age, sex, piercing location, complication type, and treatment received.

Treatment type was placed into the following categories: surgical treatments, antimicrobials, medical treatments, direct-target therapy, oral procedures, avoidance, miscellaneous therapies, and no treatment. (Data regarding treatments can be found in the Supplemental Information online.)

RESULTS

The combined search yielded 2679 studies, 617 of which underwent full-text review; 319 studies were included (Figure). Studies were published from 1950 to June 2022 and included both adult and pediatric populations.

Patient Characteristics

In total, our pooled analysis included data on 30,090 complications across 36,803 pierced sites in 30,231 patients (Table 1). Demographic data are available for 55% (n=30,231) of patients. Overall, 74% (22,247/30,231) of the individuals included in our analysis were female. The mean age was 27.8 years (range, 0–76 years).

Overall, 36,803 pierced sites had a reported complication. The oral cavity, location not otherwise specified, was the most common site associated with a complication, accounting for 67% (n=24,478) of complications (Table 1). Other reported sites included (in decreasing frequency) the ears (21%, n=7551), tongue (5%, n=1669), lip (3%, n=998), navel (2%, n=605), nose (1%, n=540), nipple (1%, n=344), face/body (1%, n=269), genitals/groin (0%, n=183), eyebrow (0%, n=161), hand (0%, n=4), and eyelid (0%, n=1). Piercing complications were more commonly reported among females across all piercing locations except for the eyebrow, which was equal in both sexes.

Complications

Local Infections—Local infections accounted for 36% of reported complication types (n=10,872/30,090): perichondritis (1%, n=85); abscesses (0%, n=25); bacterial colonization (1%, n=106); and local infections, not otherwise specified (98%, n=10,648)(Table 2). The majority of local infections were found to be secondary to piercings of the ear and oral cavity. The nipple was found to be a common site for abscesses (40%, n=10), whereas the tongue was found to be the most common site for bacterial colonization (69%, n=73).

Immune-Mediated Issues—Immune-mediated issues encompassed 5% of the total reported complications (n=1561/30,090). The most commonly reported immune-mediated complications included allergies (31%, n=482), edema and swelling (21%, n=331), dermatitis (18%, n=282), and inflammatory lesions (17%, n=270). The majority were found to occur secondary to ear piercings, with the exception of edema, which mainly occurred secondary to tongue piercings (45%, n=150), and allergy, which primarily was associated with oral piercings (51%, n=245)(Table 2).

Tissue Damage—Tissue damage accounted for 43% of all complications (n=13,036/30,090). The most common forms of tissue damage were trauma (55%, n=7182), dysesthesia (22%, n=2883), bleeding and bruising (18%, n=2376), and pain (3%, n=370)(Table 2). Trauma was mainly found to be a complication in the context of oral piercings (99%, n=7121). Similarly, 94% (n=2242) of bleeding and bruising occurred secondary to oral piercings. Embedded piercings (92%, n=127), deformity (91%, n=29), and necrosis (75%, n=3) mostly occurred following ear piercings. Lip piercings were found to be the most common cause of damage to surrounding structures (98%, n=50).

Oral—Overall, 3193 intraoral complications were reported, constituting 11% of the total complications (Table 2). Oral complications included dental damage (86%, n=2732), gum recession (14%, n=459), and gingivitis (0%, n=2). Dental damage was mostly reported following oral piercings (90%, n=2453), whereas gum recession was mostly reported following lip piercings (59%, n=272).

Proliferations—Proliferations accounted for 795 (3%) of reported piercing complications. The majority (97%, n=772) were keloids, 2% (n=16) were other benign growths, and 1% (n=7) were malignancies. These complications mostly occurred secondary to ear piercings, which resulted in 741 (96%) keloids, 6 (38%) benign growths, and 4 (57%) malignancies.

Systemic—Overall, 2% (n=633) of the total complications were classified as systemic issues, including functional impairment (45%, n=282), secondary organ involvement (24%, n=150), cardiac issues (3%, n=21), and aspiration/inhalation (1%, n=8). Nonlocalized infections such as hepatitis or an increased risk thereof (17%, n=107), tetanus (8%, n=52), chlamydia (1%, n=9), HIV (0%, n=1), herpes simplex virus (0%, n=1), gonorrhea (0%, n=1), and bacterial vaginosis (0%, n=1) also were included in this category. The tongue, ear, and genitals were the locations most involved in these complications (Table 2). Secondary organ involvement mostly occurred after ear (36%, n=54) and genital piercings (27%, n=41). A total of 8 cases of piercing aspiration and/or inhalation were reported in association with piercings of the head and neck (Table 2).

COMMENT

Piercing Complications

Overall, the ear, tongue, and oral cavity were found to be the sites with the most associated complications recorded in the literature, and local infection and tissue damage were found to be the most prevalent types of complications. A plethora of treatments were used to manage piercing-induced complications, including surgical or medical treatments and avoidance (Supplemental Information). Reports by Metts⁶ and Escudero-Castaño et al⁷ provide detailed protocols and photographs of piercings.

Infections

Our review found that local infections were commonly reported complications associated with body piercings, which is consistent with other studies.¹ The initial trauma inherent in the piercing process followed by the presence of an ongoing foreign body lends itself to an increased risk for developing these complications. Wound healing after piercing also varies based on the piercing location.

The rate and severity of the infection are influenced by the anatomic location of the piercing, hygiene, method of piercing, types of materials used, and aftercare.⁸ Piercing cartilage sites, such as the helix, concha, or nose, increases susceptibility to infections and permanent deformities. Cartilage is particularly at risk because of its avascular nature.⁹ Other studies have reported similar incidences of superficial localized infections; infectious complications were seen in 10% to 30% of body piercings in one study,³ while 45% of American and Australian college students reported infection at a piercing site in a second study.¹⁰

Systemic Issues

Systemic issues are potentially the most dangerous piercing-induced complications, though they were rarer in our analysis. Some serious complications included septic emboli, fatal staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, and death. Although some systemic issues, such as staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome and septic sacroiliitis, required extensive hospital stays and complex treatment, others had lifelong repercussions, such as hepatitis and HIV. One report showed an increased incidence of endocarditis associated with body piercing, including staphylococcal endocarditis following nasal piercings, Neisseria endocarditis following tongue piercings, and Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis following nipple piercings.¹¹ Moreover, Mariano et al¹²—who noted a case of endocarditis and meningitis associated with a nape piercing in a young female in 2015—reinforced the notion that information pertaining to the risks associated with body piercing must be better disseminated, given the potential for morbid or fatal outcomes. Finally, nonsterile piercing techniques and poor hygiene were found to contribute substantially to the increased risk for infection, so it is of utmost importance to reinforce proper practices in piercing salons.⁴

Immune-Mediated Issues

Because piercings are foreign bodies, they are susceptible to both acute and chronic immune responses. Our study found that allergies and dermatitis made up almost half of the immune-mediated piercing complications. It is especially important to emphasize that costume jewelry exposes our skin to a variety of contact allergens, most prominently nickel, heightening the risk for developing allergic contact dermatitis.¹³ Moreover, a study conducted by Brandão et al¹⁴ found that patients with pierced ears were significantly more likely to react to nickel than those without pierced ears (P=.031). Although other studies have found that allergy to metals ranges from 8.3% to 20% in the general population,¹⁵ we were not able to quantify the incidence in our study due to a lack of reporting of common benign complications, such as contact dermatitis.

Tissue Damage and Local Problems

Our review found that tissue and oral damage also were commonly reported piercing complications, with the most common pathologies being trauma, dysesthesia, bleeding/bruising, and dental damage. Laumann and Derick¹⁶ reported that bleeding, tissue trauma, and local problems were common physical health problems associated with body piercing. Severe complications, such as abscesses, toxic shock syndrome, and endocarditis, also have been reported in association with intraoral piercings.¹⁷ Moreover, other studies have shown that oral piercings are associated with several adverse oral and systemic conditions. A meta-analysis of individuals with oral piercings found a similar prevalence of dental fracture, gingival recession, and tooth wear (34%), as well as unspecified dental damage (27%) and tooth chipping (22%). Additionally, this meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increased risk for dental fracture and 7-fold increased risk for gingival recession with oral piercings.¹⁸ Another meta-analysis of oral piercing complications found a similar prevalence of dental fracture (34%), tooth wear (34%), gingival recession (33%), unspecified dental damage (27%), and tooth chipping (22%).¹⁹ Considering the extensive amount of cumulative damage, wearers of oral jewelry require periodic periodontal evaluations to monitor for dental damage and gingival recession.²⁰ There are limited data on treatments for complications of oral piercings, and further research in this area is warranted.

Proliferations and Scars

Although proliferations and scarring were among the least common complications reported in the literature, they are some of the most cosmetically disfiguring for patients. Keloids, the most common type of growth associated with piercings, do not naturally regress and thus require some form of intervention. Given the multimodal approach used to treat keloids, as described by the evidence-based algorithm by Ogawa,²¹ it is not surprising that keloids also represented the complication most treated with medical therapies, such as steroids, and also with direct-target therapy, such as liquid nitrogen therapy (Supplemental Information).

Other proliferations reported in the literature include benign pyogenic granulomas²² and much less commonly malignant neoplasms such as basal cell carcinoma²³ and squamous cell carcinoma.²⁴ Although rare, treatment of piercing-associated malignancies include surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (Supplemental Information).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review. First, heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, treatment interventions, and outcome measures of included studies may have affected the quality and generalizability of our results. Moreover, because the studies included in this systematic review focused on specific complications, we could not compare our results to the literature that analyzes incidence rates of piercing complications. Furthermore, not all studies included the data that we hoped to extract, and thus only available data were reported in these instances. Finally, the articles we reviewed may have included publication bias, with positive findings being more frequently published, potentially inflating certain types and sites of complications and treatment choices. Despite these limitations, our review provides essential information that must be interpreted in a clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Given that cutaneous and mucosal piercing has become more prevalent in recent years, along with an increase in the variety of piercing-induced complications, it is of utmost importance that piercing salons have proper hygiene practices in place and that patients are aware of the multitude of potential complications that can arise—whether common and benign or rare but life-threatening.

The practice of body piercing has been present in cultures around the world for centuries. Piercings may be performed for religious or spiritual reasons or as a form of self-expression. In recent years, body piercings have become increasingly popular in all genders, with the most common sites being the ears, mouth, nose, eyebrows, nipples, navel, and genitals.¹ The prevalence of body piercing in the general population is estimated to be as high as 50%.² With the rising popularity of piercings, there also has been an increase in their associated complications, with one study noting that up to 35% of individuals with pierced ears and 30% of all pierced sites developed a complication.³ Common problems following piercing include infections, keloid formation, allergic contact dermatitis, site deformation, and tooth fractures.⁴ It is of utmost importance that health care professionals are aware of the potential complications associated with such a common practice. A comprehensive review of complications associated with cutaneous and mucosal piercings is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the clinical characteristics, complication types and frequency, and treatments reported for cutaneous and mucosal piercings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines.⁵

Search Strategy, Study Eligibility Criteria, and Study Selection

A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed on June 20, 2022, using search terms related to body piercing and possible piercing-induced complications (Supplemental Information online). All studies reporting complications following body piercing were included. In vitro and animal studies were excluded. Title and abstract screening were completed by 6 independent researchers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) using Covidence online systematic review software (www.covidence.org). Six reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify relevant studies. Conflicts were resolved by the senior reviewer (I.M.M.).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Five reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S.) independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized extraction form that included title; authors; year of publication; sample size; and key findings, including mean age, sex, piercing location, complication type, and treatment received.

Treatment type was placed into the following categories: surgical treatments, antimicrobials, medical treatments, direct-target therapy, oral procedures, avoidance, miscellaneous therapies, and no treatment. (Data regarding treatments can be found in the Supplemental Information online.)

RESULTS

The combined search yielded 2679 studies, 617 of which underwent full-text review; 319 studies were included (Figure). Studies were published from 1950 to June 2022 and included both adult and pediatric populations.

Patient Characteristics

In total, our pooled analysis included data on 30,090 complications across 36,803 pierced sites in 30,231 patients (Table 1). Demographic data are available for 55% (n=30,231) of patients. Overall, 74% (22,247/30,231) of the individuals included in our analysis were female. The mean age was 27.8 years (range, 0–76 years).

Overall, 36,803 pierced sites had a reported complication. The oral cavity, location not otherwise specified, was the most common site associated with a complication, accounting for 67% (n=24,478) of complications (Table 1). Other reported sites included (in decreasing frequency) the ears (21%, n=7551), tongue (5%, n=1669), lip (3%, n=998), navel (2%, n=605), nose (1%, n=540), nipple (1%, n=344), face/body (1%, n=269), genitals/groin (0%, n=183), eyebrow (0%, n=161), hand (0%, n=4), and eyelid (0%, n=1). Piercing complications were more commonly reported among females across all piercing locations except for the eyebrow, which was equal in both sexes.

Complications

Local Infections—Local infections accounted for 36% of reported complication types (n=10,872/30,090): perichondritis (1%, n=85); abscesses (0%, n=25); bacterial colonization (1%, n=106); and local infections, not otherwise specified (98%, n=10,648)(Table 2). The majority of local infections were found to be secondary to piercings of the ear and oral cavity. The nipple was found to be a common site for abscesses (40%, n=10), whereas the tongue was found to be the most common site for bacterial colonization (69%, n=73).

Immune-Mediated Issues—Immune-mediated issues encompassed 5% of the total reported complications (n=1561/30,090). The most commonly reported immune-mediated complications included allergies (31%, n=482), edema and swelling (21%, n=331), dermatitis (18%, n=282), and inflammatory lesions (17%, n=270). The majority were found to occur secondary to ear piercings, with the exception of edema, which mainly occurred secondary to tongue piercings (45%, n=150), and allergy, which primarily was associated with oral piercings (51%, n=245)(Table 2).

Tissue Damage—Tissue damage accounted for 43% of all complications (n=13,036/30,090). The most common forms of tissue damage were trauma (55%, n=7182), dysesthesia (22%, n=2883), bleeding and bruising (18%, n=2376), and pain (3%, n=370)(Table 2). Trauma was mainly found to be a complication in the context of oral piercings (99%, n=7121). Similarly, 94% (n=2242) of bleeding and bruising occurred secondary to oral piercings. Embedded piercings (92%, n=127), deformity (91%, n=29), and necrosis (75%, n=3) mostly occurred following ear piercings. Lip piercings were found to be the most common cause of damage to surrounding structures (98%, n=50).

Oral—Overall, 3193 intraoral complications were reported, constituting 11% of the total complications (Table 2). Oral complications included dental damage (86%, n=2732), gum recession (14%, n=459), and gingivitis (0%, n=2). Dental damage was mostly reported following oral piercings (90%, n=2453), whereas gum recession was mostly reported following lip piercings (59%, n=272).

Proliferations—Proliferations accounted for 795 (3%) of reported piercing complications. The majority (97%, n=772) were keloids, 2% (n=16) were other benign growths, and 1% (n=7) were malignancies. These complications mostly occurred secondary to ear piercings, which resulted in 741 (96%) keloids, 6 (38%) benign growths, and 4 (57%) malignancies.

Systemic—Overall, 2% (n=633) of the total complications were classified as systemic issues, including functional impairment (45%, n=282), secondary organ involvement (24%, n=150), cardiac issues (3%, n=21), and aspiration/inhalation (1%, n=8). Nonlocalized infections such as hepatitis or an increased risk thereof (17%, n=107), tetanus (8%, n=52), chlamydia (1%, n=9), HIV (0%, n=1), herpes simplex virus (0%, n=1), gonorrhea (0%, n=1), and bacterial vaginosis (0%, n=1) also were included in this category. The tongue, ear, and genitals were the locations most involved in these complications (Table 2). Secondary organ involvement mostly occurred after ear (36%, n=54) and genital piercings (27%, n=41). A total of 8 cases of piercing aspiration and/or inhalation were reported in association with piercings of the head and neck (Table 2).

COMMENT

Piercing Complications

Overall, the ear, tongue, and oral cavity were found to be the sites with the most associated complications recorded in the literature, and local infection and tissue damage were found to be the most prevalent types of complications. A plethora of treatments were used to manage piercing-induced complications, including surgical or medical treatments and avoidance (Supplemental Information). Reports by Metts⁶ and Escudero-Castaño et al⁷ provide detailed protocols and photographs of piercings.

Infections

Our review found that local infections were commonly reported complications associated with body piercings, which is consistent with other studies.¹ The initial trauma inherent in the piercing process followed by the presence of an ongoing foreign body lends itself to an increased risk for developing these complications. Wound healing after piercing also varies based on the piercing location.

The rate and severity of the infection are influenced by the anatomic location of the piercing, hygiene, method of piercing, types of materials used, and aftercare.⁸ Piercing cartilage sites, such as the helix, concha, or nose, increases susceptibility to infections and permanent deformities. Cartilage is particularly at risk because of its avascular nature.⁹ Other studies have reported similar incidences of superficial localized infections; infectious complications were seen in 10% to 30% of body piercings in one study,³ while 45% of American and Australian college students reported infection at a piercing site in a second study.¹⁰

Systemic Issues

Systemic issues are potentially the most dangerous piercing-induced complications, though they were rarer in our analysis. Some serious complications included septic emboli, fatal staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, and death. Although some systemic issues, such as staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome and septic sacroiliitis, required extensive hospital stays and complex treatment, others had lifelong repercussions, such as hepatitis and HIV. One report showed an increased incidence of endocarditis associated with body piercing, including staphylococcal endocarditis following nasal piercings, Neisseria endocarditis following tongue piercings, and Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis following nipple piercings.¹¹ Moreover, Mariano et al¹²—who noted a case of endocarditis and meningitis associated with a nape piercing in a young female in 2015—reinforced the notion that information pertaining to the risks associated with body piercing must be better disseminated, given the potential for morbid or fatal outcomes. Finally, nonsterile piercing techniques and poor hygiene were found to contribute substantially to the increased risk for infection, so it is of utmost importance to reinforce proper practices in piercing salons.⁴

Immune-Mediated Issues

Because piercings are foreign bodies, they are susceptible to both acute and chronic immune responses. Our study found that allergies and dermatitis made up almost half of the immune-mediated piercing complications. It is especially important to emphasize that costume jewelry exposes our skin to a variety of contact allergens, most prominently nickel, heightening the risk for developing allergic contact dermatitis.¹³ Moreover, a study conducted by Brandão et al¹⁴ found that patients with pierced ears were significantly more likely to react to nickel than those without pierced ears (P=.031). Although other studies have found that allergy to metals ranges from 8.3% to 20% in the general population,¹⁵ we were not able to quantify the incidence in our study due to a lack of reporting of common benign complications, such as contact dermatitis.

Tissue Damage and Local Problems

Our review found that tissue and oral damage also were commonly reported piercing complications, with the most common pathologies being trauma, dysesthesia, bleeding/bruising, and dental damage. Laumann and Derick¹⁶ reported that bleeding, tissue trauma, and local problems were common physical health problems associated with body piercing. Severe complications, such as abscesses, toxic shock syndrome, and endocarditis, also have been reported in association with intraoral piercings.¹⁷ Moreover, other studies have shown that oral piercings are associated with several adverse oral and systemic conditions. A meta-analysis of individuals with oral piercings found a similar prevalence of dental fracture, gingival recession, and tooth wear (34%), as well as unspecified dental damage (27%) and tooth chipping (22%). Additionally, this meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increased risk for dental fracture and 7-fold increased risk for gingival recession with oral piercings.¹⁸ Another meta-analysis of oral piercing complications found a similar prevalence of dental fracture (34%), tooth wear (34%), gingival recession (33%), unspecified dental damage (27%), and tooth chipping (22%).¹⁹ Considering the extensive amount of cumulative damage, wearers of oral jewelry require periodic periodontal evaluations to monitor for dental damage and gingival recession.²⁰ There are limited data on treatments for complications of oral piercings, and further research in this area is warranted.

Proliferations and Scars

Although proliferations and scarring were among the least common complications reported in the literature, they are some of the most cosmetically disfiguring for patients. Keloids, the most common type of growth associated with piercings, do not naturally regress and thus require some form of intervention. Given the multimodal approach used to treat keloids, as described by the evidence-based algorithm by Ogawa,²¹ it is not surprising that keloids also represented the complication most treated with medical therapies, such as steroids, and also with direct-target therapy, such as liquid nitrogen therapy (Supplemental Information).

Other proliferations reported in the literature include benign pyogenic granulomas²² and much less commonly malignant neoplasms such as basal cell carcinoma²³ and squamous cell carcinoma.²⁴ Although rare, treatment of piercing-associated malignancies include surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (Supplemental Information).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review. First, heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, treatment interventions, and outcome measures of included studies may have affected the quality and generalizability of our results. Moreover, because the studies included in this systematic review focused on specific complications, we could not compare our results to the literature that analyzes incidence rates of piercing complications. Furthermore, not all studies included the data that we hoped to extract, and thus only available data were reported in these instances. Finally, the articles we reviewed may have included publication bias, with positive findings being more frequently published, potentially inflating certain types and sites of complications and treatment choices. Despite these limitations, our review provides essential information that must be interpreted in a clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Given that cutaneous and mucosal piercing has become more prevalent in recent years, along with an increase in the variety of piercing-induced complications, it is of utmost importance that piercing salons have proper hygiene practices in place and that patients are aware of the multitude of potential complications that can arise—whether common and benign or rare but life-threatening.

The practice of body piercing has been present in cultures around the world for centuries. Piercings may be performed for religious or spiritual reasons or as a form of self-expression. In recent years, body piercings have become increasingly popular in all genders, with the most common sites being the ears, mouth, nose, eyebrows, nipples, navel, and genitals.¹ The prevalence of body piercing in the general population is estimated to be as high as 50%.² With the rising popularity of piercings, there also has been an increase in their associated complications, with one study noting that up to 35% of individuals with pierced ears and 30% of all pierced sites developed a complication.³ Common problems following piercing include infections, keloid formation, allergic contact dermatitis, site deformation, and tooth fractures.⁴ It is of utmost importance that health care professionals are aware of the potential complications associated with such a common practice. A comprehensive review of complications associated with cutaneous and mucosal piercings is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the clinical characteristics, complication types and frequency, and treatments reported for cutaneous and mucosal piercings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines.⁵

Search Strategy, Study Eligibility Criteria, and Study Selection

A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed on June 20, 2022, using search terms related to body piercing and possible piercing-induced complications (Supplemental Information online). All studies reporting complications following body piercing were included. In vitro and animal studies were excluded. Title and abstract screening were completed by 6 independent researchers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) using Covidence online systematic review software (www.covidence.org). Six reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify relevant studies. Conflicts were resolved by the senior reviewer (I.M.M.).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Five reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S.) independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized extraction form that included title; authors; year of publication; sample size; and key findings, including mean age, sex, piercing location, complication type, and treatment received.

Treatment type was placed into the following categories: surgical treatments, antimicrobials, medical treatments, direct-target therapy, oral procedures, avoidance, miscellaneous therapies, and no treatment. (Data regarding treatments can be found in the Supplemental Information online.)

RESULTS

The combined search yielded 2679 studies, 617 of which underwent full-text review; 319 studies were included (Figure). Studies were published from 1950 to June 2022 and included both adult and pediatric populations.

Patient Characteristics

In total, our pooled analysis included data on 30,090 complications across 36,803 pierced sites in 30,231 patients (Table 1). Demographic data are available for 55% (n=30,231) of patients. Overall, 74% (22,247/30,231) of the individuals included in our analysis were female. The mean age was 27.8 years (range, 0–76 years).

Overall, 36,803 pierced sites had a reported complication. The oral cavity, location not otherwise specified, was the most common site associated with a complication, accounting for 67% (n=24,478) of complications (Table 1). Other reported sites included (in decreasing frequency) the ears (21%, n=7551), tongue (5%, n=1669), lip (3%, n=998), navel (2%, n=605), nose (1%, n=540), nipple (1%, n=344), face/body (1%, n=269), genitals/groin (0%, n=183), eyebrow (0%, n=161), hand (0%, n=4), and eyelid (0%, n=1). Piercing complications were more commonly reported among females across all piercing locations except for the eyebrow, which was equal in both sexes.

Complications

Local Infections—Local infections accounted for 36% of reported complication types (n=10,872/30,090): perichondritis (1%, n=85); abscesses (0%, n=25); bacterial colonization (1%, n=106); and local infections, not otherwise specified (98%, n=10,648)(Table 2). The majority of local infections were found to be secondary to piercings of the ear and oral cavity. The nipple was found to be a common site for abscesses (40%, n=10), whereas the tongue was found to be the most common site for bacterial colonization (69%, n=73).

Immune-Mediated Issues—Immune-mediated issues encompassed 5% of the total reported complications (n=1561/30,090). The most commonly reported immune-mediated complications included allergies (31%, n=482), edema and swelling (21%, n=331), dermatitis (18%, n=282), and inflammatory lesions (17%, n=270). The majority were found to occur secondary to ear piercings, with the exception of edema, which mainly occurred secondary to tongue piercings (45%, n=150), and allergy, which primarily was associated with oral piercings (51%, n=245)(Table 2).

Tissue Damage—Tissue damage accounted for 43% of all complications (n=13,036/30,090). The most common forms of tissue damage were trauma (55%, n=7182), dysesthesia (22%, n=2883), bleeding and bruising (18%, n=2376), and pain (3%, n=370)(Table 2). Trauma was mainly found to be a complication in the context of oral piercings (99%, n=7121). Similarly, 94% (n=2242) of bleeding and bruising occurred secondary to oral piercings. Embedded piercings (92%, n=127), deformity (91%, n=29), and necrosis (75%, n=3) mostly occurred following ear piercings. Lip piercings were found to be the most common cause of damage to surrounding structures (98%, n=50).

Oral—Overall, 3193 intraoral complications were reported, constituting 11% of the total complications (Table 2). Oral complications included dental damage (86%, n=2732), gum recession (14%, n=459), and gingivitis (0%, n=2). Dental damage was mostly reported following oral piercings (90%, n=2453), whereas gum recession was mostly reported following lip piercings (59%, n=272).

Proliferations—Proliferations accounted for 795 (3%) of reported piercing complications. The majority (97%, n=772) were keloids, 2% (n=16) were other benign growths, and 1% (n=7) were malignancies. These complications mostly occurred secondary to ear piercings, which resulted in 741 (96%) keloids, 6 (38%) benign growths, and 4 (57%) malignancies.

Systemic—Overall, 2% (n=633) of the total complications were classified as systemic issues, including functional impairment (45%, n=282), secondary organ involvement (24%, n=150), cardiac issues (3%, n=21), and aspiration/inhalation (1%, n=8). Nonlocalized infections such as hepatitis or an increased risk thereof (17%, n=107), tetanus (8%, n=52), chlamydia (1%, n=9), HIV (0%, n=1), herpes simplex virus (0%, n=1), gonorrhea (0%, n=1), and bacterial vaginosis (0%, n=1) also were included in this category. The tongue, ear, and genitals were the locations most involved in these complications (Table 2). Secondary organ involvement mostly occurred after ear (36%, n=54) and genital piercings (27%, n=41). A total of 8 cases of piercing aspiration and/or inhalation were reported in association with piercings of the head and neck (Table 2).

COMMENT

Piercing Complications

Overall, the ear, tongue, and oral cavity were found to be the sites with the most associated complications recorded in the literature, and local infection and tissue damage were found to be the most prevalent types of complications. A plethora of treatments were used to manage piercing-induced complications, including surgical or medical treatments and avoidance (Supplemental Information). Reports by Metts⁶ and Escudero-Castaño et al⁷ provide detailed protocols and photographs of piercings.

Infections

Our review found that local infections were commonly reported complications associated with body piercings, which is consistent with other studies.¹ The initial trauma inherent in the piercing process followed by the presence of an ongoing foreign body lends itself to an increased risk for developing these complications. Wound healing after piercing also varies based on the piercing location.

The rate and severity of the infection are influenced by the anatomic location of the piercing, hygiene, method of piercing, types of materials used, and aftercare.⁸ Piercing cartilage sites, such as the helix, concha, or nose, increases susceptibility to infections and permanent deformities. Cartilage is particularly at risk because of its avascular nature.⁹ Other studies have reported similar incidences of superficial localized infections; infectious complications were seen in 10% to 30% of body piercings in one study,³ while 45% of American and Australian college students reported infection at a piercing site in a second study.¹⁰

Systemic Issues

Systemic issues are potentially the most dangerous piercing-induced complications, though they were rarer in our analysis. Some serious complications included septic emboli, fatal staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, and death. Although some systemic issues, such as staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome and septic sacroiliitis, required extensive hospital stays and complex treatment, others had lifelong repercussions, such as hepatitis and HIV. One report showed an increased incidence of endocarditis associated with body piercing, including staphylococcal endocarditis following nasal piercings, Neisseria endocarditis following tongue piercings, and Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis following nipple piercings.¹¹ Moreover, Mariano et al¹²—who noted a case of endocarditis and meningitis associated with a nape piercing in a young female in 2015—reinforced the notion that information pertaining to the risks associated with body piercing must be better disseminated, given the potential for morbid or fatal outcomes. Finally, nonsterile piercing techniques and poor hygiene were found to contribute substantially to the increased risk for infection, so it is of utmost importance to reinforce proper practices in piercing salons.⁴

Immune-Mediated Issues

Because piercings are foreign bodies, they are susceptible to both acute and chronic immune responses. Our study found that allergies and dermatitis made up almost half of the immune-mediated piercing complications. It is especially important to emphasize that costume jewelry exposes our skin to a variety of contact allergens, most prominently nickel, heightening the risk for developing allergic contact dermatitis.¹³ Moreover, a study conducted by Brandão et al¹⁴ found that patients with pierced ears were significantly more likely to react to nickel than those without pierced ears (P=.031). Although other studies have found that allergy to metals ranges from 8.3% to 20% in the general population,¹⁵ we were not able to quantify the incidence in our study due to a lack of reporting of common benign complications, such as contact dermatitis.

Tissue Damage and Local Problems

Our review found that tissue and oral damage also were commonly reported piercing complications, with the most common pathologies being trauma, dysesthesia, bleeding/bruising, and dental damage. Laumann and Derick¹⁶ reported that bleeding, tissue trauma, and local problems were common physical health problems associated with body piercing. Severe complications, such as abscesses, toxic shock syndrome, and endocarditis, also have been reported in association with intraoral piercings.¹⁷ Moreover, other studies have shown that oral piercings are associated with several adverse oral and systemic conditions. A meta-analysis of individuals with oral piercings found a similar prevalence of dental fracture, gingival recession, and tooth wear (34%), as well as unspecified dental damage (27%) and tooth chipping (22%). Additionally, this meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increased risk for dental fracture and 7-fold increased risk for gingival recession with oral piercings.¹⁸ Another meta-analysis of oral piercing complications found a similar prevalence of dental fracture (34%), tooth wear (34%), gingival recession (33%), unspecified dental damage (27%), and tooth chipping (22%).¹⁹ Considering the extensive amount of cumulative damage, wearers of oral jewelry require periodic periodontal evaluations to monitor for dental damage and gingival recession.²⁰ There are limited data on treatments for complications of oral piercings, and further research in this area is warranted.

Proliferations and Scars

Although proliferations and scarring were among the least common complications reported in the literature, they are some of the most cosmetically disfiguring for patients. Keloids, the most common type of growth associated with piercings, do not naturally regress and thus require some form of intervention. Given the multimodal approach used to treat keloids, as described by the evidence-based algorithm by Ogawa,²¹ it is not surprising that keloids also represented the complication most treated with medical therapies, such as steroids, and also with direct-target therapy, such as liquid nitrogen therapy (Supplemental Information).

Other proliferations reported in the literature include benign pyogenic granulomas²² and much less commonly malignant neoplasms such as basal cell carcinoma²³ and squamous cell carcinoma.²⁴ Although rare, treatment of piercing-associated malignancies include surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (Supplemental Information).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review. First, heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, treatment interventions, and outcome measures of included studies may have affected the quality and generalizability of our results. Moreover, because the studies included in this systematic review focused on specific complications, we could not compare our results to the literature that analyzes incidence rates of piercing complications. Furthermore, not all studies included the data that we hoped to extract, and thus only available data were reported in these instances. Finally, the articles we reviewed may have included publication bias, with positive findings being more frequently published, potentially inflating certain types and sites of complications and treatment choices. Despite these limitations, our review provides essential information that must be interpreted in a clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Given that cutaneous and mucosal piercing has become more prevalent in recent years, along with an increase in the variety of piercing-induced complications, it is of utmost importance that piercing salons have proper hygiene practices in place and that patients are aware of the multitude of potential complications that can arise—whether common and benign or rare but life-threatening.

The Diagnosis: Congenital Cutaneous Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis

Although the infectious workup was positive for herpes simplex virus type 1 and cytomegalovirus antibodies, serologies for the rest of the TORCH (toxoplasmosis, other agents [syphilis, hepatitis B virus], rubella, cytomegalovirus) group of infections, as well as other bacterial, fungal, and viral infections, were negative. A skin biopsy from the right fifth toe showed a dense infiltrate of CD1a+ histiocytic cells with folded or kidney-shaped nuclei mixed with eosinophils, which was consistent with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) (Figure 1). Skin lesions were treated with hydrocortisone cream 2.5% and progressively faded over a few weeks.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis is a rare disorder with a variable clinical presentation depending on the sites affected and the extent of involvement. It can involve multiple organ systems, most commonly the skeletal system and the skin. Organ involvement is characterized by histiocyte infiltration. Acute disseminated multisystem disease most commonly is seen in children younger than 3 years.¹

Congenital cutaneous LCH presents with variable skin lesions ranging from papules to vesicles, pustules, and ulcers, with onset at birth or in the neonatal period. Various morphologic traits of skin lesions have been described; the most common presentation is multiple red to yellow-brown, crusted papules with accompanying hemorrhage or erosion.¹ Other cases have described an eczematous, seborrheic, diffuse eruption or erosive intertrigo. One case of a child with a solitary necrotic nodule on the scalp has been reported.²

Our patient presented with disseminated, nonblanching, purple to dark red papules and nodules of the skin and oral mucosa, as well as nail dystrophy (Figure 2). However, LCH in a neonate can mimic other causes of congenital papulonodular eruptions. Red-brown papules and nodules with or without crusting in a newborn can be mistaken for erythema toxicum neonatorum, transient neonatal pustular melanosis, congenital leukemia cutis, neonatal erythropoiesis, disseminated neonatal hemangiomatosis, infantile acropustulosis, or congenital TORCH infections such as rubella or syphilis. When LCH presents as vesicles or eroded papules or nodules in a newborn, the differential diagnosis includes incontinentia pigmenti and hereditary epidermolysis bullosa.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis may even present with a classic blueberry muffin rash that can lead clinicians to consider cutaneous metastasis from various hematologic malignancies or the more common TORCH infections. Several diagnostic tests can be performed to clarify the diagnosis, including bacterial and viral cultures and stains, serology, immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, bone marrow aspiration, or skin biopsy.³ Langerhans cell histiocytosis is diagnosed with a combination of histology, immunohistochemistry, and clinical presentation; however, a skin biopsy is crucial. Tissue should be taken from the most easily accessible yet representative lesion. The characteristic appearance of LCH lesions is described as a dense infiltrate of histiocytic cells mixed with numerous eosinophils in the dermis.¹ Histiocytes usually have folded nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm or kidney-shaped nuclei with prominent nucleoli. Positive CD1a and/or CD207 (Langerin) staining of the cells is required for definitive diagnosis.⁴ After diagnosis, it is important to obtain baseline laboratory and radiographic studies to determine the extent of systemic involvement.

Treatment of congenital LCH is tailored to the extent of organ involvement. The dermatologic manifestations resolve without medications in many cases. However, true self-resolving LCH can only be diagnosed retrospectively after a full evaluation for other sites of disease. Disseminated disease can be life-threatening and requires more active management. In cases of skin-limited disease, therapies include topical steroids, nitrogen mustard, or imiquimod; surgical resection of isolated lesions; phototherapy; or systemic therapies such as methotrexate, 6-mercaptopurine, vinblastine/vincristine, cladribine, and/or cytarabine. Symptomatic patients initially are treated with methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine.⁵ Asymptomatic infants with skin-limited involvement can be managed with topical treatments.

Our patient had skin-limited disease. Abdominal ultrasonography, skeletal survey, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed no abnormalities. The patient’s family was advised to monitor him for reoccurrence of the skin lesions and to continue close follow-up with hematology and dermatology. Although congenital LCH often is self-resolving, extensive skin involvement increases the risk for internal organ involvement for several years.⁶ These patients require long-term follow-up for potential musculoskeletal, ophthalmologic, endocrine, hepatic, and/or pulmonary disease.

The Diagnosis: Congenital Cutaneous Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis

Although the infectious workup was positive for herpes simplex virus type 1 and cytomegalovirus antibodies, serologies for the rest of the TORCH (toxoplasmosis, other agents [syphilis, hepatitis B virus], rubella, cytomegalovirus) group of infections, as well as other bacterial, fungal, and viral infections, were negative. A skin biopsy from the right fifth toe showed a dense infiltrate of CD1a+ histiocytic cells with folded or kidney-shaped nuclei mixed with eosinophils, which was consistent with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) (Figure 1). Skin lesions were treated with hydrocortisone cream 2.5% and progressively faded over a few weeks.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis is a rare disorder with a variable clinical presentation depending on the sites affected and the extent of involvement. It can involve multiple organ systems, most commonly the skeletal system and the skin. Organ involvement is characterized by histiocyte infiltration. Acute disseminated multisystem disease most commonly is seen in children younger than 3 years.¹

Congenital cutaneous LCH presents with variable skin lesions ranging from papules to vesicles, pustules, and ulcers, with onset at birth or in the neonatal period. Various morphologic traits of skin lesions have been described; the most common presentation is multiple red to yellow-brown, crusted papules with accompanying hemorrhage or erosion.¹ Other cases have described an eczematous, seborrheic, diffuse eruption or erosive intertrigo. One case of a child with a solitary necrotic nodule on the scalp has been reported.²

Our patient presented with disseminated, nonblanching, purple to dark red papules and nodules of the skin and oral mucosa, as well as nail dystrophy (Figure 2). However, LCH in a neonate can mimic other causes of congenital papulonodular eruptions. Red-brown papules and nodules with or without crusting in a newborn can be mistaken for erythema toxicum neonatorum, transient neonatal pustular melanosis, congenital leukemia cutis, neonatal erythropoiesis, disseminated neonatal hemangiomatosis, infantile acropustulosis, or congenital TORCH infections such as rubella or syphilis. When LCH presents as vesicles or eroded papules or nodules in a newborn, the differential diagnosis includes incontinentia pigmenti and hereditary epidermolysis bullosa.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis may even present with a classic blueberry muffin rash that can lead clinicians to consider cutaneous metastasis from various hematologic malignancies or the more common TORCH infections. Several diagnostic tests can be performed to clarify the diagnosis, including bacterial and viral cultures and stains, serology, immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, bone marrow aspiration, or skin biopsy.³ Langerhans cell histiocytosis is diagnosed with a combination of histology, immunohistochemistry, and clinical presentation; however, a skin biopsy is crucial. Tissue should be taken from the most easily accessible yet representative lesion. The characteristic appearance of LCH lesions is described as a dense infiltrate of histiocytic cells mixed with numerous eosinophils in the dermis.¹ Histiocytes usually have folded nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm or kidney-shaped nuclei with prominent nucleoli. Positive CD1a and/or CD207 (Langerin) staining of the cells is required for definitive diagnosis.⁴ After diagnosis, it is important to obtain baseline laboratory and radiographic studies to determine the extent of systemic involvement.

Treatment of congenital LCH is tailored to the extent of organ involvement. The dermatologic manifestations resolve without medications in many cases. However, true self-resolving LCH can only be diagnosed retrospectively after a full evaluation for other sites of disease. Disseminated disease can be life-threatening and requires more active management. In cases of skin-limited disease, therapies include topical steroids, nitrogen mustard, or imiquimod; surgical resection of isolated lesions; phototherapy; or systemic therapies such as methotrexate, 6-mercaptopurine, vinblastine/vincristine, cladribine, and/or cytarabine. Symptomatic patients initially are treated with methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine.⁵ Asymptomatic infants with skin-limited involvement can be managed with topical treatments.

Our patient had skin-limited disease. Abdominal ultrasonography, skeletal survey, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed no abnormalities. The patient’s family was advised to monitor him for reoccurrence of the skin lesions and to continue close follow-up with hematology and dermatology. Although congenital LCH often is self-resolving, extensive skin involvement increases the risk for internal organ involvement for several years.⁶ These patients require long-term follow-up for potential musculoskeletal, ophthalmologic, endocrine, hepatic, and/or pulmonary disease.

The Diagnosis: Congenital Cutaneous Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis

Although the infectious workup was positive for herpes simplex virus type 1 and cytomegalovirus antibodies, serologies for the rest of the TORCH (toxoplasmosis, other agents [syphilis, hepatitis B virus], rubella, cytomegalovirus) group of infections, as well as other bacterial, fungal, and viral infections, were negative. A skin biopsy from the right fifth toe showed a dense infiltrate of CD1a+ histiocytic cells with folded or kidney-shaped nuclei mixed with eosinophils, which was consistent with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) (Figure 1). Skin lesions were treated with hydrocortisone cream 2.5% and progressively faded over a few weeks.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis is a rare disorder with a variable clinical presentation depending on the sites affected and the extent of involvement. It can involve multiple organ systems, most commonly the skeletal system and the skin. Organ involvement is characterized by histiocyte infiltration. Acute disseminated multisystem disease most commonly is seen in children younger than 3 years.¹

Congenital cutaneous LCH presents with variable skin lesions ranging from papules to vesicles, pustules, and ulcers, with onset at birth or in the neonatal period. Various morphologic traits of skin lesions have been described; the most common presentation is multiple red to yellow-brown, crusted papules with accompanying hemorrhage or erosion.¹ Other cases have described an eczematous, seborrheic, diffuse eruption or erosive intertrigo. One case of a child with a solitary necrotic nodule on the scalp has been reported.²

Our patient presented with disseminated, nonblanching, purple to dark red papules and nodules of the skin and oral mucosa, as well as nail dystrophy (Figure 2). However, LCH in a neonate can mimic other causes of congenital papulonodular eruptions. Red-brown papules and nodules with or without crusting in a newborn can be mistaken for erythema toxicum neonatorum, transient neonatal pustular melanosis, congenital leukemia cutis, neonatal erythropoiesis, disseminated neonatal hemangiomatosis, infantile acropustulosis, or congenital TORCH infections such as rubella or syphilis. When LCH presents as vesicles or eroded papules or nodules in a newborn, the differential diagnosis includes incontinentia pigmenti and hereditary epidermolysis bullosa.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis may even present with a classic blueberry muffin rash that can lead clinicians to consider cutaneous metastasis from various hematologic malignancies or the more common TORCH infections. Several diagnostic tests can be performed to clarify the diagnosis, including bacterial and viral cultures and stains, serology, immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, bone marrow aspiration, or skin biopsy.³ Langerhans cell histiocytosis is diagnosed with a combination of histology, immunohistochemistry, and clinical presentation; however, a skin biopsy is crucial. Tissue should be taken from the most easily accessible yet representative lesion. The characteristic appearance of LCH lesions is described as a dense infiltrate of histiocytic cells mixed with numerous eosinophils in the dermis.¹ Histiocytes usually have folded nuclei and eosinophilic cytoplasm or kidney-shaped nuclei with prominent nucleoli. Positive CD1a and/or CD207 (Langerin) staining of the cells is required for definitive diagnosis.⁴ After diagnosis, it is important to obtain baseline laboratory and radiographic studies to determine the extent of systemic involvement.

Treatment of congenital LCH is tailored to the extent of organ involvement. The dermatologic manifestations resolve without medications in many cases. However, true self-resolving LCH can only be diagnosed retrospectively after a full evaluation for other sites of disease. Disseminated disease can be life-threatening and requires more active management. In cases of skin-limited disease, therapies include topical steroids, nitrogen mustard, or imiquimod; surgical resection of isolated lesions; phototherapy; or systemic therapies such as methotrexate, 6-mercaptopurine, vinblastine/vincristine, cladribine, and/or cytarabine. Symptomatic patients initially are treated with methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine.⁵ Asymptomatic infants with skin-limited involvement can be managed with topical treatments.

Our patient had skin-limited disease. Abdominal ultrasonography, skeletal survey, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed no abnormalities. The patient’s family was advised to monitor him for reoccurrence of the skin lesions and to continue close follow-up with hematology and dermatology. Although congenital LCH often is self-resolving, extensive skin involvement increases the risk for internal organ involvement for several years.⁶ These patients require long-term follow-up for potential musculoskeletal, ophthalmologic, endocrine, hepatic, and/or pulmonary disease.

To protect survivors’ identities, some names have been changed or shortened.

Natasha Abadilla, MD, met the man who would become her abuser while working abroad for a public health nonprofit. When he began emotionally and physically abusing her, she did everything she could to hide it.

“My coworkers knew nothing of the abuse. I became an expert in applying makeup to hide the bruises,” recalls Dr. Abadilla, now a second-year resident and pediatric neurologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

Dr. Abadilla says she strongly identifies as a hard worker and – to this day – hopes her work did not falter despite her partner’s constant drain on her. But the impact of the abuse continued to affect her for years. Like many survivors of domestic violence, she struggled with PTSD and depression.

Health care workers are often the first point of contact for survivors of domestic violence. Experts and advocates continue to push for more training for clinicians to identify and respond to signs among their patients. Often missing from this conversation is the reality that those tasked with screening can also be victims of intimate partner violence themselves.

What’s more: The very strengths that medical professionals often pride themselves on – perfectionism, empathy, grit – can make it harder for them to identify abuse in their own relationships and push through humiliation and shame to seek help.

Dr. Abadilla is exceptional among survivors in the medical field. Rather than keep her experience quiet, she has shared it publicly.

Awareness, she believes, can save lives.
 

An understudied problem in an underserved group

The majority of research on health care workers in this area has focused on workplace violence, which 62% experience worldwide. But intimate partner violence remains understudied and underdiscussed. Some medical professionals are even saddled with a “double burden,” facing trauma at work and at home, note the authors of a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

The problem has had dire consequences. In recent years, many health care workers have been killed by their abusers:

• In 2016, Casey M. Drawert, MD, a Texas-based critical care anesthesiologist, was fatally shot by her husband in a murder-suicide.
• In 2018, Tamara O’Neal, MD, an ER physician, and Dayna Less, a first-year pharmacy resident, were killed by Dr. O’Neal’s ex-fiancé at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
• In 2019, Sarah Hawley, MD, a first-year University of Utah resident, was fatally shot by her boyfriend in a murder-suicide.
• In 2021, Moria Kinsey, a nurse practitioner in Tahlequah, Okla., was murdered by a physician.
• In July of 2023, Gwendolyn Lavonne Riddick, DO, an ob.gyn. in North Carolina, was fatally shot by the father of her 3-year-old son.

There are others.

In the wake of these tragedies, calls for health care workers to screen each other as well as patients have grown. But for an untold number of survivors, breaking the silence is still not possible due to concerns about their reputation, professional consequences, the threat of harassment from abusers who are often in the same field, a medical culture of selfless endurance, and a lack of appropriate resources.

Are health care workers more at risk?

Although more studies are needed, research indicates health care workers experience domestic violence at rates comparable to those of other populations, whereas some data suggest rates may be higher.

In the United States, more than one in three women and one in four men experience some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Similarly, a 2020 study found that 24% of 400 physicians responding to a survey reported a history of domestic violence, with 15% reporting verbal abuse, 8% reporting physical violence, 4% reporting sexual abuse, and 4% reporting stalking.

Meanwhile, in an anonymous survey completed by 882 practicing surgeons and trainees in the United States from late 2018 to early 2019, more than 60% reported experiencing some type of intimate partner violence, most commonly emotional abuse.

Recent studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere show that significant numbers of medical professionals are fighting this battle. A 2019 study of more than 2,000 nurses, midwives, and health care assistants in the United Kingdom found that nurses were three times more likely to experience domestic violence than the average person.

What would help solve this problem: More study of health care worker-survivors as a unique group with unique risk factors. In general, domestic violence is most prevalent among women and people in marginalized groups. But young adults, such as medical students and trainees, can face an increased risk due to economic strain. Major life changes, such as relocating for residency, can also drive up stress and fray social connections, further isolating victims.
 

Why it’s so much harder for medical professionals to reveal abuse

For medical professionals accustomed to being strong and forging on, identifying as a victim of abuse can seem like a personal contradiction. It can feel easier to separate their personal and professional lives rather than face a complex reality.

In a personal essay on KevinMD.com, medical student Chloe N. L. Lee describes this emotional turmoil. “As an aspiring psychiatrist, I questioned my character judgment (how did I end up with a misogynistic abuser?) and wondered if I ought to have known better. I worried that my colleagues would deem me unfit to care for patients. And I thought that this was not supposed to happen to women like me,” Ms. Lee writes.

Kimberly, a licensed therapist, experienced a similar pattern of self-blame when her partner began exhibiting violent behavior. “For a long time, I felt guilty because I said to myself, You’re a therapist. You’re supposed to know this,” she recalls. At the same time, she felt driven to help him and sought couples therapy as his violence escalated.

Whitney, a pharmacist, recognized the “hallmarks” of abuse in her relationship, but she coped by compartmentalizing. Whitney says she was vulnerable to her abuser as a young college student who struggled financially. As he showered her with gifts, she found herself waving away red flags like aggressiveness or overprotectiveness.

After Whitney graduated, her partner’s emotional manipulation escalated into frequent physical assaults. When he gave her a black eye, she could not bring herself to go into work. She quit her job without notice. Despite a spotless record, none of her coworkers ever reached out to investigate her sudden departure.

It would take 8 years for Whitney to acknowledge the abuse and seize a moment to escape. She fled with just her purse and started over in a new city, rebuilding her life in the midst of harassment and threats from her ex. She says she’s grateful to be alive.
 

An imperfect system doesn’t help

Health care workers rarely ask for support or disclose abuse at work. Some have cited stigma, a lack of confidentiality (especially when the abuser is also in health care), fears about colleagues’ judgment, and a culture that doesn’t prioritize self-care.

Sometimes policies get in the way: In a 2021 qualitative study of interviews with 21 female physician-survivors in the United Kingdom, many said that despite the intense stress of abuse and recovery, they were unable to take any time off.

Of 180 UK-based midwife-survivors interviewed in a 2018 study, only 60 sought support at work and 30 received it. Many said their supervisors pressured them to report the abuse and get back to work, called social services behind their back, or reported them to their professional regulator. “I was treated like the perpetrator,” one said. Barbara Hernandez, PhD, a researcher who studies physician-survivors and director of physician vitality at Loma Linda University in southern California, says workplace violence and mistreatment from patients or colleagues – and a poor institutional response – can make those in health care feel like they have to “shut up and put up,” priming them to also tolerate abuse at home.

When survivors do reach out, there can be a disconnect between the resources they need and those they’re offered, Dr. Hernandez adds. In a recent survey of 400 physicians she conducted, respondents typically said they would advise a physician-survivor to “get to a shelter quickly.” But when roles were reversed, they admitted going to a shelter was the least feasible option. Support groups can also be problematic in smaller communities where physicians might be recognized or see their own patients.

Complicating matters further, the violence often comes from within the medical community. This can lead to particularly malicious abuse tactics like sending false accusations to a victim’s regulatory college or board; prolonged court and custody battles to drain them of all resources and their ability to hold a job; or even sabotage, harassment, or violence at work. The sheen of the abuser’s public persona, on the other hand, can guard them from any accountability.

For example, one physician-survivor said her ex-partner, a psychiatrist, coerced her into believing she was mentally ill, claimed she was “psychotic” in order to take back their children after she left, and had numerous colleagues serve as character witnesses in court for him, “saying he couldn’t have done any of these things, how great he is, and what a wonderful father he is.”
 

Slow progress is still progress

After Sherilyn M. Gordon-Burroughs, MD, a Texas-based transplant surgeon, mother, and educator, was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in 2017, her friends Barbara Lee Bass, MD, president of the American College of Surgeons, and Patricia L. Turner, MD, were spurred into action. Together, they founded the ACS Intimate Partner Violence Task Force. Their mission is to educate surgeons to identify the signs of intimate partner violence (IPV) in themselves and their colleagues and connect them with resources.

“There is a concerted effort to close that gap,” says D’Andrea K. Joseph, MD, cochair of the task force and chief of trauma and acute care surgery at NYU Langone in New York. In the future, Dr. Joseph predicts, “making this a part of the curriculum, that it’s standardized for residents and trainees, that there is a safe place for victims ... and that we can band together and really recognize and assist our colleagues who are in trouble.”

Resources created by the ACS IPV task force, such as the toolkit and curriculum, provide a model for other health care leaders. But there have been few similar initiatives aimed at increasing IPV intervention within the medical system.
 

What you can do in your workplace

In her essay, Ms. Lee explains that a major turning point came when a physician friend explicitly asked if she was experiencing abuse. He then gently confirmed she was, and asked without judgment how he could support her, an approach that mirrors advice from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Having a physician validate that this was, indeed, an abusive situation helped enormously ... I believe it may have saved my life,” she writes.

That validation can be crucial, and Dr. Abadilla urges other physicians to regularly check in with colleagues, especially those who seem particularly positive with a go-getter attitude and yet may not seem themselves. That was how she presented when she was struggling the most.

Supporting systemic changes within your organization and beyond is also important. The authors of the 2022 meta-analysis stress the need for domestic violence training, legislative changes, paid leave, and union support.
 

Finding strength in recovery

Over a decade after escaping her abuser, Whitney says she’s only just begun to share her experience, but what she’s learned has made her a better pharmacist. She says she’s more attuned to subtle signs something could be off with patients and coworkers. When someone makes comments about feeling anxious or that they can’t do anything right, it’s important to ask why, she says.

Recently, Kimberly has opened up to her mentor and other therapists, many of whom have shared that they’re also survivors.

“The last thing I said to [my abuser] is you think you’ve won and you’re hurting me, but what you’ve done to me – I’m going to utilize this and I’m going to help other people,” Kimberly says. “This pain that I have will go away, and I’m going to save the lives of others.”
 

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

To protect survivors’ identities, some names have been changed or shortened.

Natasha Abadilla, MD, met the man who would become her abuser while working abroad for a public health nonprofit. When he began emotionally and physically abusing her, she did everything she could to hide it.

“My coworkers knew nothing of the abuse. I became an expert in applying makeup to hide the bruises,” recalls Dr. Abadilla, now a second-year resident and pediatric neurologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

Dr. Abadilla says she strongly identifies as a hard worker and – to this day – hopes her work did not falter despite her partner’s constant drain on her. But the impact of the abuse continued to affect her for years. Like many survivors of domestic violence, she struggled with PTSD and depression.

Health care workers are often the first point of contact for survivors of domestic violence. Experts and advocates continue to push for more training for clinicians to identify and respond to signs among their patients. Often missing from this conversation is the reality that those tasked with screening can also be victims of intimate partner violence themselves.

What’s more: The very strengths that medical professionals often pride themselves on – perfectionism, empathy, grit – can make it harder for them to identify abuse in their own relationships and push through humiliation and shame to seek help.

Dr. Abadilla is exceptional among survivors in the medical field. Rather than keep her experience quiet, she has shared it publicly.

Awareness, she believes, can save lives.
 

An understudied problem in an underserved group

The majority of research on health care workers in this area has focused on workplace violence, which 62% experience worldwide. But intimate partner violence remains understudied and underdiscussed. Some medical professionals are even saddled with a “double burden,” facing trauma at work and at home, note the authors of a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

The problem has had dire consequences. In recent years, many health care workers have been killed by their abusers:

• In 2016, Casey M. Drawert, MD, a Texas-based critical care anesthesiologist, was fatally shot by her husband in a murder-suicide.
• In 2018, Tamara O’Neal, MD, an ER physician, and Dayna Less, a first-year pharmacy resident, were killed by Dr. O’Neal’s ex-fiancé at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
• In 2019, Sarah Hawley, MD, a first-year University of Utah resident, was fatally shot by her boyfriend in a murder-suicide.
• In 2021, Moria Kinsey, a nurse practitioner in Tahlequah, Okla., was murdered by a physician.
• In July of 2023, Gwendolyn Lavonne Riddick, DO, an ob.gyn. in North Carolina, was fatally shot by the father of her 3-year-old son.

There are others.

In the wake of these tragedies, calls for health care workers to screen each other as well as patients have grown. But for an untold number of survivors, breaking the silence is still not possible due to concerns about their reputation, professional consequences, the threat of harassment from abusers who are often in the same field, a medical culture of selfless endurance, and a lack of appropriate resources.

Are health care workers more at risk?

Although more studies are needed, research indicates health care workers experience domestic violence at rates comparable to those of other populations, whereas some data suggest rates may be higher.

In the United States, more than one in three women and one in four men experience some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Similarly, a 2020 study found that 24% of 400 physicians responding to a survey reported a history of domestic violence, with 15% reporting verbal abuse, 8% reporting physical violence, 4% reporting sexual abuse, and 4% reporting stalking.

Meanwhile, in an anonymous survey completed by 882 practicing surgeons and trainees in the United States from late 2018 to early 2019, more than 60% reported experiencing some type of intimate partner violence, most commonly emotional abuse.

Recent studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere show that significant numbers of medical professionals are fighting this battle. A 2019 study of more than 2,000 nurses, midwives, and health care assistants in the United Kingdom found that nurses were three times more likely to experience domestic violence than the average person.

What would help solve this problem: More study of health care worker-survivors as a unique group with unique risk factors. In general, domestic violence is most prevalent among women and people in marginalized groups. But young adults, such as medical students and trainees, can face an increased risk due to economic strain. Major life changes, such as relocating for residency, can also drive up stress and fray social connections, further isolating victims.
 

Why it’s so much harder for medical professionals to reveal abuse

For medical professionals accustomed to being strong and forging on, identifying as a victim of abuse can seem like a personal contradiction. It can feel easier to separate their personal and professional lives rather than face a complex reality.

In a personal essay on KevinMD.com, medical student Chloe N. L. Lee describes this emotional turmoil. “As an aspiring psychiatrist, I questioned my character judgment (how did I end up with a misogynistic abuser?) and wondered if I ought to have known better. I worried that my colleagues would deem me unfit to care for patients. And I thought that this was not supposed to happen to women like me,” Ms. Lee writes.

Kimberly, a licensed therapist, experienced a similar pattern of self-blame when her partner began exhibiting violent behavior. “For a long time, I felt guilty because I said to myself, You’re a therapist. You’re supposed to know this,” she recalls. At the same time, she felt driven to help him and sought couples therapy as his violence escalated.

Whitney, a pharmacist, recognized the “hallmarks” of abuse in her relationship, but she coped by compartmentalizing. Whitney says she was vulnerable to her abuser as a young college student who struggled financially. As he showered her with gifts, she found herself waving away red flags like aggressiveness or overprotectiveness.

After Whitney graduated, her partner’s emotional manipulation escalated into frequent physical assaults. When he gave her a black eye, she could not bring herself to go into work. She quit her job without notice. Despite a spotless record, none of her coworkers ever reached out to investigate her sudden departure.

It would take 8 years for Whitney to acknowledge the abuse and seize a moment to escape. She fled with just her purse and started over in a new city, rebuilding her life in the midst of harassment and threats from her ex. She says she’s grateful to be alive.
 

An imperfect system doesn’t help

Health care workers rarely ask for support or disclose abuse at work. Some have cited stigma, a lack of confidentiality (especially when the abuser is also in health care), fears about colleagues’ judgment, and a culture that doesn’t prioritize self-care.

Sometimes policies get in the way: In a 2021 qualitative study of interviews with 21 female physician-survivors in the United Kingdom, many said that despite the intense stress of abuse and recovery, they were unable to take any time off.

Of 180 UK-based midwife-survivors interviewed in a 2018 study, only 60 sought support at work and 30 received it. Many said their supervisors pressured them to report the abuse and get back to work, called social services behind their back, or reported them to their professional regulator. “I was treated like the perpetrator,” one said. Barbara Hernandez, PhD, a researcher who studies physician-survivors and director of physician vitality at Loma Linda University in southern California, says workplace violence and mistreatment from patients or colleagues – and a poor institutional response – can make those in health care feel like they have to “shut up and put up,” priming them to also tolerate abuse at home.

When survivors do reach out, there can be a disconnect between the resources they need and those they’re offered, Dr. Hernandez adds. In a recent survey of 400 physicians she conducted, respondents typically said they would advise a physician-survivor to “get to a shelter quickly.” But when roles were reversed, they admitted going to a shelter was the least feasible option. Support groups can also be problematic in smaller communities where physicians might be recognized or see their own patients.

Complicating matters further, the violence often comes from within the medical community. This can lead to particularly malicious abuse tactics like sending false accusations to a victim’s regulatory college or board; prolonged court and custody battles to drain them of all resources and their ability to hold a job; or even sabotage, harassment, or violence at work. The sheen of the abuser’s public persona, on the other hand, can guard them from any accountability.

For example, one physician-survivor said her ex-partner, a psychiatrist, coerced her into believing she was mentally ill, claimed she was “psychotic” in order to take back their children after she left, and had numerous colleagues serve as character witnesses in court for him, “saying he couldn’t have done any of these things, how great he is, and what a wonderful father he is.”
 

Slow progress is still progress

After Sherilyn M. Gordon-Burroughs, MD, a Texas-based transplant surgeon, mother, and educator, was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in 2017, her friends Barbara Lee Bass, MD, president of the American College of Surgeons, and Patricia L. Turner, MD, were spurred into action. Together, they founded the ACS Intimate Partner Violence Task Force. Their mission is to educate surgeons to identify the signs of intimate partner violence (IPV) in themselves and their colleagues and connect them with resources.

“There is a concerted effort to close that gap,” says D’Andrea K. Joseph, MD, cochair of the task force and chief of trauma and acute care surgery at NYU Langone in New York. In the future, Dr. Joseph predicts, “making this a part of the curriculum, that it’s standardized for residents and trainees, that there is a safe place for victims ... and that we can band together and really recognize and assist our colleagues who are in trouble.”

Resources created by the ACS IPV task force, such as the toolkit and curriculum, provide a model for other health care leaders. But there have been few similar initiatives aimed at increasing IPV intervention within the medical system.
 

What you can do in your workplace

In her essay, Ms. Lee explains that a major turning point came when a physician friend explicitly asked if she was experiencing abuse. He then gently confirmed she was, and asked without judgment how he could support her, an approach that mirrors advice from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Having a physician validate that this was, indeed, an abusive situation helped enormously ... I believe it may have saved my life,” she writes.

That validation can be crucial, and Dr. Abadilla urges other physicians to regularly check in with colleagues, especially those who seem particularly positive with a go-getter attitude and yet may not seem themselves. That was how she presented when she was struggling the most.

Supporting systemic changes within your organization and beyond is also important. The authors of the 2022 meta-analysis stress the need for domestic violence training, legislative changes, paid leave, and union support.
 

Finding strength in recovery

Over a decade after escaping her abuser, Whitney says she’s only just begun to share her experience, but what she’s learned has made her a better pharmacist. She says she’s more attuned to subtle signs something could be off with patients and coworkers. When someone makes comments about feeling anxious or that they can’t do anything right, it’s important to ask why, she says.

Recently, Kimberly has opened up to her mentor and other therapists, many of whom have shared that they’re also survivors.

“The last thing I said to [my abuser] is you think you’ve won and you’re hurting me, but what you’ve done to me – I’m going to utilize this and I’m going to help other people,” Kimberly says. “This pain that I have will go away, and I’m going to save the lives of others.”
 

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

To protect survivors’ identities, some names have been changed or shortened.

Natasha Abadilla, MD, met the man who would become her abuser while working abroad for a public health nonprofit. When he began emotionally and physically abusing her, she did everything she could to hide it.

“My coworkers knew nothing of the abuse. I became an expert in applying makeup to hide the bruises,” recalls Dr. Abadilla, now a second-year resident and pediatric neurologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

Dr. Abadilla says she strongly identifies as a hard worker and – to this day – hopes her work did not falter despite her partner’s constant drain on her. But the impact of the abuse continued to affect her for years. Like many survivors of domestic violence, she struggled with PTSD and depression.

Health care workers are often the first point of contact for survivors of domestic violence. Experts and advocates continue to push for more training for clinicians to identify and respond to signs among their patients. Often missing from this conversation is the reality that those tasked with screening can also be victims of intimate partner violence themselves.

What’s more: The very strengths that medical professionals often pride themselves on – perfectionism, empathy, grit – can make it harder for them to identify abuse in their own relationships and push through humiliation and shame to seek help.

Dr. Abadilla is exceptional among survivors in the medical field. Rather than keep her experience quiet, she has shared it publicly.

Awareness, she believes, can save lives.
 

An understudied problem in an underserved group

The majority of research on health care workers in this area has focused on workplace violence, which 62% experience worldwide. But intimate partner violence remains understudied and underdiscussed. Some medical professionals are even saddled with a “double burden,” facing trauma at work and at home, note the authors of a 2022 meta-analysis published in the journal Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

The problem has had dire consequences. In recent years, many health care workers have been killed by their abusers:

• In 2016, Casey M. Drawert, MD, a Texas-based critical care anesthesiologist, was fatally shot by her husband in a murder-suicide.
• In 2018, Tamara O’Neal, MD, an ER physician, and Dayna Less, a first-year pharmacy resident, were killed by Dr. O’Neal’s ex-fiancé at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.
• In 2019, Sarah Hawley, MD, a first-year University of Utah resident, was fatally shot by her boyfriend in a murder-suicide.
• In 2021, Moria Kinsey, a nurse practitioner in Tahlequah, Okla., was murdered by a physician.
• In July of 2023, Gwendolyn Lavonne Riddick, DO, an ob.gyn. in North Carolina, was fatally shot by the father of her 3-year-old son.

There are others.

In the wake of these tragedies, calls for health care workers to screen each other as well as patients have grown. But for an untold number of survivors, breaking the silence is still not possible due to concerns about their reputation, professional consequences, the threat of harassment from abusers who are often in the same field, a medical culture of selfless endurance, and a lack of appropriate resources.

Are health care workers more at risk?

Although more studies are needed, research indicates health care workers experience domestic violence at rates comparable to those of other populations, whereas some data suggest rates may be higher.

In the United States, more than one in three women and one in four men experience some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Similarly, a 2020 study found that 24% of 400 physicians responding to a survey reported a history of domestic violence, with 15% reporting verbal abuse, 8% reporting physical violence, 4% reporting sexual abuse, and 4% reporting stalking.

Meanwhile, in an anonymous survey completed by 882 practicing surgeons and trainees in the United States from late 2018 to early 2019, more than 60% reported experiencing some type of intimate partner violence, most commonly emotional abuse.

Recent studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere show that significant numbers of medical professionals are fighting this battle. A 2019 study of more than 2,000 nurses, midwives, and health care assistants in the United Kingdom found that nurses were three times more likely to experience domestic violence than the average person.

What would help solve this problem: More study of health care worker-survivors as a unique group with unique risk factors. In general, domestic violence is most prevalent among women and people in marginalized groups. But young adults, such as medical students and trainees, can face an increased risk due to economic strain. Major life changes, such as relocating for residency, can also drive up stress and fray social connections, further isolating victims.
 

Why it’s so much harder for medical professionals to reveal abuse

For medical professionals accustomed to being strong and forging on, identifying as a victim of abuse can seem like a personal contradiction. It can feel easier to separate their personal and professional lives rather than face a complex reality.

In a personal essay on KevinMD.com, medical student Chloe N. L. Lee describes this emotional turmoil. “As an aspiring psychiatrist, I questioned my character judgment (how did I end up with a misogynistic abuser?) and wondered if I ought to have known better. I worried that my colleagues would deem me unfit to care for patients. And I thought that this was not supposed to happen to women like me,” Ms. Lee writes.

Kimberly, a licensed therapist, experienced a similar pattern of self-blame when her partner began exhibiting violent behavior. “For a long time, I felt guilty because I said to myself, You’re a therapist. You’re supposed to know this,” she recalls. At the same time, she felt driven to help him and sought couples therapy as his violence escalated.

Whitney, a pharmacist, recognized the “hallmarks” of abuse in her relationship, but she coped by compartmentalizing. Whitney says she was vulnerable to her abuser as a young college student who struggled financially. As he showered her with gifts, she found herself waving away red flags like aggressiveness or overprotectiveness.

After Whitney graduated, her partner’s emotional manipulation escalated into frequent physical assaults. When he gave her a black eye, she could not bring herself to go into work. She quit her job without notice. Despite a spotless record, none of her coworkers ever reached out to investigate her sudden departure.

It would take 8 years for Whitney to acknowledge the abuse and seize a moment to escape. She fled with just her purse and started over in a new city, rebuilding her life in the midst of harassment and threats from her ex. She says she’s grateful to be alive.
 

An imperfect system doesn’t help

Health care workers rarely ask for support or disclose abuse at work. Some have cited stigma, a lack of confidentiality (especially when the abuser is also in health care), fears about colleagues’ judgment, and a culture that doesn’t prioritize self-care.

Sometimes policies get in the way: In a 2021 qualitative study of interviews with 21 female physician-survivors in the United Kingdom, many said that despite the intense stress of abuse and recovery, they were unable to take any time off.

Of 180 UK-based midwife-survivors interviewed in a 2018 study, only 60 sought support at work and 30 received it. Many said their supervisors pressured them to report the abuse and get back to work, called social services behind their back, or reported them to their professional regulator. “I was treated like the perpetrator,” one said. Barbara Hernandez, PhD, a researcher who studies physician-survivors and director of physician vitality at Loma Linda University in southern California, says workplace violence and mistreatment from patients or colleagues – and a poor institutional response – can make those in health care feel like they have to “shut up and put up,” priming them to also tolerate abuse at home.

When survivors do reach out, there can be a disconnect between the resources they need and those they’re offered, Dr. Hernandez adds. In a recent survey of 400 physicians she conducted, respondents typically said they would advise a physician-survivor to “get to a shelter quickly.” But when roles were reversed, they admitted going to a shelter was the least feasible option. Support groups can also be problematic in smaller communities where physicians might be recognized or see their own patients.

Complicating matters further, the violence often comes from within the medical community. This can lead to particularly malicious abuse tactics like sending false accusations to a victim’s regulatory college or board; prolonged court and custody battles to drain them of all resources and their ability to hold a job; or even sabotage, harassment, or violence at work. The sheen of the abuser’s public persona, on the other hand, can guard them from any accountability.

For example, one physician-survivor said her ex-partner, a psychiatrist, coerced her into believing she was mentally ill, claimed she was “psychotic” in order to take back their children after she left, and had numerous colleagues serve as character witnesses in court for him, “saying he couldn’t have done any of these things, how great he is, and what a wonderful father he is.”
 

Slow progress is still progress

After Sherilyn M. Gordon-Burroughs, MD, a Texas-based transplant surgeon, mother, and educator, was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in 2017, her friends Barbara Lee Bass, MD, president of the American College of Surgeons, and Patricia L. Turner, MD, were spurred into action. Together, they founded the ACS Intimate Partner Violence Task Force. Their mission is to educate surgeons to identify the signs of intimate partner violence (IPV) in themselves and their colleagues and connect them with resources.

“There is a concerted effort to close that gap,” says D’Andrea K. Joseph, MD, cochair of the task force and chief of trauma and acute care surgery at NYU Langone in New York. In the future, Dr. Joseph predicts, “making this a part of the curriculum, that it’s standardized for residents and trainees, that there is a safe place for victims ... and that we can band together and really recognize and assist our colleagues who are in trouble.”

Resources created by the ACS IPV task force, such as the toolkit and curriculum, provide a model for other health care leaders. But there have been few similar initiatives aimed at increasing IPV intervention within the medical system.
 

What you can do in your workplace

In her essay, Ms. Lee explains that a major turning point came when a physician friend explicitly asked if she was experiencing abuse. He then gently confirmed she was, and asked without judgment how he could support her, an approach that mirrors advice from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

“Having a physician validate that this was, indeed, an abusive situation helped enormously ... I believe it may have saved my life,” she writes.

That validation can be crucial, and Dr. Abadilla urges other physicians to regularly check in with colleagues, especially those who seem particularly positive with a go-getter attitude and yet may not seem themselves. That was how she presented when she was struggling the most.

Supporting systemic changes within your organization and beyond is also important. The authors of the 2022 meta-analysis stress the need for domestic violence training, legislative changes, paid leave, and union support.
 

Finding strength in recovery

Over a decade after escaping her abuser, Whitney says she’s only just begun to share her experience, but what she’s learned has made her a better pharmacist. She says she’s more attuned to subtle signs something could be off with patients and coworkers. When someone makes comments about feeling anxious or that they can’t do anything right, it’s important to ask why, she says.

Recently, Kimberly has opened up to her mentor and other therapists, many of whom have shared that they’re also survivors.

“The last thing I said to [my abuser] is you think you’ve won and you’re hurting me, but what you’ve done to me – I’m going to utilize this and I’m going to help other people,” Kimberly says. “This pain that I have will go away, and I’m going to save the lives of others.”
 

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For decades, pre-med students depended on the annual medical school rankings by U.S. News and World Report to decide where to apply for physician education. But after several prominent med schools pulled out of the rankings, one resident began experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) to create an alternative.

Brandon Turner MD, MSc, a radiation oncology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, developed a free do-it-yourself tool using AI that allows prospective students to rank medical schools based on considerations that are most important to them. His research was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“One of the flaws with conventional ranking systems is that the metrics used in these tools are weighted based on the preferences and views of the people who developed these rankings, but those may not work for everyone,” Dr. Turner told this news organization.

He explained that there are different types of metrics used in the U.S. News ranking: one for research and the other for primary care. “The research rankings carry the most prestige and are the ones that most people know about,” he explained. These metrics take into account factors such as how many grant dollars the medical school receives and the average size of those grants per faculty member, Dr. Turner said.

Admission metrics are also included – for example, the median grade point average or MCAT scores of students who have been accepted. “These don’t tell you anything about the research output of the school, only about how selective the school is,” he said.

Primary care metrics might focus on how many graduates of a given school go into primary care, or how other schools rate the quality of primary care training at a given school – a process called peer assessment, Dr. Turner said.

But even though these might be helpful, students may be more interested in the cost of attendance, average debt, representation of minorities, and how many graduates pass their boards, he said. “U.S. News metrics don’t capture these things, but I included them in my algorithm.”

A U.S. News spokesperson said that the publication continues to help students and their families make decisions about their future education. The spokesperson cited U.S. News’ explanation of how it calculates its rankings. “A school’s overall Best Medical Schools rank should be one consideration and not the lone determinant in where a student applies and accepts,” the article states.

Dr. Turner agreed ranking systems are a good starting point when researching med schools, “but the values reflected in the ranking may not reflect an individual’s goals.”

Tyra-Lee Brett, a premed student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, believes an additional tool for students to evaluate medical schools is needed – and she could potentially see herself using Dr. Turner’s creation.

Still, Ms. Brett, a premed trustee of the American Medical Student Association, doesn’t regard any ranking tool as the “be all and end all.” Rather, she feels that the most effective tool would be based on students’ lived experiences. The AMSA is developing a scorecard in which students grade schools based on their opinions about such issues as housing, family planning, and environmental health, she said.
 

No prior judgments

To develop his algorithm, Dr. Turner used a branch of AI called “unsupervised learning.” It doesn’t make a prior judgment about what the data should look like, Dr. Turner explained.

“You’re just analyzing natural trends within the data.”

The algorithm tries to find and discover clusters or patterns within the data. “It’s like saying to the algorithm: ‘I want you to tell me what schools you think should be grouped together based on the data I feed you,’ which is the data that the user selects based on his or her personal preferences.”

U.S. News has been transparent about the metrics it uses, Dr. Turner notes. “When I started looking into how rankings are developed, I saw that there was transparency, and the reasoning for choosing the metrics used to develop the ranking was pretty sound,” he said.

“But I didn’t see any justification as to why they chose the particular metrics and weighted them in the way that they did.”

Dr. Turner extracted data from the 2023 U.S. News report, which ranked 109 allopathic medical schools, and applied several scenarios to the results to create his alternative ranking system.

In one scenario, he used the same research metrics used by U.S. News, such as a peer research assessment, median federal research activity per full-time faculty member, median GPA, median MCAT, acceptance rate, and faculty-student ratio.

In another scenario, he included four additional metrics: debt, in-state cost of attendance, USMLE Step 1 passing rate, and percentage of underrepresented students with minority race or ethnicity at the school.

For example, a user can rank the importance of the diversity of the class, amount of debt students expect to incur, and amount of research funding the medical school receives. After selecting those factors, the tool generates tiered results displayed in a circle, a shape chosen to avoid the appearance of the hierarchy associated with traditional rankings, Dr. Turner said.

“A prospective student might not care about acceptance rates and MCAT scores, and instead cares about diversity and debt,” Dr. Turner said. He looks forward to extending this approach to the ranking of colleges as well.
 

‘Imperfect measures’

“The model and interesting online tool that Dr. Turner created allows a premed [student] to generate custom rankings that are in line with their own priorities,” said Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, a critical care physician in Mass General’s division of pulmonary and critical care medicine.

But Dr. Worsham, also a teaching associate at Harvard Medical School’s department of health care policy, expressed concern that factors figuring into the rankings by U.S. News and Dr. Turner’s alternative “are imperfect measures of medical school quality.”

For example, a student interested in research might favor federal research funding in their customized rankings with Dr. Turner’s model. “But higher research funding doesn’t necessarily translate into a better education for students, particularly when differentiating between two major research systems,” Dr. Worsham noted.

Dr. Worsham added that neither ranking system accurately predicts the quality of doctors graduating from the schools. Instead, he’d like to see ranking systems based on which schools’ graduates deliver the best patient outcomes, whether that’s through direct patient care, impactful research, or leadership within the health care system.

Michael Sauder, PhD, professor of sociology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said the model could offer a valuable alternative to the U.S. News ranking system. It might help users develop their own criteria for determining the ranking of medical schools, which is a big improvement over a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Dr. Sauder said.

And Hanna Stotland, an admission consultant based in Chicago, noted that most students rely on rankings because they “don’t have the luxury of advisers who know the ins and outs of different medical schools.” Given the role that rankings play, Ms. Stotland expects that every new ranking tool will have some influence on students.

This tool in particular “has the potential to be useful for students who have identified values they want their medical school to share.” For example, students who care about racial diversity “could use it to easily identify schools that are successful on that metric,” Ms. Stotland said.

Sujay Ratna, a 2nd-year med student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said he considered the U.S. News ranking his “go-to tool” when he was applying to med school.

But after reading Dr. Turner’s article, the AMSA membership vice president tried the algorithm. “I definitely would have used it had it existed when I was thinking of what schools to apply to and what [schools] to attend.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Turner, Dr. Worsham, Dr. Sauder, Ms. Stotland, Ms. Brett, and Mr. Ratna report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An increasing number of unclaimed dead bodies went to help train medical students in Texas between 2017 and 2021, new research reveals.

Investigators did not expect to see such an increase, said lead author Eli Shupe, PhD, assistant professor in the department of philosophy and humanities at the University of Texas at Arlington. 

The numbers jumped from 64 unclaimed bodies to 446 bodies annually over those 5 years. “People are usually under the impression that this is something that either doesn’t happen anymore or it’s on the decline as more people step up to be willed body donors,” said Dr. Shupe, who is also codirector of the medical humanities and bioethics program at UTA. 

The study findings were published in JAMA as a research letter. Researchers said that the number of unclaimed bodies – those not claimed by next of kin for burial or cremation – has dropped significantly across the United States since the middle of the 20th century. 

Some people don’t want to discuss the practice because it is controversial, said Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, associate professor at the Center for Bioethics and Humanities and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. “But ‘sweeping it under the rug’ means we miss the opportunity for dialogues about respect, consent, social justice, and so on – as well as the opportunity to change policy.”

The study included all medical schools in Texas, and researchers say it’s likely happening elsewhere in the United States and abroad. The practice is legal in most counties and states. One exception is New York, which passed a law in 2016 that does not allow unclaimed bodies to go to medical schools without prior written consent from the deceased.

“Although limited to one state, these findings suggest that use of unclaimed bodies may be both more common than we thought and increasing,” added Dr. DeCamp, who was not affiliated with the current study.

Even doctors can be split on the value to medical training versus the rights of the dead. “I know that medical professionals are divided on the role of dissection and anatomy learning and its necessity,” Dr. Shupe said. She predicted working with cadavers in medical schools will probably continue for the foreseeable future.
 

The marginalized and the vulnerable

So who are the unclaimed? They can include those who are unhoused and those who do not leave enough money to cover cost of burial or cremation. In some cases, they don’t have a next of kin or their next of kin is unwilling or unable to pay for their burial or cremation. 

“Predominantly, these are going to be people who are poor or members of marginalized or vulnerable populations,” Dr. Shupe said. She estimated that about 80% of the people who die in poverty in her region, the Dallas–Fort Worth area, are Black or Hispanic individuals.

“It is alarming that we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to the increasing utility of unclaimed bodies,” said Joy Balta, PhD, associate professor of anatomy and founding director of Anatomy Learning Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, when asked to comment on the study. The hope is to rely solely on donated human bodies to ensure that donors have provided informed consent for their use in education, research, and clinical training. 

“These unclaimed bodies did not provide any consent, [which] raises ethical questions,” Dr. Balta said.
 

Key findings

In Texas in 2021, 43% of the cadavers in 14 medical schools studied came from unclaimed bodies. A total 14% of schools reported that they accepted unclaimed bodies, 28% possibly accepted them because they were transferred from institutions that use them, and the remaining 57% do not accept unclaimed bodies.

The total number and proportion of unclaimed bodies going to medical education in the study increased during the study. The 14% in 2021 was a jump from 2% in 2017, for example. 

The 14 medical schools studied included both public and private institutions. The investigators also looked at data from the Texas State Anatomical Board, which tracks how cadavers are attained and distributed in the state, including how many began as unclaimed bodies. 
 

Legal in most jurisdictions

Dr. Shupe first learned about what can happen to unclaimed bodies as a hospice volunteer. She was accompanying the hospice chaplain one day who said: “Poor Mr. Smith [not his real name] doesn’t have long, and then he’s off to the medical school.” Dr. Shupe asked what the chaplain meant because she was unaware of the practice. 

“I stumbled on this by chance, and it ended up being a really fruitful research area,” she added.
 

The bigger picture

Greater awareness is needed and there is not a lot of research out there, Dr. Shupe said. One exception is a 2018 study of medical schools nationwide that found 12.4% reported possible use of unclaimed bodies. 

Dr. DeCamp, an author of that previous research, said: “Knowing this practice continues is the most important thing for doctors and medical students to know.”

It remains unclear whether the COVID pandemic or the opioid epidemic contributed to the rise of unclaimed bodies going to medical training. That is a question for future study, Dr. Shupe said. 
 

Most bodies willingly donated

The majority of cadavers that go to medical training in the United States are ‘full body donors,’ people or relatives who agree to voluntarily send a body to medical schools. “We are fortunate to have a lot of people who are willing to become whole body donors,” she said.

Greater awareness about how donated cadavers could make a difference to further increase willful donations, Dr. Shupe said. “Honoring those gifts by allowing them to help train the next generation of doctors is a wonderful thing.”

A May 2023 study from Dr. Balta and colleagues on body donation programs in the United States “found that the number of whole-body donations have decreased in some states and the numbers are not enough to meet the needs for education, research and clinical training,” Dr. Balta said. This could explain the increasing use of unclaimed bodies. 

“Some medical schools have explicit educational interventions on this topic, and formally recognize the unclaimed at anatomical gift ceremonies,” Dr. DeCamp said. “More should.”

Research support was provided by the UTA. Dr. Shupe, Dr. Balta, and Dr. DeCamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An increasing number of unclaimed dead bodies went to help train medical students in Texas between 2017 and 2021, new research reveals.

Investigators did not expect to see such an increase, said lead author Eli Shupe, PhD, assistant professor in the department of philosophy and humanities at the University of Texas at Arlington. 

The numbers jumped from 64 unclaimed bodies to 446 bodies annually over those 5 years. “People are usually under the impression that this is something that either doesn’t happen anymore or it’s on the decline as more people step up to be willed body donors,” said Dr. Shupe, who is also codirector of the medical humanities and bioethics program at UTA. 

The study findings were published in JAMA as a research letter. Researchers said that the number of unclaimed bodies – those not claimed by next of kin for burial or cremation – has dropped significantly across the United States since the middle of the 20th century. 

Some people don’t want to discuss the practice because it is controversial, said Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, associate professor at the Center for Bioethics and Humanities and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. “But ‘sweeping it under the rug’ means we miss the opportunity for dialogues about respect, consent, social justice, and so on – as well as the opportunity to change policy.”

The study included all medical schools in Texas, and researchers say it’s likely happening elsewhere in the United States and abroad. The practice is legal in most counties and states. One exception is New York, which passed a law in 2016 that does not allow unclaimed bodies to go to medical schools without prior written consent from the deceased.

“Although limited to one state, these findings suggest that use of unclaimed bodies may be both more common than we thought and increasing,” added Dr. DeCamp, who was not affiliated with the current study.

Even doctors can be split on the value to medical training versus the rights of the dead. “I know that medical professionals are divided on the role of dissection and anatomy learning and its necessity,” Dr. Shupe said. She predicted working with cadavers in medical schools will probably continue for the foreseeable future.
 

The marginalized and the vulnerable

So who are the unclaimed? They can include those who are unhoused and those who do not leave enough money to cover cost of burial or cremation. In some cases, they don’t have a next of kin or their next of kin is unwilling or unable to pay for their burial or cremation. 

“Predominantly, these are going to be people who are poor or members of marginalized or vulnerable populations,” Dr. Shupe said. She estimated that about 80% of the people who die in poverty in her region, the Dallas–Fort Worth area, are Black or Hispanic individuals.

“It is alarming that we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to the increasing utility of unclaimed bodies,” said Joy Balta, PhD, associate professor of anatomy and founding director of Anatomy Learning Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, when asked to comment on the study. The hope is to rely solely on donated human bodies to ensure that donors have provided informed consent for their use in education, research, and clinical training. 

“These unclaimed bodies did not provide any consent, [which] raises ethical questions,” Dr. Balta said.
 

Key findings

In Texas in 2021, 43% of the cadavers in 14 medical schools studied came from unclaimed bodies. A total 14% of schools reported that they accepted unclaimed bodies, 28% possibly accepted them because they were transferred from institutions that use them, and the remaining 57% do not accept unclaimed bodies.

The total number and proportion of unclaimed bodies going to medical education in the study increased during the study. The 14% in 2021 was a jump from 2% in 2017, for example. 

The 14 medical schools studied included both public and private institutions. The investigators also looked at data from the Texas State Anatomical Board, which tracks how cadavers are attained and distributed in the state, including how many began as unclaimed bodies. 
 

Legal in most jurisdictions

Dr. Shupe first learned about what can happen to unclaimed bodies as a hospice volunteer. She was accompanying the hospice chaplain one day who said: “Poor Mr. Smith [not his real name] doesn’t have long, and then he’s off to the medical school.” Dr. Shupe asked what the chaplain meant because she was unaware of the practice. 

“I stumbled on this by chance, and it ended up being a really fruitful research area,” she added.
 

The bigger picture

Greater awareness is needed and there is not a lot of research out there, Dr. Shupe said. One exception is a 2018 study of medical schools nationwide that found 12.4% reported possible use of unclaimed bodies. 

Dr. DeCamp, an author of that previous research, said: “Knowing this practice continues is the most important thing for doctors and medical students to know.”

It remains unclear whether the COVID pandemic or the opioid epidemic contributed to the rise of unclaimed bodies going to medical training. That is a question for future study, Dr. Shupe said. 
 

Most bodies willingly donated

The majority of cadavers that go to medical training in the United States are ‘full body donors,’ people or relatives who agree to voluntarily send a body to medical schools. “We are fortunate to have a lot of people who are willing to become whole body donors,” she said.

Greater awareness about how donated cadavers could make a difference to further increase willful donations, Dr. Shupe said. “Honoring those gifts by allowing them to help train the next generation of doctors is a wonderful thing.”

A May 2023 study from Dr. Balta and colleagues on body donation programs in the United States “found that the number of whole-body donations have decreased in some states and the numbers are not enough to meet the needs for education, research and clinical training,” Dr. Balta said. This could explain the increasing use of unclaimed bodies. 

“Some medical schools have explicit educational interventions on this topic, and formally recognize the unclaimed at anatomical gift ceremonies,” Dr. DeCamp said. “More should.”

Research support was provided by the UTA. Dr. Shupe, Dr. Balta, and Dr. DeCamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An increasing number of unclaimed dead bodies went to help train medical students in Texas between 2017 and 2021, new research reveals.

Investigators did not expect to see such an increase, said lead author Eli Shupe, PhD, assistant professor in the department of philosophy and humanities at the University of Texas at Arlington. 

The numbers jumped from 64 unclaimed bodies to 446 bodies annually over those 5 years. “People are usually under the impression that this is something that either doesn’t happen anymore or it’s on the decline as more people step up to be willed body donors,” said Dr. Shupe, who is also codirector of the medical humanities and bioethics program at UTA. 

The study findings were published in JAMA as a research letter. Researchers said that the number of unclaimed bodies – those not claimed by next of kin for burial or cremation – has dropped significantly across the United States since the middle of the 20th century. 

Some people don’t want to discuss the practice because it is controversial, said Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, associate professor at the Center for Bioethics and Humanities and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. “But ‘sweeping it under the rug’ means we miss the opportunity for dialogues about respect, consent, social justice, and so on – as well as the opportunity to change policy.”

The study included all medical schools in Texas, and researchers say it’s likely happening elsewhere in the United States and abroad. The practice is legal in most counties and states. One exception is New York, which passed a law in 2016 that does not allow unclaimed bodies to go to medical schools without prior written consent from the deceased.

“Although limited to one state, these findings suggest that use of unclaimed bodies may be both more common than we thought and increasing,” added Dr. DeCamp, who was not affiliated with the current study.

Even doctors can be split on the value to medical training versus the rights of the dead. “I know that medical professionals are divided on the role of dissection and anatomy learning and its necessity,” Dr. Shupe said. She predicted working with cadavers in medical schools will probably continue for the foreseeable future.
 

The marginalized and the vulnerable

So who are the unclaimed? They can include those who are unhoused and those who do not leave enough money to cover cost of burial or cremation. In some cases, they don’t have a next of kin or their next of kin is unwilling or unable to pay for their burial or cremation. 

“Predominantly, these are going to be people who are poor or members of marginalized or vulnerable populations,” Dr. Shupe said. She estimated that about 80% of the people who die in poverty in her region, the Dallas–Fort Worth area, are Black or Hispanic individuals.

“It is alarming that we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to the increasing utility of unclaimed bodies,” said Joy Balta, PhD, associate professor of anatomy and founding director of Anatomy Learning Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, when asked to comment on the study. The hope is to rely solely on donated human bodies to ensure that donors have provided informed consent for their use in education, research, and clinical training. 

“These unclaimed bodies did not provide any consent, [which] raises ethical questions,” Dr. Balta said.
 

Key findings

In Texas in 2021, 43% of the cadavers in 14 medical schools studied came from unclaimed bodies. A total 14% of schools reported that they accepted unclaimed bodies, 28% possibly accepted them because they were transferred from institutions that use them, and the remaining 57% do not accept unclaimed bodies.

The total number and proportion of unclaimed bodies going to medical education in the study increased during the study. The 14% in 2021 was a jump from 2% in 2017, for example. 

The 14 medical schools studied included both public and private institutions. The investigators also looked at data from the Texas State Anatomical Board, which tracks how cadavers are attained and distributed in the state, including how many began as unclaimed bodies. 
 

Legal in most jurisdictions

Dr. Shupe first learned about what can happen to unclaimed bodies as a hospice volunteer. She was accompanying the hospice chaplain one day who said: “Poor Mr. Smith [not his real name] doesn’t have long, and then he’s off to the medical school.” Dr. Shupe asked what the chaplain meant because she was unaware of the practice. 

“I stumbled on this by chance, and it ended up being a really fruitful research area,” she added.
 

The bigger picture

Greater awareness is needed and there is not a lot of research out there, Dr. Shupe said. One exception is a 2018 study of medical schools nationwide that found 12.4% reported possible use of unclaimed bodies. 

Dr. DeCamp, an author of that previous research, said: “Knowing this practice continues is the most important thing for doctors and medical students to know.”

It remains unclear whether the COVID pandemic or the opioid epidemic contributed to the rise of unclaimed bodies going to medical training. That is a question for future study, Dr. Shupe said. 
 

Most bodies willingly donated

The majority of cadavers that go to medical training in the United States are ‘full body donors,’ people or relatives who agree to voluntarily send a body to medical schools. “We are fortunate to have a lot of people who are willing to become whole body donors,” she said.

Greater awareness about how donated cadavers could make a difference to further increase willful donations, Dr. Shupe said. “Honoring those gifts by allowing them to help train the next generation of doctors is a wonderful thing.”

A May 2023 study from Dr. Balta and colleagues on body donation programs in the United States “found that the number of whole-body donations have decreased in some states and the numbers are not enough to meet the needs for education, research and clinical training,” Dr. Balta said. This could explain the increasing use of unclaimed bodies. 

“Some medical schools have explicit educational interventions on this topic, and formally recognize the unclaimed at anatomical gift ceremonies,” Dr. DeCamp said. “More should.”

Research support was provided by the UTA. Dr. Shupe, Dr. Balta, and Dr. DeCamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers in France are warning against the overzealous use of acid-suppressing drugs in infants after finding that the medications are associated with an increase in risk of serious infections later in life.

The focus on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during infancy comes as use of the drugs in young children is rising in France, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the United States. Much of this use is not to manage confirmed cases of gastroesophageal reflux but rather to soothe the jangled nerves of parents of babies in discomfort, according to the researchers, who have studied national prescribing patterns. In addition to concerns about infection, inappropriate or prolonged use of the acid suppressants is also associated with an increase in the risk of such conditions as hospital-acquired acute kidney injury and inflammatory bowel diseases in children.

PPIs such as omeprazole are effective at reducing gastric acid in babies with gastroesophageal reflux disease. But the researchers warned against using the drugs to manage normal spitting up and dribbling that would have resolved of itself anyway.

“In this study, increased risk of serious infections was associated with PPI use in young children, overall and for various sites and pathogens. In this population, PPIs should not be used without a clear indication,” epidemiologist Marion Lassalle, PharmD, PhD, of EPI-PHARE in Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics.

Drawing on data from a national birth registry, Dr. Lassalle and colleagues compared infection rates among more than 1.2 million infants who received a PPI at an average age of 88 days with infection rates among children who received another kind of acid suppressant (a histamine receptor blocker or antacid) at an average age of 82 days. More than 600,000 children made up each group.

Slightly over half of the participants were boys, and the study followed children to a maximum age of 9 years. Among children who used PPIs rather than another acid suppressant, there was an overall higher rate of serious infections that required hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.36). There were higher rates of infections in the digestive tract; the ear, nose, and throat; the kidneys or urinary tract; the lower respiratory tract; and the nervous system.

Serious infections first appeared 9.7 (range, 3.9-21.3) months after a child stopped using a PPI – a date that Dr. Lassalle’s group determined on the basis of there being a delay of at least 90 days in filling a PPI prescription.
 

Possible confounders

“The study shows an association, it does not show causation,” said Rina Sanghavi, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Dr. Sanghavi noted that the children who continued taking PPIs generally were sicker in their first year of life, as shown by the higher rates of respiratory ailments and corticosteroid use. This could mean that the infections they eventually experienced had many causes and not necessarily the PPI.

Similarly, pediatric gastroenterologist Sophia Patel, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, pointed to the almost 10-month average lag time between stopping a PPI and developing a first serious infection. That interval is long enough that it is possible that the infection was caused by something else, Dr. Patel said.

Despite the limitations of the study, Dr. Sanghavi and Dr. Patel said the findings serve as a good reminder to clinicians to use PPIs only when needed and to limit their use once begun. The overall evidence base for limiting use of PPIs is strong, both physicians noted, even if this study does not show direct causation between PPI use and infection rates.

“Ask: Does this child need a PPI?” Dr. Sanghavi said. If so, she generally prescribes PPIs for a period of 2 weeks to a maximum of 2 months and she never authorizes automatic refills. Through this approach, a parent and child will come back to the clinic frequently, which in most cases allows faster tapering of the drugs.

Dr. Lassalle, Dr. Sanghavi, and Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Researchers in France are warning against the overzealous use of acid-suppressing drugs in infants after finding that the medications are associated with an increase in risk of serious infections later in life.

The focus on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during infancy comes as use of the drugs in young children is rising in France, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the United States. Much of this use is not to manage confirmed cases of gastroesophageal reflux but rather to soothe the jangled nerves of parents of babies in discomfort, according to the researchers, who have studied national prescribing patterns. In addition to concerns about infection, inappropriate or prolonged use of the acid suppressants is also associated with an increase in the risk of such conditions as hospital-acquired acute kidney injury and inflammatory bowel diseases in children.

PPIs such as omeprazole are effective at reducing gastric acid in babies with gastroesophageal reflux disease. But the researchers warned against using the drugs to manage normal spitting up and dribbling that would have resolved of itself anyway.

“In this study, increased risk of serious infections was associated with PPI use in young children, overall and for various sites and pathogens. In this population, PPIs should not be used without a clear indication,” epidemiologist Marion Lassalle, PharmD, PhD, of EPI-PHARE in Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics.

Drawing on data from a national birth registry, Dr. Lassalle and colleagues compared infection rates among more than 1.2 million infants who received a PPI at an average age of 88 days with infection rates among children who received another kind of acid suppressant (a histamine receptor blocker or antacid) at an average age of 82 days. More than 600,000 children made up each group.

Slightly over half of the participants were boys, and the study followed children to a maximum age of 9 years. Among children who used PPIs rather than another acid suppressant, there was an overall higher rate of serious infections that required hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.36). There were higher rates of infections in the digestive tract; the ear, nose, and throat; the kidneys or urinary tract; the lower respiratory tract; and the nervous system.

Serious infections first appeared 9.7 (range, 3.9-21.3) months after a child stopped using a PPI – a date that Dr. Lassalle’s group determined on the basis of there being a delay of at least 90 days in filling a PPI prescription.
 

Possible confounders

“The study shows an association, it does not show causation,” said Rina Sanghavi, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Dr. Sanghavi noted that the children who continued taking PPIs generally were sicker in their first year of life, as shown by the higher rates of respiratory ailments and corticosteroid use. This could mean that the infections they eventually experienced had many causes and not necessarily the PPI.

Similarly, pediatric gastroenterologist Sophia Patel, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, pointed to the almost 10-month average lag time between stopping a PPI and developing a first serious infection. That interval is long enough that it is possible that the infection was caused by something else, Dr. Patel said.

Despite the limitations of the study, Dr. Sanghavi and Dr. Patel said the findings serve as a good reminder to clinicians to use PPIs only when needed and to limit their use once begun. The overall evidence base for limiting use of PPIs is strong, both physicians noted, even if this study does not show direct causation between PPI use and infection rates.

“Ask: Does this child need a PPI?” Dr. Sanghavi said. If so, she generally prescribes PPIs for a period of 2 weeks to a maximum of 2 months and she never authorizes automatic refills. Through this approach, a parent and child will come back to the clinic frequently, which in most cases allows faster tapering of the drugs.

Dr. Lassalle, Dr. Sanghavi, and Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Researchers in France are warning against the overzealous use of acid-suppressing drugs in infants after finding that the medications are associated with an increase in risk of serious infections later in life.

The focus on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during infancy comes as use of the drugs in young children is rising in France, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the United States. Much of this use is not to manage confirmed cases of gastroesophageal reflux but rather to soothe the jangled nerves of parents of babies in discomfort, according to the researchers, who have studied national prescribing patterns. In addition to concerns about infection, inappropriate or prolonged use of the acid suppressants is also associated with an increase in the risk of such conditions as hospital-acquired acute kidney injury and inflammatory bowel diseases in children.

PPIs such as omeprazole are effective at reducing gastric acid in babies with gastroesophageal reflux disease. But the researchers warned against using the drugs to manage normal spitting up and dribbling that would have resolved of itself anyway.

“In this study, increased risk of serious infections was associated with PPI use in young children, overall and for various sites and pathogens. In this population, PPIs should not be used without a clear indication,” epidemiologist Marion Lassalle, PharmD, PhD, of EPI-PHARE in Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics.

Drawing on data from a national birth registry, Dr. Lassalle and colleagues compared infection rates among more than 1.2 million infants who received a PPI at an average age of 88 days with infection rates among children who received another kind of acid suppressant (a histamine receptor blocker or antacid) at an average age of 82 days. More than 600,000 children made up each group.

Slightly over half of the participants were boys, and the study followed children to a maximum age of 9 years. Among children who used PPIs rather than another acid suppressant, there was an overall higher rate of serious infections that required hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.36). There were higher rates of infections in the digestive tract; the ear, nose, and throat; the kidneys or urinary tract; the lower respiratory tract; and the nervous system.

Serious infections first appeared 9.7 (range, 3.9-21.3) months after a child stopped using a PPI – a date that Dr. Lassalle’s group determined on the basis of there being a delay of at least 90 days in filling a PPI prescription.
 

Possible confounders

“The study shows an association, it does not show causation,” said Rina Sanghavi, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Dr. Sanghavi noted that the children who continued taking PPIs generally were sicker in their first year of life, as shown by the higher rates of respiratory ailments and corticosteroid use. This could mean that the infections they eventually experienced had many causes and not necessarily the PPI.

Similarly, pediatric gastroenterologist Sophia Patel, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, pointed to the almost 10-month average lag time between stopping a PPI and developing a first serious infection. That interval is long enough that it is possible that the infection was caused by something else, Dr. Patel said.

Despite the limitations of the study, Dr. Sanghavi and Dr. Patel said the findings serve as a good reminder to clinicians to use PPIs only when needed and to limit their use once begun. The overall evidence base for limiting use of PPIs is strong, both physicians noted, even if this study does not show direct causation between PPI use and infection rates.

“Ask: Does this child need a PPI?” Dr. Sanghavi said. If so, she generally prescribes PPIs for a period of 2 weeks to a maximum of 2 months and she never authorizes automatic refills. Through this approach, a parent and child will come back to the clinic frequently, which in most cases allows faster tapering of the drugs.

Dr. Lassalle, Dr. Sanghavi, and Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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