MDedge Psychiatry

Incorporating eye-tracking biomarkers into pediatric autism assessments may make identifying the condition easier, according to new findings published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers created an artificial intelligence–based tool to help primary care clinicians and pediatricians spot potential cases of the neurological condition, according to Brandon Keehn, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and an author of the study.

Most primary care clinicians do not receive specialized training in identifying autism, and around a third diagnose the condition with uncertainty, according to Dr. Keehn. The tool helps clinicians by incorporating their diagnosis and self-reported level of certainty with eye-tracking biomarkers. A clinical psychologist also assessed children, either verifying or confuting the earlier results.

The tool produced the same diagnosis as that from a psychologist in 90% of cases. When children were assessed using eye biomarkers alone, the diagnosis was aligned with that of a psychologist 77% of the time.

“This is the first step in demonstrating both that eye-tracking biomarkers are sensitive to autism and whether or not these biomarkers provide extra clinical information for primary care physicians to more accurately diagnose autism,” Dr. Keehn told this news organization.

The study took place between 2019 and 2022 and included 146 children between 14 and 48 months old who were treated at seven primary care practices in Indiana. Dr. Keehn and colleagues asked primary care clinicians to rate their level of certainty in their diagnosis.

During the biomarker test, toddlers watched cartoons while researchers tracked their eye movements. Six biomarkers included in the test were based on previous research linking eye movements to autism, according to Dr. Keehn.

These included whether toddlers looked more at images of people or geometric patterns and the speed and size of pupil dilation when exposed to bright light.

Most toddlers produced a positive result for autism in only one biomarker test. Dr. Keehn said this confirms that children should be tested for a variety of biomarkers because each patient’s condition manifests differently.

Dr. Keehn said his team is still a few steps away from determining how the model would work in a real clinical setting and that they are planning more research with a larger study population.

Alice Kuo, MD, a pediatrician specializing in autism at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), said primary care clinicians should feel comfortable making an autism diagnosis.

“Any tool that helps them to do that can be useful, since wait times for a specialist can take years,” Dr. Kuo, also the director of the Autism Intervention Research Network on Physical Health at UCLA, said.

However, Dr. Kuo said she is concerned about the cases that were falsely identified as positive or negative.

“To be told your kid is autistic when he’s not, or to be told your kid is not when he clinically is, has huge ramifications,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Riley Children’s Foundation, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. Dr. Keehn reported payments for workshops on the use of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Incorporating eye-tracking biomarkers into pediatric autism assessments may make identifying the condition easier, according to new findings published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers created an artificial intelligence–based tool to help primary care clinicians and pediatricians spot potential cases of the neurological condition, according to Brandon Keehn, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and an author of the study.

Most primary care clinicians do not receive specialized training in identifying autism, and around a third diagnose the condition with uncertainty, according to Dr. Keehn. The tool helps clinicians by incorporating their diagnosis and self-reported level of certainty with eye-tracking biomarkers. A clinical psychologist also assessed children, either verifying or confuting the earlier results.

The tool produced the same diagnosis as that from a psychologist in 90% of cases. When children were assessed using eye biomarkers alone, the diagnosis was aligned with that of a psychologist 77% of the time.

“This is the first step in demonstrating both that eye-tracking biomarkers are sensitive to autism and whether or not these biomarkers provide extra clinical information for primary care physicians to more accurately diagnose autism,” Dr. Keehn told this news organization.

The study took place between 2019 and 2022 and included 146 children between 14 and 48 months old who were treated at seven primary care practices in Indiana. Dr. Keehn and colleagues asked primary care clinicians to rate their level of certainty in their diagnosis.

During the biomarker test, toddlers watched cartoons while researchers tracked their eye movements. Six biomarkers included in the test were based on previous research linking eye movements to autism, according to Dr. Keehn.

These included whether toddlers looked more at images of people or geometric patterns and the speed and size of pupil dilation when exposed to bright light.

Most toddlers produced a positive result for autism in only one biomarker test. Dr. Keehn said this confirms that children should be tested for a variety of biomarkers because each patient’s condition manifests differently.

Dr. Keehn said his team is still a few steps away from determining how the model would work in a real clinical setting and that they are planning more research with a larger study population.

Alice Kuo, MD, a pediatrician specializing in autism at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), said primary care clinicians should feel comfortable making an autism diagnosis.

“Any tool that helps them to do that can be useful, since wait times for a specialist can take years,” Dr. Kuo, also the director of the Autism Intervention Research Network on Physical Health at UCLA, said.

However, Dr. Kuo said she is concerned about the cases that were falsely identified as positive or negative.

“To be told your kid is autistic when he’s not, or to be told your kid is not when he clinically is, has huge ramifications,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Riley Children’s Foundation, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. Dr. Keehn reported payments for workshops on the use of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Incorporating eye-tracking biomarkers into pediatric autism assessments may make identifying the condition easier, according to new findings published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers created an artificial intelligence–based tool to help primary care clinicians and pediatricians spot potential cases of the neurological condition, according to Brandon Keehn, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and an author of the study.

Most primary care clinicians do not receive specialized training in identifying autism, and around a third diagnose the condition with uncertainty, according to Dr. Keehn. The tool helps clinicians by incorporating their diagnosis and self-reported level of certainty with eye-tracking biomarkers. A clinical psychologist also assessed children, either verifying or confuting the earlier results.

The tool produced the same diagnosis as that from a psychologist in 90% of cases. When children were assessed using eye biomarkers alone, the diagnosis was aligned with that of a psychologist 77% of the time.

“This is the first step in demonstrating both that eye-tracking biomarkers are sensitive to autism and whether or not these biomarkers provide extra clinical information for primary care physicians to more accurately diagnose autism,” Dr. Keehn told this news organization.

The study took place between 2019 and 2022 and included 146 children between 14 and 48 months old who were treated at seven primary care practices in Indiana. Dr. Keehn and colleagues asked primary care clinicians to rate their level of certainty in their diagnosis.

During the biomarker test, toddlers watched cartoons while researchers tracked their eye movements. Six biomarkers included in the test were based on previous research linking eye movements to autism, according to Dr. Keehn.

These included whether toddlers looked more at images of people or geometric patterns and the speed and size of pupil dilation when exposed to bright light.

Most toddlers produced a positive result for autism in only one biomarker test. Dr. Keehn said this confirms that children should be tested for a variety of biomarkers because each patient’s condition manifests differently.

Dr. Keehn said his team is still a few steps away from determining how the model would work in a real clinical setting and that they are planning more research with a larger study population.

Alice Kuo, MD, a pediatrician specializing in autism at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), said primary care clinicians should feel comfortable making an autism diagnosis.

“Any tool that helps them to do that can be useful, since wait times for a specialist can take years,” Dr. Kuo, also the director of the Autism Intervention Research Network on Physical Health at UCLA, said.

However, Dr. Kuo said she is concerned about the cases that were falsely identified as positive or negative.

“To be told your kid is autistic when he’s not, or to be told your kid is not when he clinically is, has huge ramifications,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Riley Children’s Foundation, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. Dr. Keehn reported payments for workshops on the use of the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Consuming highly processed foods may be harmful to the aging brain, independent of other risk factors for adverse neurologic outcomes and adherence to recommended dietary patterns, new research suggests.

Observations from a large cohort of adults followed for more than 10 years suggested that eating more ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) may increase the risk for cognitive decline and stroke, while eating more unprocessed or minimally processed foods may lower the risk.

“The first key takeaway is that the type of food that we eat matters for brain health, but it’s equally important to think about how it’s made and handled when thinking about brain health,” said study investigator W. Taylor Kimberly, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“The second is that it’s not just all a bad news story because while increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment and stroke, unprocessed foods appear to be protective,” Dr. Kimberly added.

The study was published online on May 22 in Neurology.
 

Food Processing Matters

UPFs are highly manipulated, low in protein and fiber, and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include meats such as simple cuts of beef, pork, and chicken, and vegetables and fruits.

Research has shown associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk for metabolic and neurologic disorders.

As reported previously, in the ELSA-Brasil study, higher intake of UPFs was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

Yet, it’s unclear whether the extent of food processing contributes to the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes independent of dietary patterns.

Dr. Kimberly and colleagues examined the association of food processing levels with the risk for cognitive impairment and stroke in the long-running REGARDS study, a large prospective US cohort of Black and White adults aged 45 years and older.

Food processing levels were defined by the NOVA food classification system, which ranges from unprocessed or minimally processed foods (NOVA1) to UPFs (NOVA4). Dietary patterns were characterized based on food frequency questionnaires.

In the cognitive impairment cohort, 768 of 14,175 adults without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing developed cognitive impairment.
 

Diet an Opportunity to Protect Brain Health

In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, high blood pressure, and other factors, a 10% increase in relative intake of UPFs was associated with a 16% higher risk for cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16). Conversely, a higher intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 12% lower risk for cognitive impairment (HR, 0.88).

In the stroke cohort, 1108 of 20,243 adults without a history of stroke had a stroke during the follow-up.

In multivariable Cox models, greater intake of UPFs was associated with an 8% increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.08), while greater intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 9% lower risk for stroke (HR, 0.91).

The effect of UPFs on stroke risk was greater among Black than among White adults (UPF-by-race interaction HR, 1.15).

The associations between UPFs and both cognitive impairment and stroke were independent of adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

These results “highlight the possibility that we have the capacity to maintain our brain health and prevent poor brain health outcomes by focusing on unprocessed foods in the long term,” Dr. Kimberly said.

He cautioned that this was “an observational study and not an interventional study, so we can’t say with certainty that substituting ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods will definitively improve brain health,” Dr. Kimberly said. “That’s a clinical trial question that has not been done but our results certainly are provocative.”
 

Consider UPFs in National Guidelines?

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the “robust” results from Kimberly and colleagues highlight the “significant role of food processing levels and their relationship with adverse neurologic outcomes, independent of conventional dietary patterns.”

Peipei Gao, MS, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Zhendong Mei, PhD, with Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted that the mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on adverse neurologic outcomes “can be attributed not only to their nutritional profiles,” including poor nutrient composition and high glycemic load, “but also to the presence of additives including emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and nitrates/nitrites, which have been associated with disruptions in the gut microbial ecosystem and inflammation.

“Understanding how food processing levels are associated with human health offers a fresh take on the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ ” the editorialists wrote.

This new study, they noted, adds to the evidence by highlighting the link between UPFs and brain health, independent of traditional dietary patterns and “raises questions about whether considerations of UPFs should be included in dietary guidelines, as well as national and global public health policies for improving brain health.”

The editorialists called for large prospective population studies and randomized controlled trials to better understand the link between UPF consumption and brain health. “In addition, mechanistic studies are warranted to identify specific foods, detrimental processes, and additives that play a role in UPFs and their association with neurologic disorders,” they concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming highly processed foods may be harmful to the aging brain, independent of other risk factors for adverse neurologic outcomes and adherence to recommended dietary patterns, new research suggests.

Observations from a large cohort of adults followed for more than 10 years suggested that eating more ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) may increase the risk for cognitive decline and stroke, while eating more unprocessed or minimally processed foods may lower the risk.

“The first key takeaway is that the type of food that we eat matters for brain health, but it’s equally important to think about how it’s made and handled when thinking about brain health,” said study investigator W. Taylor Kimberly, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“The second is that it’s not just all a bad news story because while increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment and stroke, unprocessed foods appear to be protective,” Dr. Kimberly added.

The study was published online on May 22 in Neurology.
 

Food Processing Matters

UPFs are highly manipulated, low in protein and fiber, and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include meats such as simple cuts of beef, pork, and chicken, and vegetables and fruits.

Research has shown associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk for metabolic and neurologic disorders.

As reported previously, in the ELSA-Brasil study, higher intake of UPFs was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

Yet, it’s unclear whether the extent of food processing contributes to the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes independent of dietary patterns.

Dr. Kimberly and colleagues examined the association of food processing levels with the risk for cognitive impairment and stroke in the long-running REGARDS study, a large prospective US cohort of Black and White adults aged 45 years and older.

Food processing levels were defined by the NOVA food classification system, which ranges from unprocessed or minimally processed foods (NOVA1) to UPFs (NOVA4). Dietary patterns were characterized based on food frequency questionnaires.

In the cognitive impairment cohort, 768 of 14,175 adults without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing developed cognitive impairment.
 

Diet an Opportunity to Protect Brain Health

In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, high blood pressure, and other factors, a 10% increase in relative intake of UPFs was associated with a 16% higher risk for cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16). Conversely, a higher intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 12% lower risk for cognitive impairment (HR, 0.88).

In the stroke cohort, 1108 of 20,243 adults without a history of stroke had a stroke during the follow-up.

In multivariable Cox models, greater intake of UPFs was associated with an 8% increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.08), while greater intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 9% lower risk for stroke (HR, 0.91).

The effect of UPFs on stroke risk was greater among Black than among White adults (UPF-by-race interaction HR, 1.15).

The associations between UPFs and both cognitive impairment and stroke were independent of adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

These results “highlight the possibility that we have the capacity to maintain our brain health and prevent poor brain health outcomes by focusing on unprocessed foods in the long term,” Dr. Kimberly said.

He cautioned that this was “an observational study and not an interventional study, so we can’t say with certainty that substituting ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods will definitively improve brain health,” Dr. Kimberly said. “That’s a clinical trial question that has not been done but our results certainly are provocative.”
 

Consider UPFs in National Guidelines?

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the “robust” results from Kimberly and colleagues highlight the “significant role of food processing levels and their relationship with adverse neurologic outcomes, independent of conventional dietary patterns.”

Peipei Gao, MS, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Zhendong Mei, PhD, with Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted that the mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on adverse neurologic outcomes “can be attributed not only to their nutritional profiles,” including poor nutrient composition and high glycemic load, “but also to the presence of additives including emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and nitrates/nitrites, which have been associated with disruptions in the gut microbial ecosystem and inflammation.

“Understanding how food processing levels are associated with human health offers a fresh take on the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ ” the editorialists wrote.

This new study, they noted, adds to the evidence by highlighting the link between UPFs and brain health, independent of traditional dietary patterns and “raises questions about whether considerations of UPFs should be included in dietary guidelines, as well as national and global public health policies for improving brain health.”

The editorialists called for large prospective population studies and randomized controlled trials to better understand the link between UPF consumption and brain health. “In addition, mechanistic studies are warranted to identify specific foods, detrimental processes, and additives that play a role in UPFs and their association with neurologic disorders,” they concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming highly processed foods may be harmful to the aging brain, independent of other risk factors for adverse neurologic outcomes and adherence to recommended dietary patterns, new research suggests.

Observations from a large cohort of adults followed for more than 10 years suggested that eating more ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) may increase the risk for cognitive decline and stroke, while eating more unprocessed or minimally processed foods may lower the risk.

“The first key takeaway is that the type of food that we eat matters for brain health, but it’s equally important to think about how it’s made and handled when thinking about brain health,” said study investigator W. Taylor Kimberly, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“The second is that it’s not just all a bad news story because while increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment and stroke, unprocessed foods appear to be protective,” Dr. Kimberly added.

The study was published online on May 22 in Neurology.
 

Food Processing Matters

UPFs are highly manipulated, low in protein and fiber, and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include meats such as simple cuts of beef, pork, and chicken, and vegetables and fruits.

Research has shown associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk for metabolic and neurologic disorders.

As reported previously, in the ELSA-Brasil study, higher intake of UPFs was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

Yet, it’s unclear whether the extent of food processing contributes to the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes independent of dietary patterns.

Dr. Kimberly and colleagues examined the association of food processing levels with the risk for cognitive impairment and stroke in the long-running REGARDS study, a large prospective US cohort of Black and White adults aged 45 years and older.

Food processing levels were defined by the NOVA food classification system, which ranges from unprocessed or minimally processed foods (NOVA1) to UPFs (NOVA4). Dietary patterns were characterized based on food frequency questionnaires.

In the cognitive impairment cohort, 768 of 14,175 adults without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing developed cognitive impairment.
 

Diet an Opportunity to Protect Brain Health

In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, high blood pressure, and other factors, a 10% increase in relative intake of UPFs was associated with a 16% higher risk for cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16). Conversely, a higher intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 12% lower risk for cognitive impairment (HR, 0.88).

In the stroke cohort, 1108 of 20,243 adults without a history of stroke had a stroke during the follow-up.

In multivariable Cox models, greater intake of UPFs was associated with an 8% increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.08), while greater intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 9% lower risk for stroke (HR, 0.91).

The effect of UPFs on stroke risk was greater among Black than among White adults (UPF-by-race interaction HR, 1.15).

The associations between UPFs and both cognitive impairment and stroke were independent of adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

These results “highlight the possibility that we have the capacity to maintain our brain health and prevent poor brain health outcomes by focusing on unprocessed foods in the long term,” Dr. Kimberly said.

He cautioned that this was “an observational study and not an interventional study, so we can’t say with certainty that substituting ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods will definitively improve brain health,” Dr. Kimberly said. “That’s a clinical trial question that has not been done but our results certainly are provocative.”
 

Consider UPFs in National Guidelines?

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the “robust” results from Kimberly and colleagues highlight the “significant role of food processing levels and their relationship with adverse neurologic outcomes, independent of conventional dietary patterns.”

Peipei Gao, MS, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Zhendong Mei, PhD, with Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted that the mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on adverse neurologic outcomes “can be attributed not only to their nutritional profiles,” including poor nutrient composition and high glycemic load, “but also to the presence of additives including emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and nitrates/nitrites, which have been associated with disruptions in the gut microbial ecosystem and inflammation.

“Understanding how food processing levels are associated with human health offers a fresh take on the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ ” the editorialists wrote.

This new study, they noted, adds to the evidence by highlighting the link between UPFs and brain health, independent of traditional dietary patterns and “raises questions about whether considerations of UPFs should be included in dietary guidelines, as well as national and global public health policies for improving brain health.”

The editorialists called for large prospective population studies and randomized controlled trials to better understand the link between UPF consumption and brain health. “In addition, mechanistic studies are warranted to identify specific foods, detrimental processes, and additives that play a role in UPFs and their association with neurologic disorders,” they concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first of May is marked as the World Maternal Mental Health Day, a time for patient groups, medical societies, clinicians, and other colleagues who care for women to highlight maternal mental health and to advocate for increased awareness, enhanced access to care, decrease in stigma, and development of the most effective treatments.

In this spirit, and within the context of greater mental health awareness, I wanted to highlight the ironic dichotomy we see in reproductive psychiatry today. Namely, although we have many useful treatments available in the field to treat maternal psychiatric illness, there are barriers to accessing mental healthcare that prevent women from receiving treatment and getting well.

Thinking back on the last few years from the other side of the pandemic, when COVID concerns turned the experience of motherhood on its side in so many ways, we can only acknowledge that it is an important time in the field of reproductive psychiatry. We have seen not only the development of new pharmacologic (neurosteroids) and nonpharmacologic therapies (transcranial magnetic stimulation, cognitive-behaviorial therapy for perinatal depression), but also the focus on new digital apps for perinatal depression that may be scalable and that may help bridge the voids in access to effective treatment from the most rural to the most urban settings.

In a previous column, I wrote about the potential difficulties of identifying at-risk women with postpartum psychiatric illness, particularly within the context of disparate data collection methods and management of data. Hospital systems that favor paper screening methods rather than digital platforms pose special problems. I also noted an even larger concern: namely, once screened, it can be very challenging to engage women with postpartum depression in treatment, and women may ultimately not navigate to care for a variety of reasons. These components are but one part of the so-called “perinatal treatment cascade.” When we look at access to care, patients would ideally move from depression screening as an example and, following endorsement of significant symptoms, would receive a referral, which would result in the patient being seen, followed up, and getting well. But that is not what is happening.

A recent preliminary study published as a short communication in the Archives of Women’s Mental Health highlighted this issue. The authors used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to follow symptoms of depression in 145 pregnant women in ob.gyn. services, and found that there were low levels of adherence to psychiatric screenings and referrals in the perinatal period. Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found 30.8% of women with postpartum depression were identified clinically, 15.8% received treatment, and 3.2% achieved remission. That is the gulf, in 2024, that we have not managed to bridge.

The findings show the difficulty women experience accessing perinatal mental health resources. While we’ve known for a long time that the “perinatal treatment cascade” is real, what we don’t understand are the variables in the mix, particularly for patients in marginalized groups. We also do not know where women fall off the curve with regard to accessing care. In my mind, if we’re going to make a difference, we need to know the answer to that question.

Part of the issue is that the research into understanding why women fall off the curve is incomplete. You cannot simply hand a sheet to a woman with an EPDS score of 12 who’s depressed and has a newborn and expect her to navigate to care. What we should really be doing is investing in care navigation for women.

The situation is analogous to diagnosing and treating cardiac abnormalities in a catheterization laboratory. If a patient has a blocked coronary artery and needs a stent, then they need to go to the cath lab. We haven’t yet figured out the process in reproductive psychiatry to optimize the likelihood that patients will be screened and then referred to receive the best available treatment.

Some of our ob.gyn. colleagues have been working to improve access to perinatal mental health services, such as offering on-site services, and offering training and services to patients and providers on screening, assessment, and treatment. At the Center for Women’s Mental Health, we are conducting the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression study, which is a universal screening and referral program for women at our center. While some progress is being made, there are still far too many women who are falling through the cracks and not receiving the care they need.

It is both ironic and sad that the growing number of available treatments in reproductive psychiatry are scalable, yet we haven’t figured out how to facilitate access to care. While we should be excited about new treatments, we also need to take the time to understand what the barriers are for at-risk women accessing mental healthcare in the postpartum period.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The first of May is marked as the World Maternal Mental Health Day, a time for patient groups, medical societies, clinicians, and other colleagues who care for women to highlight maternal mental health and to advocate for increased awareness, enhanced access to care, decrease in stigma, and development of the most effective treatments.

In this spirit, and within the context of greater mental health awareness, I wanted to highlight the ironic dichotomy we see in reproductive psychiatry today. Namely, although we have many useful treatments available in the field to treat maternal psychiatric illness, there are barriers to accessing mental healthcare that prevent women from receiving treatment and getting well.

Thinking back on the last few years from the other side of the pandemic, when COVID concerns turned the experience of motherhood on its side in so many ways, we can only acknowledge that it is an important time in the field of reproductive psychiatry. We have seen not only the development of new pharmacologic (neurosteroids) and nonpharmacologic therapies (transcranial magnetic stimulation, cognitive-behaviorial therapy for perinatal depression), but also the focus on new digital apps for perinatal depression that may be scalable and that may help bridge the voids in access to effective treatment from the most rural to the most urban settings.

In a previous column, I wrote about the potential difficulties of identifying at-risk women with postpartum psychiatric illness, particularly within the context of disparate data collection methods and management of data. Hospital systems that favor paper screening methods rather than digital platforms pose special problems. I also noted an even larger concern: namely, once screened, it can be very challenging to engage women with postpartum depression in treatment, and women may ultimately not navigate to care for a variety of reasons. These components are but one part of the so-called “perinatal treatment cascade.” When we look at access to care, patients would ideally move from depression screening as an example and, following endorsement of significant symptoms, would receive a referral, which would result in the patient being seen, followed up, and getting well. But that is not what is happening.

A recent preliminary study published as a short communication in the Archives of Women’s Mental Health highlighted this issue. The authors used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to follow symptoms of depression in 145 pregnant women in ob.gyn. services, and found that there were low levels of adherence to psychiatric screenings and referrals in the perinatal period. Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found 30.8% of women with postpartum depression were identified clinically, 15.8% received treatment, and 3.2% achieved remission. That is the gulf, in 2024, that we have not managed to bridge.

The findings show the difficulty women experience accessing perinatal mental health resources. While we’ve known for a long time that the “perinatal treatment cascade” is real, what we don’t understand are the variables in the mix, particularly for patients in marginalized groups. We also do not know where women fall off the curve with regard to accessing care. In my mind, if we’re going to make a difference, we need to know the answer to that question.

Part of the issue is that the research into understanding why women fall off the curve is incomplete. You cannot simply hand a sheet to a woman with an EPDS score of 12 who’s depressed and has a newborn and expect her to navigate to care. What we should really be doing is investing in care navigation for women.

The situation is analogous to diagnosing and treating cardiac abnormalities in a catheterization laboratory. If a patient has a blocked coronary artery and needs a stent, then they need to go to the cath lab. We haven’t yet figured out the process in reproductive psychiatry to optimize the likelihood that patients will be screened and then referred to receive the best available treatment.

Some of our ob.gyn. colleagues have been working to improve access to perinatal mental health services, such as offering on-site services, and offering training and services to patients and providers on screening, assessment, and treatment. At the Center for Women’s Mental Health, we are conducting the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression study, which is a universal screening and referral program for women at our center. While some progress is being made, there are still far too many women who are falling through the cracks and not receiving the care they need.

It is both ironic and sad that the growing number of available treatments in reproductive psychiatry are scalable, yet we haven’t figured out how to facilitate access to care. While we should be excited about new treatments, we also need to take the time to understand what the barriers are for at-risk women accessing mental healthcare in the postpartum period.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The first of May is marked as the World Maternal Mental Health Day, a time for patient groups, medical societies, clinicians, and other colleagues who care for women to highlight maternal mental health and to advocate for increased awareness, enhanced access to care, decrease in stigma, and development of the most effective treatments.

In this spirit, and within the context of greater mental health awareness, I wanted to highlight the ironic dichotomy we see in reproductive psychiatry today. Namely, although we have many useful treatments available in the field to treat maternal psychiatric illness, there are barriers to accessing mental healthcare that prevent women from receiving treatment and getting well.

Thinking back on the last few years from the other side of the pandemic, when COVID concerns turned the experience of motherhood on its side in so many ways, we can only acknowledge that it is an important time in the field of reproductive psychiatry. We have seen not only the development of new pharmacologic (neurosteroids) and nonpharmacologic therapies (transcranial magnetic stimulation, cognitive-behaviorial therapy for perinatal depression), but also the focus on new digital apps for perinatal depression that may be scalable and that may help bridge the voids in access to effective treatment from the most rural to the most urban settings.

In a previous column, I wrote about the potential difficulties of identifying at-risk women with postpartum psychiatric illness, particularly within the context of disparate data collection methods and management of data. Hospital systems that favor paper screening methods rather than digital platforms pose special problems. I also noted an even larger concern: namely, once screened, it can be very challenging to engage women with postpartum depression in treatment, and women may ultimately not navigate to care for a variety of reasons. These components are but one part of the so-called “perinatal treatment cascade.” When we look at access to care, patients would ideally move from depression screening as an example and, following endorsement of significant symptoms, would receive a referral, which would result in the patient being seen, followed up, and getting well. But that is not what is happening.

A recent preliminary study published as a short communication in the Archives of Women’s Mental Health highlighted this issue. The authors used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to follow symptoms of depression in 145 pregnant women in ob.gyn. services, and found that there were low levels of adherence to psychiatric screenings and referrals in the perinatal period. Another study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found 30.8% of women with postpartum depression were identified clinically, 15.8% received treatment, and 3.2% achieved remission. That is the gulf, in 2024, that we have not managed to bridge.

The findings show the difficulty women experience accessing perinatal mental health resources. While we’ve known for a long time that the “perinatal treatment cascade” is real, what we don’t understand are the variables in the mix, particularly for patients in marginalized groups. We also do not know where women fall off the curve with regard to accessing care. In my mind, if we’re going to make a difference, we need to know the answer to that question.

Part of the issue is that the research into understanding why women fall off the curve is incomplete. You cannot simply hand a sheet to a woman with an EPDS score of 12 who’s depressed and has a newborn and expect her to navigate to care. What we should really be doing is investing in care navigation for women.

The situation is analogous to diagnosing and treating cardiac abnormalities in a catheterization laboratory. If a patient has a blocked coronary artery and needs a stent, then they need to go to the cath lab. We haven’t yet figured out the process in reproductive psychiatry to optimize the likelihood that patients will be screened and then referred to receive the best available treatment.

Some of our ob.gyn. colleagues have been working to improve access to perinatal mental health services, such as offering on-site services, and offering training and services to patients and providers on screening, assessment, and treatment. At the Center for Women’s Mental Health, we are conducting the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression study, which is a universal screening and referral program for women at our center. While some progress is being made, there are still far too many women who are falling through the cracks and not receiving the care they need.

It is both ironic and sad that the growing number of available treatments in reproductive psychiatry are scalable, yet we haven’t figured out how to facilitate access to care. While we should be excited about new treatments, we also need to take the time to understand what the barriers are for at-risk women accessing mental healthcare in the postpartum period.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

In April, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), by a vote of 3-2, opened a long-anticipated can of worms by approving its final rule that effectively bans employers’ use of all non-compete agreements (with very limited exceptions). The final rule will not go into effect until 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which took place on May 7, and numerous legal challenges appear to be on the horizon.

The principal components of the rule are as follows:

• After the effective date, most non-compete agreements (which prevent departing employees from signing with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area) are banned nationwide.
• The rule exempts certain “senior executives,” ie individuals who earn more than $151,164 annually and serve in policy-making positions.
• There is another major exception for non-competes connected with a sale of a business.
• While not explicitly stated, the rule arguably exempts non-profits, tax-exempt hospitals, and other tax-exempt entities.
• Employers must provide verbal and written notice to employees regarding existing agreements, which would be voided under the rule.

The final rule is the latest skirmish in an ongoing, years-long debate. Twelve states have already put non-compete bans in place, according to a recent paper, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each state rule varies in its specifics as states respond to local market conditions. While some states ban all non-compete agreements outright, others limit them based on variables, such as income and employment circumstances. Of course, should the federal ban take effect, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In April, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), by a vote of 3-2, opened a long-anticipated can of worms by approving its final rule that effectively bans employers’ use of all non-compete agreements (with very limited exceptions). The final rule will not go into effect until 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which took place on May 7, and numerous legal challenges appear to be on the horizon.

The principal components of the rule are as follows:

• After the effective date, most non-compete agreements (which prevent departing employees from signing with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area) are banned nationwide.
• The rule exempts certain “senior executives,” ie individuals who earn more than $151,164 annually and serve in policy-making positions.
• There is another major exception for non-competes connected with a sale of a business.
• While not explicitly stated, the rule arguably exempts non-profits, tax-exempt hospitals, and other tax-exempt entities.
• Employers must provide verbal and written notice to employees regarding existing agreements, which would be voided under the rule.

The final rule is the latest skirmish in an ongoing, years-long debate. Twelve states have already put non-compete bans in place, according to a recent paper, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each state rule varies in its specifics as states respond to local market conditions. While some states ban all non-compete agreements outright, others limit them based on variables, such as income and employment circumstances. Of course, should the federal ban take effect, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In April, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), by a vote of 3-2, opened a long-anticipated can of worms by approving its final rule that effectively bans employers’ use of all non-compete agreements (with very limited exceptions). The final rule will not go into effect until 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which took place on May 7, and numerous legal challenges appear to be on the horizon.

The principal components of the rule are as follows:

• After the effective date, most non-compete agreements (which prevent departing employees from signing with a new employer for a defined period within a specific geographic area) are banned nationwide.
• The rule exempts certain “senior executives,” ie individuals who earn more than $151,164 annually and serve in policy-making positions.
• There is another major exception for non-competes connected with a sale of a business.
• While not explicitly stated, the rule arguably exempts non-profits, tax-exempt hospitals, and other tax-exempt entities.
• Employers must provide verbal and written notice to employees regarding existing agreements, which would be voided under the rule.

The final rule is the latest skirmish in an ongoing, years-long debate. Twelve states have already put non-compete bans in place, according to a recent paper, and they may serve as a harbinger of things to come should the federal ban go into effect. Each state rule varies in its specifics as states respond to local market conditions. While some states ban all non-compete agreements outright, others limit them based on variables, such as income and employment circumstances. Of course, should the federal ban take effect, it will supersede whatever rules the individual states have in place.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

PHOENIX — Certain minority populations may be at a higher absolute risk of being prescribed opioids after undergoing dermatologic surgery, according to a new study. The study also found that patients who do receive opioids postoperatively are at an increased risk for chronic opioid use and complications.

This report represents the largest analysis to date of opioid prescribing after dermatologic surgery, said lead author Kyle C. Lauck, MD, a dermatology resident at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. “Females, African Americans, and Latino patients may be at a higher risk of opioid prescription after dermatologic surgery. Surgeons should be aware of these populations and the risks they face when determining candidacy for postsurgical opioid analgesia.”

He presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The opioid epidemic is a concern across all areas of medicine, and the majority of opioid prescriptions in dermatology are given following surgery. Dr. Lauck noted that even though guidelines delegate opioids as second line for pain control, the existing data on opioid prescribing in dermatologic surgery is mixed. For example, some reports have shown that up to 58% of patients receive opioids postoperatively. “No consensus exists when we should routinely give opioids to these patients,” he said.

Even though most surgeons prescribe short courses of opioids, even brief regimens are associated with increased risks for overuse and substance abuse. Population-level data are limited concerning opioid prescriptions in dermatologic surgery, and in particular, there is an absence of data on the risk for long-term complications associated with use.

Certain Populations at Risk

To evaluate opioid prescription rates in dermatologic surgery, focusing on disparities between demographic populations, as well as the risk for long-term complications of postoperative opioid prescriptions, Dr. Lauck and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included 914,721 dermatologic surgery patients, with billing codes for Mohs micrographic surgery. Patient data were obtained from TriNetX, a federated health research network.

The mean age of patients in this cohort was 54 years, and 124,494 (13.6%) were prescribed postsurgical oral opioids. The most common was oxycodone, prescribed to 43% of patients. Dr. Lauck noted that, according to their data, certain groups appeared more likely to receive a prescription for opioids following surgery. These included Black or African American patients (23.75% vs 12.86% for White patients), females (13.73% vs 13.16% for males), and Latino or Hispanic patients (17.02% vs 13.61% non-Latino/Hispanic patients).

Patients with a history of prior oral opioid prescription, prior opioid abuse or dependence, and any type of substance abuse had a significant increase in absolute risk of being prescribed postsurgical opioids (P < .0001). 

The type of surgery also was associated with prescribed postop opioids. For a malignant excision, 18.29% of patients were prescribed postop opioids compared with 14.9% for a benign excision. About a third of patients (34.9%) undergoing a graft repair received opioids.

There was an elevated rate of postop opioid prescribing that was specific to the site of surgery, with the highest rates observed with eyelids, scalp and neck, trunk, and genital sites. The highest overall rates of opioid prescriptions were for patients who underwent excisions in the genital area (54.5%).
 

Long-Term Consequences

The authors also looked at the longer-term consequences of postop opioid use. “Nearly one in three patients who were prescribed opioids needed subsequent prescriptions down the line,” said Dr. Lauck. 

From 3 months to 5 years after surgery, patients who received postsurgical opioids were at significantly higher risk for not only subsequent oral opioid prescription but also opiate abuse, any substance abuse, overdose by opioid narcotics, constipation, and chronic pain. “An opioid prescription may confer further risks of longitudinal complications of chronic opioid use,” he concluded.

Commenting on the study, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted an important finding of this study was the long-term sequelae of patients who did receive postop opioids.

“This is striking given that postsurgical opiate prescriptions are for short durations and limited number of pills,” he told this news organization. “This study highlights the potential danger of even short course of opiates and should serve as a reminder to dermatologic surgeons to be judicious about opiate prescribing.”

Dr. Lauck and Dr. Lewin had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Certain minority populations may be at a higher absolute risk of being prescribed opioids after undergoing dermatologic surgery, according to a new study. The study also found that patients who do receive opioids postoperatively are at an increased risk for chronic opioid use and complications.

This report represents the largest analysis to date of opioid prescribing after dermatologic surgery, said lead author Kyle C. Lauck, MD, a dermatology resident at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. “Females, African Americans, and Latino patients may be at a higher risk of opioid prescription after dermatologic surgery. Surgeons should be aware of these populations and the risks they face when determining candidacy for postsurgical opioid analgesia.”

He presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The opioid epidemic is a concern across all areas of medicine, and the majority of opioid prescriptions in dermatology are given following surgery. Dr. Lauck noted that even though guidelines delegate opioids as second line for pain control, the existing data on opioid prescribing in dermatologic surgery is mixed. For example, some reports have shown that up to 58% of patients receive opioids postoperatively. “No consensus exists when we should routinely give opioids to these patients,” he said.

Even though most surgeons prescribe short courses of opioids, even brief regimens are associated with increased risks for overuse and substance abuse. Population-level data are limited concerning opioid prescriptions in dermatologic surgery, and in particular, there is an absence of data on the risk for long-term complications associated with use.

Certain Populations at Risk

To evaluate opioid prescription rates in dermatologic surgery, focusing on disparities between demographic populations, as well as the risk for long-term complications of postoperative opioid prescriptions, Dr. Lauck and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included 914,721 dermatologic surgery patients, with billing codes for Mohs micrographic surgery. Patient data were obtained from TriNetX, a federated health research network.

The mean age of patients in this cohort was 54 years, and 124,494 (13.6%) were prescribed postsurgical oral opioids. The most common was oxycodone, prescribed to 43% of patients. Dr. Lauck noted that, according to their data, certain groups appeared more likely to receive a prescription for opioids following surgery. These included Black or African American patients (23.75% vs 12.86% for White patients), females (13.73% vs 13.16% for males), and Latino or Hispanic patients (17.02% vs 13.61% non-Latino/Hispanic patients).

Patients with a history of prior oral opioid prescription, prior opioid abuse or dependence, and any type of substance abuse had a significant increase in absolute risk of being prescribed postsurgical opioids (P < .0001). 

The type of surgery also was associated with prescribed postop opioids. For a malignant excision, 18.29% of patients were prescribed postop opioids compared with 14.9% for a benign excision. About a third of patients (34.9%) undergoing a graft repair received opioids.

There was an elevated rate of postop opioid prescribing that was specific to the site of surgery, with the highest rates observed with eyelids, scalp and neck, trunk, and genital sites. The highest overall rates of opioid prescriptions were for patients who underwent excisions in the genital area (54.5%).
 

Long-Term Consequences

The authors also looked at the longer-term consequences of postop opioid use. “Nearly one in three patients who were prescribed opioids needed subsequent prescriptions down the line,” said Dr. Lauck. 

From 3 months to 5 years after surgery, patients who received postsurgical opioids were at significantly higher risk for not only subsequent oral opioid prescription but also opiate abuse, any substance abuse, overdose by opioid narcotics, constipation, and chronic pain. “An opioid prescription may confer further risks of longitudinal complications of chronic opioid use,” he concluded.

Commenting on the study, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted an important finding of this study was the long-term sequelae of patients who did receive postop opioids.

“This is striking given that postsurgical opiate prescriptions are for short durations and limited number of pills,” he told this news organization. “This study highlights the potential danger of even short course of opiates and should serve as a reminder to dermatologic surgeons to be judicious about opiate prescribing.”

Dr. Lauck and Dr. Lewin had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Certain minority populations may be at a higher absolute risk of being prescribed opioids after undergoing dermatologic surgery, according to a new study. The study also found that patients who do receive opioids postoperatively are at an increased risk for chronic opioid use and complications.

This report represents the largest analysis to date of opioid prescribing after dermatologic surgery, said lead author Kyle C. Lauck, MD, a dermatology resident at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. “Females, African Americans, and Latino patients may be at a higher risk of opioid prescription after dermatologic surgery. Surgeons should be aware of these populations and the risks they face when determining candidacy for postsurgical opioid analgesia.”

He presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The opioid epidemic is a concern across all areas of medicine, and the majority of opioid prescriptions in dermatology are given following surgery. Dr. Lauck noted that even though guidelines delegate opioids as second line for pain control, the existing data on opioid prescribing in dermatologic surgery is mixed. For example, some reports have shown that up to 58% of patients receive opioids postoperatively. “No consensus exists when we should routinely give opioids to these patients,” he said.

Even though most surgeons prescribe short courses of opioids, even brief regimens are associated with increased risks for overuse and substance abuse. Population-level data are limited concerning opioid prescriptions in dermatologic surgery, and in particular, there is an absence of data on the risk for long-term complications associated with use.

Certain Populations at Risk

To evaluate opioid prescription rates in dermatologic surgery, focusing on disparities between demographic populations, as well as the risk for long-term complications of postoperative opioid prescriptions, Dr. Lauck and colleagues conducted a retrospective study that included 914,721 dermatologic surgery patients, with billing codes for Mohs micrographic surgery. Patient data were obtained from TriNetX, a federated health research network.

The mean age of patients in this cohort was 54 years, and 124,494 (13.6%) were prescribed postsurgical oral opioids. The most common was oxycodone, prescribed to 43% of patients. Dr. Lauck noted that, according to their data, certain groups appeared more likely to receive a prescription for opioids following surgery. These included Black or African American patients (23.75% vs 12.86% for White patients), females (13.73% vs 13.16% for males), and Latino or Hispanic patients (17.02% vs 13.61% non-Latino/Hispanic patients).

Patients with a history of prior oral opioid prescription, prior opioid abuse or dependence, and any type of substance abuse had a significant increase in absolute risk of being prescribed postsurgical opioids (P < .0001). 

The type of surgery also was associated with prescribed postop opioids. For a malignant excision, 18.29% of patients were prescribed postop opioids compared with 14.9% for a benign excision. About a third of patients (34.9%) undergoing a graft repair received opioids.

There was an elevated rate of postop opioid prescribing that was specific to the site of surgery, with the highest rates observed with eyelids, scalp and neck, trunk, and genital sites. The highest overall rates of opioid prescriptions were for patients who underwent excisions in the genital area (54.5%).
 

Long-Term Consequences

The authors also looked at the longer-term consequences of postop opioid use. “Nearly one in three patients who were prescribed opioids needed subsequent prescriptions down the line,” said Dr. Lauck. 

From 3 months to 5 years after surgery, patients who received postsurgical opioids were at significantly higher risk for not only subsequent oral opioid prescription but also opiate abuse, any substance abuse, overdose by opioid narcotics, constipation, and chronic pain. “An opioid prescription may confer further risks of longitudinal complications of chronic opioid use,” he concluded.

Commenting on the study, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted an important finding of this study was the long-term sequelae of patients who did receive postop opioids.

“This is striking given that postsurgical opiate prescriptions are for short durations and limited number of pills,” he told this news organization. “This study highlights the potential danger of even short course of opiates and should serve as a reminder to dermatologic surgeons to be judicious about opiate prescribing.”

Dr. Lauck and Dr. Lewin had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) are at an increased risk for mental health condition–related hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visits up to 13 years after delivery.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study compared mental health hospitalizations and ED visits in postpartum individuals with and without SMM over 13 years after delivery from April 2008 to March 2021.
• The study analyzed 1,579,392 individuals aged 18-55 years with a first recorded liveborn or stillborn delivery from a pregnancy lasting 20-43 weeks, of which 35,825 (2.3%) had exposure to SMM.
• The SMM exposure was analyzed for events occurring after 20 weeks’ gestation and up to 42 days after delivery hospital discharge in the first recorded birth; those without SMM were considered unexposed.
• The main outcome was a combination of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits occurring at least 43 days after the index birth hospitalization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with SMM had a 1.3-fold increased risk of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits.
• The hospital or ED visits per 10,000 person-years were 59.2 for mood and anxiety disorders, 17.1 for substance abuse and related disorders, 4.8 for suicidality or self-harm, and 4.1 for schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders.
• Following SMM, an elevated risk was observed for all mental health outcomes except one (schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders), with the highest risk seen for suicidality and self-harm (aHR, 1.54).

IN PRACTICE:

“Knowledge of the short- and long-term risks of serious mental health conditions after SMM and its subtypes could inform the need for enhanced postpartum supportive resources,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Asia Blackman, MSc, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design, missing data, and misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Three authors reported receiving personal fees or grants outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Individuals with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) are at an increased risk for mental health condition–related hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visits up to 13 years after delivery.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study compared mental health hospitalizations and ED visits in postpartum individuals with and without SMM over 13 years after delivery from April 2008 to March 2021.
• The study analyzed 1,579,392 individuals aged 18-55 years with a first recorded liveborn or stillborn delivery from a pregnancy lasting 20-43 weeks, of which 35,825 (2.3%) had exposure to SMM.
• The SMM exposure was analyzed for events occurring after 20 weeks’ gestation and up to 42 days after delivery hospital discharge in the first recorded birth; those without SMM were considered unexposed.
• The main outcome was a combination of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits occurring at least 43 days after the index birth hospitalization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with SMM had a 1.3-fold increased risk of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits.
• The hospital or ED visits per 10,000 person-years were 59.2 for mood and anxiety disorders, 17.1 for substance abuse and related disorders, 4.8 for suicidality or self-harm, and 4.1 for schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders.
• Following SMM, an elevated risk was observed for all mental health outcomes except one (schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders), with the highest risk seen for suicidality and self-harm (aHR, 1.54).

IN PRACTICE:

“Knowledge of the short- and long-term risks of serious mental health conditions after SMM and its subtypes could inform the need for enhanced postpartum supportive resources,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Asia Blackman, MSc, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design, missing data, and misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Three authors reported receiving personal fees or grants outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Individuals with severe maternal morbidity (SMM) are at an increased risk for mental health condition–related hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visits up to 13 years after delivery.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study compared mental health hospitalizations and ED visits in postpartum individuals with and without SMM over 13 years after delivery from April 2008 to March 2021.
• The study analyzed 1,579,392 individuals aged 18-55 years with a first recorded liveborn or stillborn delivery from a pregnancy lasting 20-43 weeks, of which 35,825 (2.3%) had exposure to SMM.
• The SMM exposure was analyzed for events occurring after 20 weeks’ gestation and up to 42 days after delivery hospital discharge in the first recorded birth; those without SMM were considered unexposed.
• The main outcome was a combination of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits occurring at least 43 days after the index birth hospitalization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with SMM had a 1.3-fold increased risk of mental health hospitalizations or ED visits.
• The hospital or ED visits per 10,000 person-years were 59.2 for mood and anxiety disorders, 17.1 for substance abuse and related disorders, 4.8 for suicidality or self-harm, and 4.1 for schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders.
• Following SMM, an elevated risk was observed for all mental health outcomes except one (schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders), with the highest risk seen for suicidality and self-harm (aHR, 1.54).

IN PRACTICE:

“Knowledge of the short- and long-term risks of serious mental health conditions after SMM and its subtypes could inform the need for enhanced postpartum supportive resources,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Asia Blackman, MSc, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design, missing data, and misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Three authors reported receiving personal fees or grants outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

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

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For decades, physicians and nurses who ventured across state lines to practice, particularly in locum tenens roles, have reaped the benefits of medical licensure compacts. Yet, the same courtesy has eluded physician assistants (PAs), until now. The introduction of the PA Licensure Compact (PA Compact) marks a long-awaited and significant step forward for the PA community.

In April, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed the bill enacting the PA Compact making Virginia the seventh state to join. The legislation opens a cross-state agreement with seven states and finally allows locum tenens PAs to practice across these state’s borders.

How the PA Compact Works

The interstate arrangement recognizes valid, unencumbered PA licenses issued by other states in the compact. PAs working within the seven states won’t need a separate license from any of those states to practice.

The states include Delaware, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia. While the compact has been approved, the American Academy of Physician Associates said it could take an additional 18-24 months for the states to execute it, giving PAs the access they need to work in the compact states.

How the PA Compact Helps

The PA Compact holds the promise of alleviating some of the travel barriers that PAs often encounter, especially when they work locum tenens or in telehealth and must traverse state lines to deliver essential healthcare. This agreement not only enhances healthcare access but also empowers facilities to recruit new PAs, thereby bridging gaps in their healthcare staffing and addressing public health emergencies more effectively.

PAs will also gain increased flexibility and additional opportunities to earn and benefit from the right to practice in more states without requiring a time-consuming and expensive licensure from each state.

One motivating factor behind developing an interstate compact for physician assistants is that the same types of compacts for physicians and nurses are highly successful. The Nurse Licensure Compact and the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact for physicians encompass 37 and 41 states, respectively. While the seven-state PA Compact is in its earliest stages, it will likely be equally beneficial for PAs.

A survey by Barton Associates found that 95% of PAs said they would be more likely to consider working in a different state if the PA Compact made it more accessible.

Other states have begun legislation to enact a PA Compact, including Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. 

If your state still needs to enact a compact or file for compact legislation, let your elected officials know that the PAs in your state want to join a compact. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.