User login
How Well Do Clinicians Support Patients’ Sexual Health?
From adolescence onward, the need for sexual health is particularly important. Yet, information and healthcare services are limited, which often leaves patients in distress and subject to misconceptions. What are the specific issues related to sexuality in adolescence, middle age, and beyond? This news organization interviewed Carol Burté, MD, a specialist in sexual medicine from Monaco.
Question: Regarding young individuals, what about sex education in schools?
Dr. Burté: The French law of 2018 specifies that at least three annual sessions must be devoted to sex education in elementary school, middle school, and high school.
In practice, this is not always the case, and interventions are very focused on prevention and rules. Sexuality is almost always absent from the program. Sexuality means: What does it mean to have desire? How does pleasure work? At what age do we have sex? etc. Young people receive prevention advice, but the link with sexuality is not made.
Sexuality remains taboo. You know, like in books: “They got married and had many children ...” End of the story, we don’t know more [laughs].
Question: And outside the school setting, do doctors sufficiently address sexual health issues with adolescents?
Dr. Burté: Rarely. I understand that a general practitioner has little time, but they can still ask the young person if they have any questions. They can refer them to someone or provide reading recommendations. Regarding sex education on the Internet, there are many well-made websites, such as the one by the national education system.
Also, it is important to give young people lifestyle advice to combat overweight, sedentary behavior, etc., by explaining to them that these factors can lead to sexual disorders later as well as infertility.
Another very important point: There is an inequality between boys and girls, but this time, to the disadvantage of boys. We have a sexual health consultation dedicated to young girls for the pill, but no one examines the boys. However, testicular cancer or undescended testicles can occur. I think we really need to change things and establish a clinical examination for boys in adolescence.
Question: More and more young people identify as asexual. What do you think of this?
Dr. Burté: People who identify as asexual represent about 1% of the population. These are individuals who are not attracted to having sexual relationships with someone. This does not prevent them from having a boyfriend, a girlfriend, masturbating, etc. It is sexual intercourse that does not interest them. These young people often say they have done it all. They have seen a lot of images, viewed sexuality as gymnastics with all the positions, tricks. They are jaded. Also, when you are faced with an image that provides a very strong and rapid stimulation, human relationships seem much more difficult because, obviously, you will never reproduce that sensation when you are with your partner with whom you must connect. The relationship is no longer emotional and shared. Yet, sexuality is emotional, relational, intellectual.
I think people go through phases. At a certain point, they feel asexual, but they can change their minds and think differently if they have real encounters, encounters that are increasingly difficult. Today, we are witnessing a loss of confidence. Young people, but also others, want to protect themselves from everything, especially from falling in love, not get back into a relationship because it is constraining.
Question: Data show that young people are exposed to pornography at an increasingly early age. Is this a problem for their future sexuality?
Dr. Burté: The exposure to pornography at an early age, around 11 years old, has only been a reality for the past decade. It is too early to say how it will impact their sexuality. When examining the literature on this subject, some publications indicate that the consequences can be dramatic for children. Others show that children can distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Whenever I see young people in consultation, I ask them whether they feel pornography has helped or hindered them, whether it is the cause of the issue they are facing. I would say that, other than those who have viewed pornography under duress, which is of the order of violence, pornography does not seem to pose a problem. It can even provide certain knowledge.
Question: What about sexual violence in children? What are the consequences?
Dr. Burté: In sexual medicine, this is one of the questions we ask systematically because it is very common. It is important to keep in mind that this not only affects girls; boys are also sexually abused. The consequences are dramatic in terms of psychosexual development. Each case is different.
Question: At the other end of life, is it “normal” to have sexual disorders at a certain age? Should we resign ourselves?
Dr. Burté: When it comes to sexuality, people have many misconceptions and beliefs that are conveyed through media and the Internet. One of them is to believe that because we are aging, we cannot have a proper sexuality. Sexuality slows down with age, as all sensitivities decrease, but desire is something present throughout life. Yet, seniors are rarely questioned about their sexual health by the media.
Note that older people in institutions face an additional obstacle: lack of privacy. Is this normal? Sexuality releases endorphins, oxytocin, it is well-being that costs nothing. It is something that should be prescribed!
Question: Chronic diseases, disabilities with incidence increases with age — are they not inevitable obstacles to a fulfilling sexuality?
Dr. Burté: It is possible to have a sexual life regardless of the disease one has, cancer, diabetes, rheumatic disease — regardless of the disability.
A collaboration with the National Cancer Institute on the preservation of sexual health after cancer in which I participated shows that people are extremely demanding of care and that this care is still very insufficient, unfortunately, even in the case of prostate cancer, for example, when it should be obvious.
Question: But aging itself brings challenges in terms of sexuality.
Dr. Burté: Yes, in men, the consequences of low testosterone levels are well known. Therefore, we must stop thinking that men do not have their “menopause.” Men often have a testosterone deficiency after a certain age. This is very annoying because they have many symptoms that are truly unpleasant and yet can be corrected by completely reliable treatments.
Men are very misinformed on this subject. We talk about gender inequality, but in this area, a young woman who has her first period knows very well that one day she will go through menopause, but a boy has no idea that one day he will have hormone problems.
Question: Therefore, is it important to question men past the age of 50 years?
Dr. Burté: Yes. Faced with sexual symptoms or simply fatigue, or among those who are a bit depressed, investigating a testosterone deficiency should be part of the reflexes.
Also, if you ask a man in general, “How is it going from a sexual point of view,” and he answers that everything is going well, this means he has good arteries, good veins, a good nervous system, sufficient hormones, and psychologically, everything is going rather well. Conversely, erectile dysfunction can be one of the first symptoms of cardiovascular pathologies.
After a certain age, there is no test that provides as much information about people’s health as this question about sexual health.
Question: On their side, are women better cared for at menopause?
Dr. Burté: Yes, but women still lack explanations. I work in sexual medicine, and in my consultation, I see women who come simply to get information about menopause.
Women must know that menopause is a turning point in life because they will spend 30%-40% of their lives without hormones.
It is important to explain that indeed, after menopause, without treatment, it is not the same. There are genital and urinary, psychological, sexual, and skin consequences. It is important to provide true data on the influence of hormonal treatments. Today, hormone fear is not over. I think we need to rehabilitate treatments, care for women.
Question: So we must not forget men or women.
Dr. Burté: Yes. It is also very important to adopt a perspective not only for the individual but also for the couple. If you treat a man with testosterone, after 3 months, he will be in great shape. However, if the couple has long been accustomed to having a limited sexual life, if the woman is not supported on her side, the couple will be unbalanced. The couple is concerned with managing the hormonal changes of both.
Question: Sexual medicine is essential, yet it seems inaccessible.
Dr. Burté: There are very few specialists in sexual medicine because there is no legal provision for it. These consultations are lengthy but not valued. Who wants to work for that?
If there was reimbursement for sexual medicine consultations at age 15 years, at menopause, and for men around the age of 50 years, it would change mentalities. Sexual medicine must be integrated into medicine. It should also be noted that not all sexologists are physicians.
Some people are very well trained through universities, and others are not. Ideally, someone with a sexual disorder should first have a sexual medicine consultation to understand the situation. Then, the physician can refer the patient to a competent sexologist because we work in a network.
Dr. Burté has no conflicts of interest related to the subject.
This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
From adolescence onward, the need for sexual health is particularly important. Yet, information and healthcare services are limited, which often leaves patients in distress and subject to misconceptions. What are the specific issues related to sexuality in adolescence, middle age, and beyond? This news organization interviewed Carol Burté, MD, a specialist in sexual medicine from Monaco.
Question: Regarding young individuals, what about sex education in schools?
Dr. Burté: The French law of 2018 specifies that at least three annual sessions must be devoted to sex education in elementary school, middle school, and high school.
In practice, this is not always the case, and interventions are very focused on prevention and rules. Sexuality is almost always absent from the program. Sexuality means: What does it mean to have desire? How does pleasure work? At what age do we have sex? etc. Young people receive prevention advice, but the link with sexuality is not made.
Sexuality remains taboo. You know, like in books: “They got married and had many children ...” End of the story, we don’t know more [laughs].
Question: And outside the school setting, do doctors sufficiently address sexual health issues with adolescents?
Dr. Burté: Rarely. I understand that a general practitioner has little time, but they can still ask the young person if they have any questions. They can refer them to someone or provide reading recommendations. Regarding sex education on the Internet, there are many well-made websites, such as the one by the national education system.
Also, it is important to give young people lifestyle advice to combat overweight, sedentary behavior, etc., by explaining to them that these factors can lead to sexual disorders later as well as infertility.
Another very important point: There is an inequality between boys and girls, but this time, to the disadvantage of boys. We have a sexual health consultation dedicated to young girls for the pill, but no one examines the boys. However, testicular cancer or undescended testicles can occur. I think we really need to change things and establish a clinical examination for boys in adolescence.
Question: More and more young people identify as asexual. What do you think of this?
Dr. Burté: People who identify as asexual represent about 1% of the population. These are individuals who are not attracted to having sexual relationships with someone. This does not prevent them from having a boyfriend, a girlfriend, masturbating, etc. It is sexual intercourse that does not interest them. These young people often say they have done it all. They have seen a lot of images, viewed sexuality as gymnastics with all the positions, tricks. They are jaded. Also, when you are faced with an image that provides a very strong and rapid stimulation, human relationships seem much more difficult because, obviously, you will never reproduce that sensation when you are with your partner with whom you must connect. The relationship is no longer emotional and shared. Yet, sexuality is emotional, relational, intellectual.
I think people go through phases. At a certain point, they feel asexual, but they can change their minds and think differently if they have real encounters, encounters that are increasingly difficult. Today, we are witnessing a loss of confidence. Young people, but also others, want to protect themselves from everything, especially from falling in love, not get back into a relationship because it is constraining.
Question: Data show that young people are exposed to pornography at an increasingly early age. Is this a problem for their future sexuality?
Dr. Burté: The exposure to pornography at an early age, around 11 years old, has only been a reality for the past decade. It is too early to say how it will impact their sexuality. When examining the literature on this subject, some publications indicate that the consequences can be dramatic for children. Others show that children can distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Whenever I see young people in consultation, I ask them whether they feel pornography has helped or hindered them, whether it is the cause of the issue they are facing. I would say that, other than those who have viewed pornography under duress, which is of the order of violence, pornography does not seem to pose a problem. It can even provide certain knowledge.
Question: What about sexual violence in children? What are the consequences?
Dr. Burté: In sexual medicine, this is one of the questions we ask systematically because it is very common. It is important to keep in mind that this not only affects girls; boys are also sexually abused. The consequences are dramatic in terms of psychosexual development. Each case is different.
Question: At the other end of life, is it “normal” to have sexual disorders at a certain age? Should we resign ourselves?
Dr. Burté: When it comes to sexuality, people have many misconceptions and beliefs that are conveyed through media and the Internet. One of them is to believe that because we are aging, we cannot have a proper sexuality. Sexuality slows down with age, as all sensitivities decrease, but desire is something present throughout life. Yet, seniors are rarely questioned about their sexual health by the media.
Note that older people in institutions face an additional obstacle: lack of privacy. Is this normal? Sexuality releases endorphins, oxytocin, it is well-being that costs nothing. It is something that should be prescribed!
Question: Chronic diseases, disabilities with incidence increases with age — are they not inevitable obstacles to a fulfilling sexuality?
Dr. Burté: It is possible to have a sexual life regardless of the disease one has, cancer, diabetes, rheumatic disease — regardless of the disability.
A collaboration with the National Cancer Institute on the preservation of sexual health after cancer in which I participated shows that people are extremely demanding of care and that this care is still very insufficient, unfortunately, even in the case of prostate cancer, for example, when it should be obvious.
Question: But aging itself brings challenges in terms of sexuality.
Dr. Burté: Yes, in men, the consequences of low testosterone levels are well known. Therefore, we must stop thinking that men do not have their “menopause.” Men often have a testosterone deficiency after a certain age. This is very annoying because they have many symptoms that are truly unpleasant and yet can be corrected by completely reliable treatments.
Men are very misinformed on this subject. We talk about gender inequality, but in this area, a young woman who has her first period knows very well that one day she will go through menopause, but a boy has no idea that one day he will have hormone problems.
Question: Therefore, is it important to question men past the age of 50 years?
Dr. Burté: Yes. Faced with sexual symptoms or simply fatigue, or among those who are a bit depressed, investigating a testosterone deficiency should be part of the reflexes.
Also, if you ask a man in general, “How is it going from a sexual point of view,” and he answers that everything is going well, this means he has good arteries, good veins, a good nervous system, sufficient hormones, and psychologically, everything is going rather well. Conversely, erectile dysfunction can be one of the first symptoms of cardiovascular pathologies.
After a certain age, there is no test that provides as much information about people’s health as this question about sexual health.
Question: On their side, are women better cared for at menopause?
Dr. Burté: Yes, but women still lack explanations. I work in sexual medicine, and in my consultation, I see women who come simply to get information about menopause.
Women must know that menopause is a turning point in life because they will spend 30%-40% of their lives without hormones.
It is important to explain that indeed, after menopause, without treatment, it is not the same. There are genital and urinary, psychological, sexual, and skin consequences. It is important to provide true data on the influence of hormonal treatments. Today, hormone fear is not over. I think we need to rehabilitate treatments, care for women.
Question: So we must not forget men or women.
Dr. Burté: Yes. It is also very important to adopt a perspective not only for the individual but also for the couple. If you treat a man with testosterone, after 3 months, he will be in great shape. However, if the couple has long been accustomed to having a limited sexual life, if the woman is not supported on her side, the couple will be unbalanced. The couple is concerned with managing the hormonal changes of both.
Question: Sexual medicine is essential, yet it seems inaccessible.
Dr. Burté: There are very few specialists in sexual medicine because there is no legal provision for it. These consultations are lengthy but not valued. Who wants to work for that?
If there was reimbursement for sexual medicine consultations at age 15 years, at menopause, and for men around the age of 50 years, it would change mentalities. Sexual medicine must be integrated into medicine. It should also be noted that not all sexologists are physicians.
Some people are very well trained through universities, and others are not. Ideally, someone with a sexual disorder should first have a sexual medicine consultation to understand the situation. Then, the physician can refer the patient to a competent sexologist because we work in a network.
Dr. Burté has no conflicts of interest related to the subject.
This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
From adolescence onward, the need for sexual health is particularly important. Yet, information and healthcare services are limited, which often leaves patients in distress and subject to misconceptions. What are the specific issues related to sexuality in adolescence, middle age, and beyond? This news organization interviewed Carol Burté, MD, a specialist in sexual medicine from Monaco.
Question: Regarding young individuals, what about sex education in schools?
Dr. Burté: The French law of 2018 specifies that at least three annual sessions must be devoted to sex education in elementary school, middle school, and high school.
In practice, this is not always the case, and interventions are very focused on prevention and rules. Sexuality is almost always absent from the program. Sexuality means: What does it mean to have desire? How does pleasure work? At what age do we have sex? etc. Young people receive prevention advice, but the link with sexuality is not made.
Sexuality remains taboo. You know, like in books: “They got married and had many children ...” End of the story, we don’t know more [laughs].
Question: And outside the school setting, do doctors sufficiently address sexual health issues with adolescents?
Dr. Burté: Rarely. I understand that a general practitioner has little time, but they can still ask the young person if they have any questions. They can refer them to someone or provide reading recommendations. Regarding sex education on the Internet, there are many well-made websites, such as the one by the national education system.
Also, it is important to give young people lifestyle advice to combat overweight, sedentary behavior, etc., by explaining to them that these factors can lead to sexual disorders later as well as infertility.
Another very important point: There is an inequality between boys and girls, but this time, to the disadvantage of boys. We have a sexual health consultation dedicated to young girls for the pill, but no one examines the boys. However, testicular cancer or undescended testicles can occur. I think we really need to change things and establish a clinical examination for boys in adolescence.
Question: More and more young people identify as asexual. What do you think of this?
Dr. Burté: People who identify as asexual represent about 1% of the population. These are individuals who are not attracted to having sexual relationships with someone. This does not prevent them from having a boyfriend, a girlfriend, masturbating, etc. It is sexual intercourse that does not interest them. These young people often say they have done it all. They have seen a lot of images, viewed sexuality as gymnastics with all the positions, tricks. They are jaded. Also, when you are faced with an image that provides a very strong and rapid stimulation, human relationships seem much more difficult because, obviously, you will never reproduce that sensation when you are with your partner with whom you must connect. The relationship is no longer emotional and shared. Yet, sexuality is emotional, relational, intellectual.
I think people go through phases. At a certain point, they feel asexual, but they can change their minds and think differently if they have real encounters, encounters that are increasingly difficult. Today, we are witnessing a loss of confidence. Young people, but also others, want to protect themselves from everything, especially from falling in love, not get back into a relationship because it is constraining.
Question: Data show that young people are exposed to pornography at an increasingly early age. Is this a problem for their future sexuality?
Dr. Burté: The exposure to pornography at an early age, around 11 years old, has only been a reality for the past decade. It is too early to say how it will impact their sexuality. When examining the literature on this subject, some publications indicate that the consequences can be dramatic for children. Others show that children can distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Whenever I see young people in consultation, I ask them whether they feel pornography has helped or hindered them, whether it is the cause of the issue they are facing. I would say that, other than those who have viewed pornography under duress, which is of the order of violence, pornography does not seem to pose a problem. It can even provide certain knowledge.
Question: What about sexual violence in children? What are the consequences?
Dr. Burté: In sexual medicine, this is one of the questions we ask systematically because it is very common. It is important to keep in mind that this not only affects girls; boys are also sexually abused. The consequences are dramatic in terms of psychosexual development. Each case is different.
Question: At the other end of life, is it “normal” to have sexual disorders at a certain age? Should we resign ourselves?
Dr. Burté: When it comes to sexuality, people have many misconceptions and beliefs that are conveyed through media and the Internet. One of them is to believe that because we are aging, we cannot have a proper sexuality. Sexuality slows down with age, as all sensitivities decrease, but desire is something present throughout life. Yet, seniors are rarely questioned about their sexual health by the media.
Note that older people in institutions face an additional obstacle: lack of privacy. Is this normal? Sexuality releases endorphins, oxytocin, it is well-being that costs nothing. It is something that should be prescribed!
Question: Chronic diseases, disabilities with incidence increases with age — are they not inevitable obstacles to a fulfilling sexuality?
Dr. Burté: It is possible to have a sexual life regardless of the disease one has, cancer, diabetes, rheumatic disease — regardless of the disability.
A collaboration with the National Cancer Institute on the preservation of sexual health after cancer in which I participated shows that people are extremely demanding of care and that this care is still very insufficient, unfortunately, even in the case of prostate cancer, for example, when it should be obvious.
Question: But aging itself brings challenges in terms of sexuality.
Dr. Burté: Yes, in men, the consequences of low testosterone levels are well known. Therefore, we must stop thinking that men do not have their “menopause.” Men often have a testosterone deficiency after a certain age. This is very annoying because they have many symptoms that are truly unpleasant and yet can be corrected by completely reliable treatments.
Men are very misinformed on this subject. We talk about gender inequality, but in this area, a young woman who has her first period knows very well that one day she will go through menopause, but a boy has no idea that one day he will have hormone problems.
Question: Therefore, is it important to question men past the age of 50 years?
Dr. Burté: Yes. Faced with sexual symptoms or simply fatigue, or among those who are a bit depressed, investigating a testosterone deficiency should be part of the reflexes.
Also, if you ask a man in general, “How is it going from a sexual point of view,” and he answers that everything is going well, this means he has good arteries, good veins, a good nervous system, sufficient hormones, and psychologically, everything is going rather well. Conversely, erectile dysfunction can be one of the first symptoms of cardiovascular pathologies.
After a certain age, there is no test that provides as much information about people’s health as this question about sexual health.
Question: On their side, are women better cared for at menopause?
Dr. Burté: Yes, but women still lack explanations. I work in sexual medicine, and in my consultation, I see women who come simply to get information about menopause.
Women must know that menopause is a turning point in life because they will spend 30%-40% of their lives without hormones.
It is important to explain that indeed, after menopause, without treatment, it is not the same. There are genital and urinary, psychological, sexual, and skin consequences. It is important to provide true data on the influence of hormonal treatments. Today, hormone fear is not over. I think we need to rehabilitate treatments, care for women.
Question: So we must not forget men or women.
Dr. Burté: Yes. It is also very important to adopt a perspective not only for the individual but also for the couple. If you treat a man with testosterone, after 3 months, he will be in great shape. However, if the couple has long been accustomed to having a limited sexual life, if the woman is not supported on her side, the couple will be unbalanced. The couple is concerned with managing the hormonal changes of both.
Question: Sexual medicine is essential, yet it seems inaccessible.
Dr. Burté: There are very few specialists in sexual medicine because there is no legal provision for it. These consultations are lengthy but not valued. Who wants to work for that?
If there was reimbursement for sexual medicine consultations at age 15 years, at menopause, and for men around the age of 50 years, it would change mentalities. Sexual medicine must be integrated into medicine. It should also be noted that not all sexologists are physicians.
Some people are very well trained through universities, and others are not. Ideally, someone with a sexual disorder should first have a sexual medicine consultation to understand the situation. Then, the physician can refer the patient to a competent sexologist because we work in a network.
Dr. Burté has no conflicts of interest related to the subject.
This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How to Make Life Decisions
Halifax, Nova Scotia; American Samoa; Queens, New York; Lansing, Michigan; Gurugram, India. I often ask patients where they’re from. Practicing in San Diego, the answers are a geography lesson. People from around the world come here. I sometimes add the more interesting question: How’d you end up here? Many took the three highways to San Diego: the Navy, the defense industry (like General Dynamics), or followed a partner. My Queens patient had a better answer: Super Bowl XXII. On Sunday, Jan. 31st, 1988, the Redskins played the Broncos in San Diego. John Elway and the Broncos lost, but it didn’t matter. “I was scrapin’ the ice off my windshield that Monday morning when I thought, that’s it. I’m done! I drove to the garage where I worked and quit on the spot. Then I drove home and packed my bags.”
In a paper on how to make life decisions, this guy would be Exhibit A: “Don’t overthink it.” That approach might not be suitable for everyone, or for every decision. It might actually be an example of how not to make life decisions (more on that later). But,
The first treatise on this subject was a paper by one Franklin, Ben in 1772. Providing advice to a friend on how to make a career decision, Franklin argued: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro and over the other Con.” This “moral algebra” as he called it was a framework to put rigor to a messy, organic problem.
The flaw in this method is that in the end you have two lists. Then what? Do the length of the lists decide? What if some factors are more important? Well, let’s add tools to help. You could use a spreadsheet and assign weights to each variable. Then sum the values and choose based on that. So if “not scraping ice off your windshield” is twice as important as “doubling your rent,” then you’ve got your answer. But what if you aren’t good at estimating how important things are? Actually, most of us are pretty awful at assigning weights to life variables – having bags of money is the consummate example. Seems important, but because of habituation, it turns out to not be sustainable. Note Exhibit B, our wealthy neighbor who owns a Lambo and G-Wagen (AMG squared, of course), who just parked a Cybertruck in his driveway. Realizing the risk of depending on peoples’ flawed judgment, companies instead use statistical modeling called bootstrap aggregating to “vote” on the weights for variables in a prediction. If you aren’t sure how important a new Rivian or walking to the beach would be, a model can answer that for you! It’s a bit disconcerting, I know. I mean, how can a model know what we’d like? Wait, isn’t that how Netflix picks stuff for you? Exactly.
Ok, so why don’t we just ask our friendly personal AI? “OK, ChatGPT, given what you know about me, where can I have it all?” Alas, here we slam into a glass wall. It seems the answer is out there but even our life-changing magical AI tools fail us. Mathematically, it is impossible to have it all. An illustrative example of this is called the economic “impossible trinity problem.” Even the most sophisticated algorithm cannot find an optional solution to some trinities such as fixed foreign exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent monetary policy. Economists have concluded you must trade off one to have the other two. Impossible trinities are common in economics and in life. Armistead Maupin in his “Tales of the City” codifies it as Mona’s Law, the essence of which is: You cannot have the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect house at the same time. (See Exhibit C, one Tom Brady).
This brings me to my final point, hard decisions are matters of the heart and experiencing life is the best way to understand its beautiful chaos. If making rash judgments is ill-advised and using technology cannot solve all problems (try asking your AI buddy for the square root of 2 as a fraction) what tools can we use? Maybe try reading more novels. They allow us to experience multiple lifetimes in a short time, which is what we need to learn what matters. Reading Dorothea’s choice at the end of “Middlemarch” is a nice example. Should she give up Lowick Manor and marry the penniless Ladislaw or keep it and use her wealth to help others? Seeing her struggle helps us understand how to answer questions like: Should I give up my academic practice or marry that guy or move to Texas? These cannot be reduced to arithmetic. The only way to know is to know as much of life as possible.
My last visit with my Queens patient was our last together. He’s divorced and moving from San Diego to Gallatin, Tennessee. “I’ve paid my last taxes to California, Doc. I decided that’s it, I’m done!” Perhaps he should have read “The Grapes of Wrath” before he set out for California in the first place.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Halifax, Nova Scotia; American Samoa; Queens, New York; Lansing, Michigan; Gurugram, India. I often ask patients where they’re from. Practicing in San Diego, the answers are a geography lesson. People from around the world come here. I sometimes add the more interesting question: How’d you end up here? Many took the three highways to San Diego: the Navy, the defense industry (like General Dynamics), or followed a partner. My Queens patient had a better answer: Super Bowl XXII. On Sunday, Jan. 31st, 1988, the Redskins played the Broncos in San Diego. John Elway and the Broncos lost, but it didn’t matter. “I was scrapin’ the ice off my windshield that Monday morning when I thought, that’s it. I’m done! I drove to the garage where I worked and quit on the spot. Then I drove home and packed my bags.”
In a paper on how to make life decisions, this guy would be Exhibit A: “Don’t overthink it.” That approach might not be suitable for everyone, or for every decision. It might actually be an example of how not to make life decisions (more on that later). But,
The first treatise on this subject was a paper by one Franklin, Ben in 1772. Providing advice to a friend on how to make a career decision, Franklin argued: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro and over the other Con.” This “moral algebra” as he called it was a framework to put rigor to a messy, organic problem.
The flaw in this method is that in the end you have two lists. Then what? Do the length of the lists decide? What if some factors are more important? Well, let’s add tools to help. You could use a spreadsheet and assign weights to each variable. Then sum the values and choose based on that. So if “not scraping ice off your windshield” is twice as important as “doubling your rent,” then you’ve got your answer. But what if you aren’t good at estimating how important things are? Actually, most of us are pretty awful at assigning weights to life variables – having bags of money is the consummate example. Seems important, but because of habituation, it turns out to not be sustainable. Note Exhibit B, our wealthy neighbor who owns a Lambo and G-Wagen (AMG squared, of course), who just parked a Cybertruck in his driveway. Realizing the risk of depending on peoples’ flawed judgment, companies instead use statistical modeling called bootstrap aggregating to “vote” on the weights for variables in a prediction. If you aren’t sure how important a new Rivian or walking to the beach would be, a model can answer that for you! It’s a bit disconcerting, I know. I mean, how can a model know what we’d like? Wait, isn’t that how Netflix picks stuff for you? Exactly.
Ok, so why don’t we just ask our friendly personal AI? “OK, ChatGPT, given what you know about me, where can I have it all?” Alas, here we slam into a glass wall. It seems the answer is out there but even our life-changing magical AI tools fail us. Mathematically, it is impossible to have it all. An illustrative example of this is called the economic “impossible trinity problem.” Even the most sophisticated algorithm cannot find an optional solution to some trinities such as fixed foreign exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent monetary policy. Economists have concluded you must trade off one to have the other two. Impossible trinities are common in economics and in life. Armistead Maupin in his “Tales of the City” codifies it as Mona’s Law, the essence of which is: You cannot have the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect house at the same time. (See Exhibit C, one Tom Brady).
This brings me to my final point, hard decisions are matters of the heart and experiencing life is the best way to understand its beautiful chaos. If making rash judgments is ill-advised and using technology cannot solve all problems (try asking your AI buddy for the square root of 2 as a fraction) what tools can we use? Maybe try reading more novels. They allow us to experience multiple lifetimes in a short time, which is what we need to learn what matters. Reading Dorothea’s choice at the end of “Middlemarch” is a nice example. Should she give up Lowick Manor and marry the penniless Ladislaw or keep it and use her wealth to help others? Seeing her struggle helps us understand how to answer questions like: Should I give up my academic practice or marry that guy or move to Texas? These cannot be reduced to arithmetic. The only way to know is to know as much of life as possible.
My last visit with my Queens patient was our last together. He’s divorced and moving from San Diego to Gallatin, Tennessee. “I’ve paid my last taxes to California, Doc. I decided that’s it, I’m done!” Perhaps he should have read “The Grapes of Wrath” before he set out for California in the first place.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Halifax, Nova Scotia; American Samoa; Queens, New York; Lansing, Michigan; Gurugram, India. I often ask patients where they’re from. Practicing in San Diego, the answers are a geography lesson. People from around the world come here. I sometimes add the more interesting question: How’d you end up here? Many took the three highways to San Diego: the Navy, the defense industry (like General Dynamics), or followed a partner. My Queens patient had a better answer: Super Bowl XXII. On Sunday, Jan. 31st, 1988, the Redskins played the Broncos in San Diego. John Elway and the Broncos lost, but it didn’t matter. “I was scrapin’ the ice off my windshield that Monday morning when I thought, that’s it. I’m done! I drove to the garage where I worked and quit on the spot. Then I drove home and packed my bags.”
In a paper on how to make life decisions, this guy would be Exhibit A: “Don’t overthink it.” That approach might not be suitable for everyone, or for every decision. It might actually be an example of how not to make life decisions (more on that later). But,
The first treatise on this subject was a paper by one Franklin, Ben in 1772. Providing advice to a friend on how to make a career decision, Franklin argued: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one Pro and over the other Con.” This “moral algebra” as he called it was a framework to put rigor to a messy, organic problem.
The flaw in this method is that in the end you have two lists. Then what? Do the length of the lists decide? What if some factors are more important? Well, let’s add tools to help. You could use a spreadsheet and assign weights to each variable. Then sum the values and choose based on that. So if “not scraping ice off your windshield” is twice as important as “doubling your rent,” then you’ve got your answer. But what if you aren’t good at estimating how important things are? Actually, most of us are pretty awful at assigning weights to life variables – having bags of money is the consummate example. Seems important, but because of habituation, it turns out to not be sustainable. Note Exhibit B, our wealthy neighbor who owns a Lambo and G-Wagen (AMG squared, of course), who just parked a Cybertruck in his driveway. Realizing the risk of depending on peoples’ flawed judgment, companies instead use statistical modeling called bootstrap aggregating to “vote” on the weights for variables in a prediction. If you aren’t sure how important a new Rivian or walking to the beach would be, a model can answer that for you! It’s a bit disconcerting, I know. I mean, how can a model know what we’d like? Wait, isn’t that how Netflix picks stuff for you? Exactly.
Ok, so why don’t we just ask our friendly personal AI? “OK, ChatGPT, given what you know about me, where can I have it all?” Alas, here we slam into a glass wall. It seems the answer is out there but even our life-changing magical AI tools fail us. Mathematically, it is impossible to have it all. An illustrative example of this is called the economic “impossible trinity problem.” Even the most sophisticated algorithm cannot find an optional solution to some trinities such as fixed foreign exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent monetary policy. Economists have concluded you must trade off one to have the other two. Impossible trinities are common in economics and in life. Armistead Maupin in his “Tales of the City” codifies it as Mona’s Law, the essence of which is: You cannot have the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect house at the same time. (See Exhibit C, one Tom Brady).
This brings me to my final point, hard decisions are matters of the heart and experiencing life is the best way to understand its beautiful chaos. If making rash judgments is ill-advised and using technology cannot solve all problems (try asking your AI buddy for the square root of 2 as a fraction) what tools can we use? Maybe try reading more novels. They allow us to experience multiple lifetimes in a short time, which is what we need to learn what matters. Reading Dorothea’s choice at the end of “Middlemarch” is a nice example. Should she give up Lowick Manor and marry the penniless Ladislaw or keep it and use her wealth to help others? Seeing her struggle helps us understand how to answer questions like: Should I give up my academic practice or marry that guy or move to Texas? These cannot be reduced to arithmetic. The only way to know is to know as much of life as possible.
My last visit with my Queens patient was our last together. He’s divorced and moving from San Diego to Gallatin, Tennessee. “I’ve paid my last taxes to California, Doc. I decided that’s it, I’m done!” Perhaps he should have read “The Grapes of Wrath” before he set out for California in the first place.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Is This Journal Legit? Predatory Publishers
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals.
Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
Open Access Defined
Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us?
Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions.
The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.
This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately.
Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.
If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated?
Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.
That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education.
For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later.
In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?
Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published.
Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own.
With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please.
Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you.
Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access.
That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on.
Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on.
Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish?
Predatory Journals
Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals.
The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript.
Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore.
There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals.
One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?
If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list.
I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals.
I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals.
Impact Factor
Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number.
Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal.
It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level.
Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense.
This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions.
I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?”
There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice.
If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on.
I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers.
Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed?
Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them.
That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.
Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it.
Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish.
There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that?
Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician.
Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research.
We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications.
Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers.
The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology.
Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up?
Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals.
Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
Open Access Defined
Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us?
Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions.
The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.
This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately.
Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.
If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated?
Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.
That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education.
For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later.
In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?
Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published.
Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own.
With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please.
Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you.
Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access.
That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on.
Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on.
Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish?
Predatory Journals
Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals.
The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript.
Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore.
There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals.
One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?
If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list.
I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals.
I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals.
Impact Factor
Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number.
Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal.
It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level.
Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense.
This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions.
I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?”
There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice.
If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on.
I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers.
Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed?
Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them.
That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.
Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it.
Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish.
There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that?
Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician.
Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research.
We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications.
Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers.
The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology.
Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up?
Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals.
Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
Open Access Defined
Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us?
Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions.
The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.
This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately.
Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.
If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated?
Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.
That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education.
For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later.
In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?
Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published.
Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own.
With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please.
Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you.
Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access.
That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on.
Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on.
Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish?
Predatory Journals
Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals.
The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript.
Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore.
There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals.
One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?
If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list.
I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals.
I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals.
Impact Factor
Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number.
Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal.
It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level.
Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense.
This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions.
I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?”
There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice.
If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on.
I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers.
Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed?
Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them.
That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.
Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it.
Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish.
There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that?
Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician.
Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research.
We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications.
Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers.
The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology.
Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up?
Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Don’t Fear Hormone Therapy, but Prescribe It Correctly
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: As a sexual medicine specialist, I treat a lot of menopause. Why? Because menopausal complaints are not just hot flashes and night sweats; we see so many sexual health problems: genital urinary syndrome of menopause (GUSM), low libido, pain with sex, arousal disorders, orgasm disorders. I am joined today with a superstar in the menopause field, Dr. Stephanie Faubion. Introduce yourself to our amazing listeners.
Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA: I am Stephanie Faubion, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health and medical director for the Menopause Society.
Dr. Rubin: That is a very short introduction for a very impressive person who really is an authority, if you’ve ever read an article about menopause. I asked Dr. Faubion if she spends all her time talking to reporters. But it’s very important because menopause is having a moment. We can’t go a day without seeing a headline, an Instagram story, or something; my feed is full of menopause information. Why do you think menopause is having a moment right now?
Dr. Faubion: It’s a well-deserved moment and should have happened a long time ago. It’s having a moment for several reasons. The generation of women experiencing perimenopause and menopause is different now; they are less willing to suffer in silence, which is a great thing. We’ve also created a little bit of a care vacuum. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study came out in 2002, and after that, we really left women with few choices about what to take to manage their symptoms. That created a vacuum.
After that, clinicians decided they no longer needed to worry about being educated about menopause because there was really nothing to do for menopause if we weren’t going to use hormone therapy. Where we’ve come to now is women are having symptoms; they’re having a problem. It’s affecting all aspects of their lives: their relationships, their quality of life, their ability to work. And they’re saying, “Hey, this isn’t right. We need to do something about this.” There’s still very little research in this area. We have a lot more to do. They’re demanding answers, as they should.
Dr. Rubin: We have quite a lot of tools in our toolbox that are evidence based, that really work and help people. I always say to my patients, “You have a generation of clinicians who were not taught how to do this well. Hormones are not all good or all bad, all right or all wrong, but they require some understanding of when to use them and how to safely use them.” That way, you can avoid your patients going to the snake oil salesmen down the street selling non–evidence-based treatments.
One article that came out this year that I thought was really fascinating was about what we are calling NFLM: not feeling like myself. I will tell you, I think it’s brilliant because there is not a woman aged 40 or above who doesn’t deeply connect with the idea of NFLM. Can you speak to the symptoms of perimenopause and menopause beyond hot flashes and night sweats? I named a few sexual symptoms earlier. We’re really learning about all these new areas to understand, what is perimenopause?
Dr. Faubion: Very rarely does a woman come in and say, “I have hot flashes” and I say, “Well, is that all you have?” “Yep. That’s all I have. I just have a couple of hot flashes.” That almost never happens, as you know. Menopause is not just about hot flashes, although that’s one of the most common symptoms. Hot flashes also occur at night. We call them night sweats when that happens. But there’s the sleep disturbance, which is probably not just related to night sweats but a lot of other things as well. Mood symptoms can be crazy. A lot of women come in with descriptions of irritability, just not feeling right, or feeling anxious. Another common symptom that we’re learning about is joint aches.
It’s important to remember when we’re talking about these symptoms that estrogen affects every tissue and organ system in the body. And when you lose it, you have effects in pretty much every tissue and organ system in the body. So, it’s not just about hot flashes and night sweats. We’ve also learned recently that women in perimenopause can have the same symptoms that women have after menopause. It’s not just that it starts at menopause.
Dr. Rubin: This is really important because we are speaking to the primary care world. The way medicine is set up, you’re allowed to have one problem. If you have more than one problem, I don’t know what to do. You go in the crazy bucket of we’re not interested or we don’t have time to take care of you. But menopause is never one problem. So, the disaster here is that these women are getting diagnosed with a mental health condition, with fibromyalgia, with dry eye, with sexual dysfunction, with depression or anxiety. They’re getting 10 diagnoses for what is actually one underlying hypogonadal problem.
Dr. Faubion: That’s exactly right. I’ve seen a woman at the Mayo Clinic, who came to me as a general internist, not even knowing I did menopause. She traveled across the country to see me. She’s gaining weight, she’s losing her hair, she’s sweating. She thinks there is something horribly wrong with her, like she must have cancer or something. When you put it all together — the palpitations and the rest — it was all menopause. Think of the expense to come to the Mayo Clinic and be evaluated for that. But no one, including her, had put together the fact that all of these symptoms were related to menopause. You’re exactly right. Sometimes women don’t even recognize that it’s all related.
Dr. Rubin: For the primary care viewers, we were raised on the idea that hormones cause cancer. Can you speak to that? What are the data in 2024? Am I going to die if I take hormone therapy? Am I going to risk blood clots and horrible cancers?
Dr. Faubion: To be brief, we now know who the best candidates are for hormone therapy, and we can really minimize risk. We also know that there are differences between the formulations that we use, the route of delivery, and the dose. We can really individualize this for the woman.
When it comes down to cancer risk, the WHI found that if you have a uterus and you’re taking both an estrogen and a progestogen (specifically conjugated equine estrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate), the risk for breast cancer was increased slightly. When I say “slightly,” I’m talking the same as the increase in breast cancer risk of drinking one to two glasses of wine a night, or being overweight, or being inactive. We are really talking about less than one case per thousand women per year after about 5 years of hormone therapy. So, it’s a very small increased risk.
In contrast, the data showed that the risk for breast cancer did not appear to be increased in women who did not have a uterus and were using conjugated equine estrogen alone, either during the study or in the 18-year follow-up. The blood clot risk associated with estrogen-containing hormone therapy can be minimized with transdermal preparations of estrogen, particularly with lower doses. Overall, we don’t see that these risks are prohibitive for most women, and if they are having bothersome symptoms, they can use an estrogen-containing product safely.
Dr. Rubin: We can learn new things, right? For example, the new GLP-1 drugs, which is also very fascinating — using those in perimenopause and menopause. A GLP-1 deficiency may be increased as you go to perimenopause and menopause. By adding back hormones, maybe we can help keep muscle around, keep mental health better, and keep bones stronger, because osteoporosis and fractures kill more people than breast cancer does.
So, as a primary care clinician, how do we learn to write prescriptions for hormone therapy? How do we learn how to counsel patients properly? Do we have to go back and take a fellowship? How do I learn how to integrate the evidence into my practice?
Dr. Faubion: An easy thing to do to gain confidence is take a course. The North American Menopause Society has an annual meeting in Chicago in September, and we do a Menopause 101 course for clinicians there. It’s also available online. There are ways to get this information in a digestible way to where you can learn the basics: Here’s where I start; here’s how I need to follow it up. It’s really not that difficult to get into this.
As to your point about the GLP-1 drugs, we all have to learn new things every day because treatments change, drugs change, etc. Although hormones have been out there for a long time, many clinicians haven’t had the experience of treating menopausal women. I would put a plea out to my primary care colleagues in internal medicine and family medicine that you need to be doing this. Think about it — you already are the expert on brain health and bone health and heart health. You should be the most comfortable in dealing with hormone therapy that has effects throughout the entire body. It’s important for us as primary care providers to really have a handle on this and to be the owners of managing menopause for women in midlife.
Dr. Rubin: I couldn’t agree more. As a sexual medicine doctor, treating menopausal women is actually what fuels my soul and stops all burnout because they get better. My clinic is full of a fifty-something-year-old people who come back and they say sex is good. “My relationship is good.” “I’m kicking butt at work.” I have a patient who just started law school because she feels good, and she says, “I’m keeping up with the 20-year-olds.” It is incredible to see people who feel terrible and then watch them blossom and get better. There’s nothing that fuels my soul more than these patients.
What is exciting you in the menopause world? What are you hopeful for down the road with some of these new initiatives coming out?
Dr. Faubion: The fact that we have a president of the United States and a National Institutes of Health who are more interested in looking at menopause is amazing. It’s an exciting time; there’s more interest, and more research funding seems to be available for the United States.
In terms of clinical management, we now have so many options available to women. We’ve been talking about hormone therapy, but we now have nonhormonal medications out there as well that are on the market, such as fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 inhibitor that came out last year. There’s probably another one coming out in the next year or so. So, women have lots of options, and for the first time, we can really individualize treatment for women and look at what symptoms are bothering them, and how best to get them back to where they should be.
We’re also starting a menopause-in-the-workplace initiative with the Menopause Society and really kind of tackling that one. We know that a lot of women are missing work, not taking a promotion, or avoiding a leadership role because of their menopause symptoms. Women should never be in the position of compromising their work lives because of menopause symptoms. This is something we can help women with.
Dr. Rubin: Our big takeaway today is: Believe your patients when they come to you, and they’ve driven and parked and arranged childcare, and showed up to your office and waited to see you. When they’re telling you that they have all these symptoms and they’re not feeling like themselves, maybe before you jump straight to the SSRI or just say, “Do some yoga and deep breathing,” maybe really dive into the menopause literature and understand the pros and cons, and the risks and benefits of hormone therapy. We do it with so many other things. We can do it with hormone therapy as well. It is not a one-size-fits-all. We do need to talk to our patients, customize their care, and really figure out what they care about and what they want. Patients are able to understand risks and benefits and can make good decisions for themselves.
Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, Department of Urology, at Georgetown University, Washington, DC. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: As a sexual medicine specialist, I treat a lot of menopause. Why? Because menopausal complaints are not just hot flashes and night sweats; we see so many sexual health problems: genital urinary syndrome of menopause (GUSM), low libido, pain with sex, arousal disorders, orgasm disorders. I am joined today with a superstar in the menopause field, Dr. Stephanie Faubion. Introduce yourself to our amazing listeners.
Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA: I am Stephanie Faubion, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health and medical director for the Menopause Society.
Dr. Rubin: That is a very short introduction for a very impressive person who really is an authority, if you’ve ever read an article about menopause. I asked Dr. Faubion if she spends all her time talking to reporters. But it’s very important because menopause is having a moment. We can’t go a day without seeing a headline, an Instagram story, or something; my feed is full of menopause information. Why do you think menopause is having a moment right now?
Dr. Faubion: It’s a well-deserved moment and should have happened a long time ago. It’s having a moment for several reasons. The generation of women experiencing perimenopause and menopause is different now; they are less willing to suffer in silence, which is a great thing. We’ve also created a little bit of a care vacuum. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study came out in 2002, and after that, we really left women with few choices about what to take to manage their symptoms. That created a vacuum.
After that, clinicians decided they no longer needed to worry about being educated about menopause because there was really nothing to do for menopause if we weren’t going to use hormone therapy. Where we’ve come to now is women are having symptoms; they’re having a problem. It’s affecting all aspects of their lives: their relationships, their quality of life, their ability to work. And they’re saying, “Hey, this isn’t right. We need to do something about this.” There’s still very little research in this area. We have a lot more to do. They’re demanding answers, as they should.
Dr. Rubin: We have quite a lot of tools in our toolbox that are evidence based, that really work and help people. I always say to my patients, “You have a generation of clinicians who were not taught how to do this well. Hormones are not all good or all bad, all right or all wrong, but they require some understanding of when to use them and how to safely use them.” That way, you can avoid your patients going to the snake oil salesmen down the street selling non–evidence-based treatments.
One article that came out this year that I thought was really fascinating was about what we are calling NFLM: not feeling like myself. I will tell you, I think it’s brilliant because there is not a woman aged 40 or above who doesn’t deeply connect with the idea of NFLM. Can you speak to the symptoms of perimenopause and menopause beyond hot flashes and night sweats? I named a few sexual symptoms earlier. We’re really learning about all these new areas to understand, what is perimenopause?
Dr. Faubion: Very rarely does a woman come in and say, “I have hot flashes” and I say, “Well, is that all you have?” “Yep. That’s all I have. I just have a couple of hot flashes.” That almost never happens, as you know. Menopause is not just about hot flashes, although that’s one of the most common symptoms. Hot flashes also occur at night. We call them night sweats when that happens. But there’s the sleep disturbance, which is probably not just related to night sweats but a lot of other things as well. Mood symptoms can be crazy. A lot of women come in with descriptions of irritability, just not feeling right, or feeling anxious. Another common symptom that we’re learning about is joint aches.
It’s important to remember when we’re talking about these symptoms that estrogen affects every tissue and organ system in the body. And when you lose it, you have effects in pretty much every tissue and organ system in the body. So, it’s not just about hot flashes and night sweats. We’ve also learned recently that women in perimenopause can have the same symptoms that women have after menopause. It’s not just that it starts at menopause.
Dr. Rubin: This is really important because we are speaking to the primary care world. The way medicine is set up, you’re allowed to have one problem. If you have more than one problem, I don’t know what to do. You go in the crazy bucket of we’re not interested or we don’t have time to take care of you. But menopause is never one problem. So, the disaster here is that these women are getting diagnosed with a mental health condition, with fibromyalgia, with dry eye, with sexual dysfunction, with depression or anxiety. They’re getting 10 diagnoses for what is actually one underlying hypogonadal problem.
Dr. Faubion: That’s exactly right. I’ve seen a woman at the Mayo Clinic, who came to me as a general internist, not even knowing I did menopause. She traveled across the country to see me. She’s gaining weight, she’s losing her hair, she’s sweating. She thinks there is something horribly wrong with her, like she must have cancer or something. When you put it all together — the palpitations and the rest — it was all menopause. Think of the expense to come to the Mayo Clinic and be evaluated for that. But no one, including her, had put together the fact that all of these symptoms were related to menopause. You’re exactly right. Sometimes women don’t even recognize that it’s all related.
Dr. Rubin: For the primary care viewers, we were raised on the idea that hormones cause cancer. Can you speak to that? What are the data in 2024? Am I going to die if I take hormone therapy? Am I going to risk blood clots and horrible cancers?
Dr. Faubion: To be brief, we now know who the best candidates are for hormone therapy, and we can really minimize risk. We also know that there are differences between the formulations that we use, the route of delivery, and the dose. We can really individualize this for the woman.
When it comes down to cancer risk, the WHI found that if you have a uterus and you’re taking both an estrogen and a progestogen (specifically conjugated equine estrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate), the risk for breast cancer was increased slightly. When I say “slightly,” I’m talking the same as the increase in breast cancer risk of drinking one to two glasses of wine a night, or being overweight, or being inactive. We are really talking about less than one case per thousand women per year after about 5 years of hormone therapy. So, it’s a very small increased risk.
In contrast, the data showed that the risk for breast cancer did not appear to be increased in women who did not have a uterus and were using conjugated equine estrogen alone, either during the study or in the 18-year follow-up. The blood clot risk associated with estrogen-containing hormone therapy can be minimized with transdermal preparations of estrogen, particularly with lower doses. Overall, we don’t see that these risks are prohibitive for most women, and if they are having bothersome symptoms, they can use an estrogen-containing product safely.
Dr. Rubin: We can learn new things, right? For example, the new GLP-1 drugs, which is also very fascinating — using those in perimenopause and menopause. A GLP-1 deficiency may be increased as you go to perimenopause and menopause. By adding back hormones, maybe we can help keep muscle around, keep mental health better, and keep bones stronger, because osteoporosis and fractures kill more people than breast cancer does.
So, as a primary care clinician, how do we learn to write prescriptions for hormone therapy? How do we learn how to counsel patients properly? Do we have to go back and take a fellowship? How do I learn how to integrate the evidence into my practice?
Dr. Faubion: An easy thing to do to gain confidence is take a course. The North American Menopause Society has an annual meeting in Chicago in September, and we do a Menopause 101 course for clinicians there. It’s also available online. There are ways to get this information in a digestible way to where you can learn the basics: Here’s where I start; here’s how I need to follow it up. It’s really not that difficult to get into this.
As to your point about the GLP-1 drugs, we all have to learn new things every day because treatments change, drugs change, etc. Although hormones have been out there for a long time, many clinicians haven’t had the experience of treating menopausal women. I would put a plea out to my primary care colleagues in internal medicine and family medicine that you need to be doing this. Think about it — you already are the expert on brain health and bone health and heart health. You should be the most comfortable in dealing with hormone therapy that has effects throughout the entire body. It’s important for us as primary care providers to really have a handle on this and to be the owners of managing menopause for women in midlife.
Dr. Rubin: I couldn’t agree more. As a sexual medicine doctor, treating menopausal women is actually what fuels my soul and stops all burnout because they get better. My clinic is full of a fifty-something-year-old people who come back and they say sex is good. “My relationship is good.” “I’m kicking butt at work.” I have a patient who just started law school because she feels good, and she says, “I’m keeping up with the 20-year-olds.” It is incredible to see people who feel terrible and then watch them blossom and get better. There’s nothing that fuels my soul more than these patients.
What is exciting you in the menopause world? What are you hopeful for down the road with some of these new initiatives coming out?
Dr. Faubion: The fact that we have a president of the United States and a National Institutes of Health who are more interested in looking at menopause is amazing. It’s an exciting time; there’s more interest, and more research funding seems to be available for the United States.
In terms of clinical management, we now have so many options available to women. We’ve been talking about hormone therapy, but we now have nonhormonal medications out there as well that are on the market, such as fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 inhibitor that came out last year. There’s probably another one coming out in the next year or so. So, women have lots of options, and for the first time, we can really individualize treatment for women and look at what symptoms are bothering them, and how best to get them back to where they should be.
We’re also starting a menopause-in-the-workplace initiative with the Menopause Society and really kind of tackling that one. We know that a lot of women are missing work, not taking a promotion, or avoiding a leadership role because of their menopause symptoms. Women should never be in the position of compromising their work lives because of menopause symptoms. This is something we can help women with.
Dr. Rubin: Our big takeaway today is: Believe your patients when they come to you, and they’ve driven and parked and arranged childcare, and showed up to your office and waited to see you. When they’re telling you that they have all these symptoms and they’re not feeling like themselves, maybe before you jump straight to the SSRI or just say, “Do some yoga and deep breathing,” maybe really dive into the menopause literature and understand the pros and cons, and the risks and benefits of hormone therapy. We do it with so many other things. We can do it with hormone therapy as well. It is not a one-size-fits-all. We do need to talk to our patients, customize their care, and really figure out what they care about and what they want. Patients are able to understand risks and benefits and can make good decisions for themselves.
Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, Department of Urology, at Georgetown University, Washington, DC. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Rachel S. Rubin, MD: As a sexual medicine specialist, I treat a lot of menopause. Why? Because menopausal complaints are not just hot flashes and night sweats; we see so many sexual health problems: genital urinary syndrome of menopause (GUSM), low libido, pain with sex, arousal disorders, orgasm disorders. I am joined today with a superstar in the menopause field, Dr. Stephanie Faubion. Introduce yourself to our amazing listeners.
Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA: I am Stephanie Faubion, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health and medical director for the Menopause Society.
Dr. Rubin: That is a very short introduction for a very impressive person who really is an authority, if you’ve ever read an article about menopause. I asked Dr. Faubion if she spends all her time talking to reporters. But it’s very important because menopause is having a moment. We can’t go a day without seeing a headline, an Instagram story, or something; my feed is full of menopause information. Why do you think menopause is having a moment right now?
Dr. Faubion: It’s a well-deserved moment and should have happened a long time ago. It’s having a moment for several reasons. The generation of women experiencing perimenopause and menopause is different now; they are less willing to suffer in silence, which is a great thing. We’ve also created a little bit of a care vacuum. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study came out in 2002, and after that, we really left women with few choices about what to take to manage their symptoms. That created a vacuum.
After that, clinicians decided they no longer needed to worry about being educated about menopause because there was really nothing to do for menopause if we weren’t going to use hormone therapy. Where we’ve come to now is women are having symptoms; they’re having a problem. It’s affecting all aspects of their lives: their relationships, their quality of life, their ability to work. And they’re saying, “Hey, this isn’t right. We need to do something about this.” There’s still very little research in this area. We have a lot more to do. They’re demanding answers, as they should.
Dr. Rubin: We have quite a lot of tools in our toolbox that are evidence based, that really work and help people. I always say to my patients, “You have a generation of clinicians who were not taught how to do this well. Hormones are not all good or all bad, all right or all wrong, but they require some understanding of when to use them and how to safely use them.” That way, you can avoid your patients going to the snake oil salesmen down the street selling non–evidence-based treatments.
One article that came out this year that I thought was really fascinating was about what we are calling NFLM: not feeling like myself. I will tell you, I think it’s brilliant because there is not a woman aged 40 or above who doesn’t deeply connect with the idea of NFLM. Can you speak to the symptoms of perimenopause and menopause beyond hot flashes and night sweats? I named a few sexual symptoms earlier. We’re really learning about all these new areas to understand, what is perimenopause?
Dr. Faubion: Very rarely does a woman come in and say, “I have hot flashes” and I say, “Well, is that all you have?” “Yep. That’s all I have. I just have a couple of hot flashes.” That almost never happens, as you know. Menopause is not just about hot flashes, although that’s one of the most common symptoms. Hot flashes also occur at night. We call them night sweats when that happens. But there’s the sleep disturbance, which is probably not just related to night sweats but a lot of other things as well. Mood symptoms can be crazy. A lot of women come in with descriptions of irritability, just not feeling right, or feeling anxious. Another common symptom that we’re learning about is joint aches.
It’s important to remember when we’re talking about these symptoms that estrogen affects every tissue and organ system in the body. And when you lose it, you have effects in pretty much every tissue and organ system in the body. So, it’s not just about hot flashes and night sweats. We’ve also learned recently that women in perimenopause can have the same symptoms that women have after menopause. It’s not just that it starts at menopause.
Dr. Rubin: This is really important because we are speaking to the primary care world. The way medicine is set up, you’re allowed to have one problem. If you have more than one problem, I don’t know what to do. You go in the crazy bucket of we’re not interested or we don’t have time to take care of you. But menopause is never one problem. So, the disaster here is that these women are getting diagnosed with a mental health condition, with fibromyalgia, with dry eye, with sexual dysfunction, with depression or anxiety. They’re getting 10 diagnoses for what is actually one underlying hypogonadal problem.
Dr. Faubion: That’s exactly right. I’ve seen a woman at the Mayo Clinic, who came to me as a general internist, not even knowing I did menopause. She traveled across the country to see me. She’s gaining weight, she’s losing her hair, she’s sweating. She thinks there is something horribly wrong with her, like she must have cancer or something. When you put it all together — the palpitations and the rest — it was all menopause. Think of the expense to come to the Mayo Clinic and be evaluated for that. But no one, including her, had put together the fact that all of these symptoms were related to menopause. You’re exactly right. Sometimes women don’t even recognize that it’s all related.
Dr. Rubin: For the primary care viewers, we were raised on the idea that hormones cause cancer. Can you speak to that? What are the data in 2024? Am I going to die if I take hormone therapy? Am I going to risk blood clots and horrible cancers?
Dr. Faubion: To be brief, we now know who the best candidates are for hormone therapy, and we can really minimize risk. We also know that there are differences between the formulations that we use, the route of delivery, and the dose. We can really individualize this for the woman.
When it comes down to cancer risk, the WHI found that if you have a uterus and you’re taking both an estrogen and a progestogen (specifically conjugated equine estrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate), the risk for breast cancer was increased slightly. When I say “slightly,” I’m talking the same as the increase in breast cancer risk of drinking one to two glasses of wine a night, or being overweight, or being inactive. We are really talking about less than one case per thousand women per year after about 5 years of hormone therapy. So, it’s a very small increased risk.
In contrast, the data showed that the risk for breast cancer did not appear to be increased in women who did not have a uterus and were using conjugated equine estrogen alone, either during the study or in the 18-year follow-up. The blood clot risk associated with estrogen-containing hormone therapy can be minimized with transdermal preparations of estrogen, particularly with lower doses. Overall, we don’t see that these risks are prohibitive for most women, and if they are having bothersome symptoms, they can use an estrogen-containing product safely.
Dr. Rubin: We can learn new things, right? For example, the new GLP-1 drugs, which is also very fascinating — using those in perimenopause and menopause. A GLP-1 deficiency may be increased as you go to perimenopause and menopause. By adding back hormones, maybe we can help keep muscle around, keep mental health better, and keep bones stronger, because osteoporosis and fractures kill more people than breast cancer does.
So, as a primary care clinician, how do we learn to write prescriptions for hormone therapy? How do we learn how to counsel patients properly? Do we have to go back and take a fellowship? How do I learn how to integrate the evidence into my practice?
Dr. Faubion: An easy thing to do to gain confidence is take a course. The North American Menopause Society has an annual meeting in Chicago in September, and we do a Menopause 101 course for clinicians there. It’s also available online. There are ways to get this information in a digestible way to where you can learn the basics: Here’s where I start; here’s how I need to follow it up. It’s really not that difficult to get into this.
As to your point about the GLP-1 drugs, we all have to learn new things every day because treatments change, drugs change, etc. Although hormones have been out there for a long time, many clinicians haven’t had the experience of treating menopausal women. I would put a plea out to my primary care colleagues in internal medicine and family medicine that you need to be doing this. Think about it — you already are the expert on brain health and bone health and heart health. You should be the most comfortable in dealing with hormone therapy that has effects throughout the entire body. It’s important for us as primary care providers to really have a handle on this and to be the owners of managing menopause for women in midlife.
Dr. Rubin: I couldn’t agree more. As a sexual medicine doctor, treating menopausal women is actually what fuels my soul and stops all burnout because they get better. My clinic is full of a fifty-something-year-old people who come back and they say sex is good. “My relationship is good.” “I’m kicking butt at work.” I have a patient who just started law school because she feels good, and she says, “I’m keeping up with the 20-year-olds.” It is incredible to see people who feel terrible and then watch them blossom and get better. There’s nothing that fuels my soul more than these patients.
What is exciting you in the menopause world? What are you hopeful for down the road with some of these new initiatives coming out?
Dr. Faubion: The fact that we have a president of the United States and a National Institutes of Health who are more interested in looking at menopause is amazing. It’s an exciting time; there’s more interest, and more research funding seems to be available for the United States.
In terms of clinical management, we now have so many options available to women. We’ve been talking about hormone therapy, but we now have nonhormonal medications out there as well that are on the market, such as fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 inhibitor that came out last year. There’s probably another one coming out in the next year or so. So, women have lots of options, and for the first time, we can really individualize treatment for women and look at what symptoms are bothering them, and how best to get them back to where they should be.
We’re also starting a menopause-in-the-workplace initiative with the Menopause Society and really kind of tackling that one. We know that a lot of women are missing work, not taking a promotion, or avoiding a leadership role because of their menopause symptoms. Women should never be in the position of compromising their work lives because of menopause symptoms. This is something we can help women with.
Dr. Rubin: Our big takeaway today is: Believe your patients when they come to you, and they’ve driven and parked and arranged childcare, and showed up to your office and waited to see you. When they’re telling you that they have all these symptoms and they’re not feeling like themselves, maybe before you jump straight to the SSRI or just say, “Do some yoga and deep breathing,” maybe really dive into the menopause literature and understand the pros and cons, and the risks and benefits of hormone therapy. We do it with so many other things. We can do it with hormone therapy as well. It is not a one-size-fits-all. We do need to talk to our patients, customize their care, and really figure out what they care about and what they want. Patients are able to understand risks and benefits and can make good decisions for themselves.
Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, Department of Urology, at Georgetown University, Washington, DC. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Online Diagnosis of Sexually Transmitted Infections? Ethicist Says We Are Nowhere Close
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet.
Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there.
Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there.
It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease.
Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life.
I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.”
Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you.
It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this?
There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns.
The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior.
We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases.
I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.
Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet.
Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there.
Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there.
It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease.
Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life.
I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.”
Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you.
It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this?
There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns.
The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior.
We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases.
I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.
Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet.
Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there.
Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there.
It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease.
Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life.
I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.”
Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you.
It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this?
There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns.
The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior.
We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases.
I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.
Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should You Offer Medical Credit Cards?
Editor’s note: This is Dr. Eastern’s last “Managing Your Practice” column for Dermatology News. After his first column was published in 1986, Dr. Eastern continued writing his column monthly until the mid-1990s, resuming in 2005. In total, he has written over 300 columns on topics relevant to medical practice, ranging from hiring employees, selling and merging practices, complying with OSHA, and avoiding embezzlement, to electronic health records, burnout, medical assistants, negative online reviews, artificial intelligence in the office, and more. In the future, he will continue to provide commentary on practice issues with an occasional guest editorial.
Medicare reimbursement cuts, increasing overhead and staff salaries, and inflation have made running a profitable private practice increasingly challenging, particularly for rural and smaller offices. Medical credit cards are an increasingly popular choice to fill this gap.
Traditionally, these cards were used to help cover procedures insurance didn’t cover — such as cosmetic procedures — but over the years, they have been expanded to cover other healthcare charges, mostly for patients who are paying out of pocket due to inadequate insurance or other reasons.
Advantages for physicians include immediate payment from the credit card company and reduced billing and collection costs. Patients are also less likely to delay or defer treatment if they can charge the payment and pay it back in installments.
The first step in offering medical credit cards is signing up with one or more third-party card companies. CareCredit is the most common provider in the medical credit card market. Other vendors include Wells Fargo, AccessOne, Alphaeon Credit, and iCare Financial. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.) A member of your staff signs patients up, and the credit card company checks their credit. If approved, the card company pays you your fee and assumes responsibility for collecting from the patient.
The interest charge on medical credit cards is often deferred for a period of time, typically between 6 and 24 months. If patients pay off the debt within this time, they can avoid paying interest. But, like other credit cards, if they make late payments or have an unpaid balance once the promotional period ends, they may end up with interest and fees totaling 25%-30% or more. It is important to make it very clear to your patients that payments are interest-free only if they are all made on time and within the promotional period.
According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards or loans were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to complete payment during the promotional period paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period.
Despite the growing popularity of medical credit cards among physicians, it is worth noting that some consumer groups view them as predatory financial products, marketed toward people in tough financial situations. A coalition of 60 health advocacy groups has urged the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards. So there is that much more reason to choose candidates for medical credit cards carefully, and to make them fully aware of what obligations they are assuming.
Patients who do not think they can pay off the balance within the interest-free time frame should probably be advised to pursue an alternative payment method, such as using a conventional credit card, taking out a personal or home-equity loan, or borrowing from a retirement savings account. Some physicians are willing to negotiate a reduced fee for patients who agree to pay cash at the time of service.
Those who do choose to apply for a medical credit card should be informed of their options, which can vary considerably depending on the product and the third-party vendor. Some medical credit products can be used only for elective procedures, but some can be used more broadly for various medical expenses. Check to make sure that each patient’s financing option can be used for his or her desired medical service.
Some payment products can only be used at specific practices or groups, while others can be used at a variety of medical offices and hospitals. If a patient arrives with a medical credit card already in hand, confirm that it is one that your office accepts.
Interest rates generally vary with each card and vendor. Make patients aware of when interest rates start accruing and if the plan offers a fixed or variable APR, or if it charges compounding interest. Confirm if there is a deferred interest option, and if so, for how long.
Different medical credit products also have varying fees and payment schedules. See that each patient reads the terms of the agreement to understand when interest may start to accrue or change, as well as when certain fees may apply. Understanding when the payments are due will help them avoid additional fees, including late fees. Some medical payment plans may also have administrative or processing fees. If so, patients should be made aware of them.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, New Jersey. 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].
Editor’s note: This is Dr. Eastern’s last “Managing Your Practice” column for Dermatology News. After his first column was published in 1986, Dr. Eastern continued writing his column monthly until the mid-1990s, resuming in 2005. In total, he has written over 300 columns on topics relevant to medical practice, ranging from hiring employees, selling and merging practices, complying with OSHA, and avoiding embezzlement, to electronic health records, burnout, medical assistants, negative online reviews, artificial intelligence in the office, and more. In the future, he will continue to provide commentary on practice issues with an occasional guest editorial.
Medicare reimbursement cuts, increasing overhead and staff salaries, and inflation have made running a profitable private practice increasingly challenging, particularly for rural and smaller offices. Medical credit cards are an increasingly popular choice to fill this gap.
Traditionally, these cards were used to help cover procedures insurance didn’t cover — such as cosmetic procedures — but over the years, they have been expanded to cover other healthcare charges, mostly for patients who are paying out of pocket due to inadequate insurance or other reasons.
Advantages for physicians include immediate payment from the credit card company and reduced billing and collection costs. Patients are also less likely to delay or defer treatment if they can charge the payment and pay it back in installments.
The first step in offering medical credit cards is signing up with one or more third-party card companies. CareCredit is the most common provider in the medical credit card market. Other vendors include Wells Fargo, AccessOne, Alphaeon Credit, and iCare Financial. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.) A member of your staff signs patients up, and the credit card company checks their credit. If approved, the card company pays you your fee and assumes responsibility for collecting from the patient.
The interest charge on medical credit cards is often deferred for a period of time, typically between 6 and 24 months. If patients pay off the debt within this time, they can avoid paying interest. But, like other credit cards, if they make late payments or have an unpaid balance once the promotional period ends, they may end up with interest and fees totaling 25%-30% or more. It is important to make it very clear to your patients that payments are interest-free only if they are all made on time and within the promotional period.
According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards or loans were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to complete payment during the promotional period paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period.
Despite the growing popularity of medical credit cards among physicians, it is worth noting that some consumer groups view them as predatory financial products, marketed toward people in tough financial situations. A coalition of 60 health advocacy groups has urged the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards. So there is that much more reason to choose candidates for medical credit cards carefully, and to make them fully aware of what obligations they are assuming.
Patients who do not think they can pay off the balance within the interest-free time frame should probably be advised to pursue an alternative payment method, such as using a conventional credit card, taking out a personal or home-equity loan, or borrowing from a retirement savings account. Some physicians are willing to negotiate a reduced fee for patients who agree to pay cash at the time of service.
Those who do choose to apply for a medical credit card should be informed of their options, which can vary considerably depending on the product and the third-party vendor. Some medical credit products can be used only for elective procedures, but some can be used more broadly for various medical expenses. Check to make sure that each patient’s financing option can be used for his or her desired medical service.
Some payment products can only be used at specific practices or groups, while others can be used at a variety of medical offices and hospitals. If a patient arrives with a medical credit card already in hand, confirm that it is one that your office accepts.
Interest rates generally vary with each card and vendor. Make patients aware of when interest rates start accruing and if the plan offers a fixed or variable APR, or if it charges compounding interest. Confirm if there is a deferred interest option, and if so, for how long.
Different medical credit products also have varying fees and payment schedules. See that each patient reads the terms of the agreement to understand when interest may start to accrue or change, as well as when certain fees may apply. Understanding when the payments are due will help them avoid additional fees, including late fees. Some medical payment plans may also have administrative or processing fees. If so, patients should be made aware of them.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, New Jersey. 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].
Editor’s note: This is Dr. Eastern’s last “Managing Your Practice” column for Dermatology News. After his first column was published in 1986, Dr. Eastern continued writing his column monthly until the mid-1990s, resuming in 2005. In total, he has written over 300 columns on topics relevant to medical practice, ranging from hiring employees, selling and merging practices, complying with OSHA, and avoiding embezzlement, to electronic health records, burnout, medical assistants, negative online reviews, artificial intelligence in the office, and more. In the future, he will continue to provide commentary on practice issues with an occasional guest editorial.
Medicare reimbursement cuts, increasing overhead and staff salaries, and inflation have made running a profitable private practice increasingly challenging, particularly for rural and smaller offices. Medical credit cards are an increasingly popular choice to fill this gap.
Traditionally, these cards were used to help cover procedures insurance didn’t cover — such as cosmetic procedures — but over the years, they have been expanded to cover other healthcare charges, mostly for patients who are paying out of pocket due to inadequate insurance or other reasons.
Advantages for physicians include immediate payment from the credit card company and reduced billing and collection costs. Patients are also less likely to delay or defer treatment if they can charge the payment and pay it back in installments.
The first step in offering medical credit cards is signing up with one or more third-party card companies. CareCredit is the most common provider in the medical credit card market. Other vendors include Wells Fargo, AccessOne, Alphaeon Credit, and iCare Financial. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.) A member of your staff signs patients up, and the credit card company checks their credit. If approved, the card company pays you your fee and assumes responsibility for collecting from the patient.
The interest charge on medical credit cards is often deferred for a period of time, typically between 6 and 24 months. If patients pay off the debt within this time, they can avoid paying interest. But, like other credit cards, if they make late payments or have an unpaid balance once the promotional period ends, they may end up with interest and fees totaling 25%-30% or more. It is important to make it very clear to your patients that payments are interest-free only if they are all made on time and within the promotional period.
According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards or loans were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to complete payment during the promotional period paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period.
Despite the growing popularity of medical credit cards among physicians, it is worth noting that some consumer groups view them as predatory financial products, marketed toward people in tough financial situations. A coalition of 60 health advocacy groups has urged the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards. So there is that much more reason to choose candidates for medical credit cards carefully, and to make them fully aware of what obligations they are assuming.
Patients who do not think they can pay off the balance within the interest-free time frame should probably be advised to pursue an alternative payment method, such as using a conventional credit card, taking out a personal or home-equity loan, or borrowing from a retirement savings account. Some physicians are willing to negotiate a reduced fee for patients who agree to pay cash at the time of service.
Those who do choose to apply for a medical credit card should be informed of their options, which can vary considerably depending on the product and the third-party vendor. Some medical credit products can be used only for elective procedures, but some can be used more broadly for various medical expenses. Check to make sure that each patient’s financing option can be used for his or her desired medical service.
Some payment products can only be used at specific practices or groups, while others can be used at a variety of medical offices and hospitals. If a patient arrives with a medical credit card already in hand, confirm that it is one that your office accepts.
Interest rates generally vary with each card and vendor. Make patients aware of when interest rates start accruing and if the plan offers a fixed or variable APR, or if it charges compounding interest. Confirm if there is a deferred interest option, and if so, for how long.
Different medical credit products also have varying fees and payment schedules. See that each patient reads the terms of the agreement to understand when interest may start to accrue or change, as well as when certain fees may apply. Understanding when the payments are due will help them avoid additional fees, including late fees. Some medical payment plans may also have administrative or processing fees. If so, patients should be made aware of them.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, New Jersey. 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].
Pruritic, violaceous papules in a patient with renal cell carcinoma
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking antibody used to treat different malignancies including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and other advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).
Lichen planus-like adverse drug reactions, as seen in this patient, are also referred to as lichenoid drug eruption or drug-induced lichen planus. This cutaneous reaction is one of the more rare side effects of pembrolizumab. It should be noted that in lichenoid reactions, keratinocytes expressing PD-L1 are particularly affected, leading to a dense CD4/CD8 positive lymphocytic infiltration in the basal layer, necrosis of keratinocytes, acanthosis, and hypergranulosis. Subsequently, the cutaneous adverse reaction is a target effect of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and not a general hypersensitivity reaction. Clinically, both lichen planus and lichenoid drug eruptions exhibit erythematous papules and plaques. Lichenoid drug eruptions, however, can be scaly, pruritic, and heal with more hyperpigmentation.
A skin biopsy revealed irregular epidermal hyperplasia with jagged rete ridges. Within the dermis, there was a lichenoid inflammatory cell infiltrate obscuring the dermal-epidermal junction. The inflammatory cell infiltrate contained lymphocytes, histiocytes, and eosinophils. A diagnosis of a lichen planus-like adverse drug reaction to pembrolizumab was favored.
If the reaction is mild, topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines can help with the drug-induced lichen planus. For more severe cases, systemic steroids can be given to help ease the reaction. Physicians should be aware of potential adverse drug effects that can mimic other medical conditions.
The case and photo were submitted by Ms. Towe, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Florida, and Dr. Berke, Three Rivers Dermatology, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
Bansal A et al. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2023 Apr 4;14(3):391-4. doi: 10.4103/idoj.idoj_377_22.
Sethi A, Raj M. Cureus. 2021 Mar 8;13(3):e13768. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13768.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking antibody used to treat different malignancies including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and other advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).
Lichen planus-like adverse drug reactions, as seen in this patient, are also referred to as lichenoid drug eruption or drug-induced lichen planus. This cutaneous reaction is one of the more rare side effects of pembrolizumab. It should be noted that in lichenoid reactions, keratinocytes expressing PD-L1 are particularly affected, leading to a dense CD4/CD8 positive lymphocytic infiltration in the basal layer, necrosis of keratinocytes, acanthosis, and hypergranulosis. Subsequently, the cutaneous adverse reaction is a target effect of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and not a general hypersensitivity reaction. Clinically, both lichen planus and lichenoid drug eruptions exhibit erythematous papules and plaques. Lichenoid drug eruptions, however, can be scaly, pruritic, and heal with more hyperpigmentation.
A skin biopsy revealed irregular epidermal hyperplasia with jagged rete ridges. Within the dermis, there was a lichenoid inflammatory cell infiltrate obscuring the dermal-epidermal junction. The inflammatory cell infiltrate contained lymphocytes, histiocytes, and eosinophils. A diagnosis of a lichen planus-like adverse drug reaction to pembrolizumab was favored.
If the reaction is mild, topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines can help with the drug-induced lichen planus. For more severe cases, systemic steroids can be given to help ease the reaction. Physicians should be aware of potential adverse drug effects that can mimic other medical conditions.
The case and photo were submitted by Ms. Towe, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Florida, and Dr. Berke, Three Rivers Dermatology, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
Bansal A et al. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2023 Apr 4;14(3):391-4. doi: 10.4103/idoj.idoj_377_22.
Sethi A, Raj M. Cureus. 2021 Mar 8;13(3):e13768. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13768.
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) is a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blocking antibody used to treat different malignancies including melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and other advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).
Lichen planus-like adverse drug reactions, as seen in this patient, are also referred to as lichenoid drug eruption or drug-induced lichen planus. This cutaneous reaction is one of the more rare side effects of pembrolizumab. It should be noted that in lichenoid reactions, keratinocytes expressing PD-L1 are particularly affected, leading to a dense CD4/CD8 positive lymphocytic infiltration in the basal layer, necrosis of keratinocytes, acanthosis, and hypergranulosis. Subsequently, the cutaneous adverse reaction is a target effect of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and not a general hypersensitivity reaction. Clinically, both lichen planus and lichenoid drug eruptions exhibit erythematous papules and plaques. Lichenoid drug eruptions, however, can be scaly, pruritic, and heal with more hyperpigmentation.
A skin biopsy revealed irregular epidermal hyperplasia with jagged rete ridges. Within the dermis, there was a lichenoid inflammatory cell infiltrate obscuring the dermal-epidermal junction. The inflammatory cell infiltrate contained lymphocytes, histiocytes, and eosinophils. A diagnosis of a lichen planus-like adverse drug reaction to pembrolizumab was favored.
If the reaction is mild, topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines can help with the drug-induced lichen planus. For more severe cases, systemic steroids can be given to help ease the reaction. Physicians should be aware of potential adverse drug effects that can mimic other medical conditions.
The case and photo were submitted by Ms. Towe, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, Florida, and Dr. Berke, Three Rivers Dermatology, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].
References
Bansal A et al. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2023 Apr 4;14(3):391-4. doi: 10.4103/idoj.idoj_377_22.
Sethi A, Raj M. Cureus. 2021 Mar 8;13(3):e13768. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13768.
Managing Heart Failure in Women: Key Differences and Clinical Tips
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.
What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.
We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.
For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.
Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.
The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.
The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.
The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.
The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.
When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.
When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.
When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.
When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.
When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.
Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.
This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.
In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.
Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.
The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.
In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.
For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.
We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.
Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.
What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.
We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.
For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.
Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.
The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.
The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.
The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.
The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.
When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.
When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.
When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.
When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.
When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.
Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.
This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.
In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.
Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.
The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.
In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.
For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.
We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.
Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.
What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.
We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.
For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.
Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.
The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.
The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.
The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.
The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.
When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.
When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.
When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.
When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.
When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.
Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.
This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.
In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.
Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.
The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.
In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.
For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.
We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.
Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Just Be Prepared’: MD Finds Overdose Victim in an Alley
Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.
I had worked a normal 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift in our emergency department. It was a nice day out, so I put my headphones in and started walking home through the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Denver. I passed a couple of buildings and reached an alleyway. At that moment, I glanced over.
Two guys were standing over a third person who was down on the ground. One of the people standing was on the phone. I paused for a second and thought, that doesn’t look right.
The guy on the ground was clearly out. And the other two were looking concerned like they didn’t know what to do.
I walked up the alley and asked, “What’s going on? Can I help?” One of the guys explained that they had just found this man lying here and had already called 911. They sounded a little bit out of their element. They certainly weren’t medically trained.
I leaned down next to the man on the ground. He was probably in his mid-to-late 40s. Unconscious. I always start with, “Hello? Can you hear me?” No response.
I felt for a pulse and he had one, but he didn’t appear to be breathing. I thought, I know what this is. I said, “Sir, I’m going to open your eyes.” I opened his eyes, and his pupils were tiny. It was almost certainly an opioid overdose.
And I had naloxone in my bag.
I got it out and started to assemble it. I didn’t have Narcan, which is the easy one. I had to put this kit together, draw up the medication, and put on the little nasal atomizer.
The two other guys were standing there watching. Then the one on the phone walked down to the end of the alley to where the ambulance was probably going to arrive so he could wave them down.
I gave the man the 4 mg of naloxone, two in each nostril.
He still wasn’t breathing. I did a basic maneuver where you lift his jaw a little bit to help open up the airway.
Suddenly, he started breathing again. I couldn’t do any meaningful measurements of his oxygen saturation or anything like that. I just kind of looked at him and thought, Okay, he has a pulse. He’s breathing now. That’s good.
Luckily, the cavalry arrived soon after that. Our Denver Health paramedics pulled up into the alley, and one of them recognized me from the ER. I explained that I had already given the guy naloxone. They did their assessment, and he still wasn’t breathing well, so they gave him some breaths with a mask and a bag.
We got him onto the gurney and into the back of the ambulance. They started an IV. He seemed to be breathing okay by then, and his numbers looked okay. But he wasn’t awake yet by any means.
I handed off care to them and disposed of my sharp in the ambulance. Then they took him into the ER that I had just left moments ago.
The two other guys had already disappeared. I think they saw the ambulance and thought, our job is done. So, I didn’t end up talking to them at all.
So, just like that ... I started walking home again.
I like to think of myself as a cool, calm, collected person working in the ER. But my heart was definitely going fast at that point. I called my wife to tell her about the crazy thing that just happened, and she could hear in my voice how amped up I was.
In the ER, it’s very common to see patients who need naloxone, have opioid toxicity, or have received Narcan in the community. Luckily, this man was found right away. He had likely overdosed only a few minutes earlier. Those scenarios can go bad very quickly. If there’s no one there, people often die.
That’s why I started carrying naloxone.
Now, I encourage all my friends to have some, and I suggest all medical professionals to keep some with them. Just be prepared. Put it in your backpack, your purse, keep it in the house, in the car, wherever. The nasal autoinjectors are incredibly easy. Like, stick it up the nose, push the big red button. Done.
When we train lay people to administer Narcan, we try to keep it simple. If you see someone, and they’re not responsive, not breathing, just give it. It’s not that there’s no possible harm if you’re wrong. But the benefits so vastly outweigh the risks that we are very aggressive to say, go ahead and give it.
I think we all have a responsibility to care for our communities. Obviously, that can take a lot of different forms. I had the privilege of being in the right place at the right time with the right tool to potentially save a life. That was the form it took for me that day.
Later, I followed up with a friend who took care of the man in the ER. He went through our standard procedure, being monitored to make sure the opioids didn’t outlast the naloxone. We have a lot of resources and next steps for people that have opioid use disorder. He was made aware of those. And then he walked out. I never saw him again.
It’s not the sexy part of our job in emergency medicine, not the super high–intensity adrenaline rush–type work, but a lot of what we do is talk to people like this guy. We counsel them. We think about their longer-term health and not just the overdose. This is an incredibly high-risk population in terms of their mortality risk from the opioid use disorder. It’s astronomical.
I obviously believed in this work before, but that day changed something for me. It added a layer of urgency. Now, when I have a moment in the emergency room to connect with someone, I know the reality — this person sitting in front of me could die in an alley. Maybe not today, but next week or next month.
I have the naloxone in my bag. Just in case.
Patrick Joynt, MD, is an emergency medicine physician with Denver Health in Denver.
Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.
I had worked a normal 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift in our emergency department. It was a nice day out, so I put my headphones in and started walking home through the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Denver. I passed a couple of buildings and reached an alleyway. At that moment, I glanced over.
Two guys were standing over a third person who was down on the ground. One of the people standing was on the phone. I paused for a second and thought, that doesn’t look right.
The guy on the ground was clearly out. And the other two were looking concerned like they didn’t know what to do.
I walked up the alley and asked, “What’s going on? Can I help?” One of the guys explained that they had just found this man lying here and had already called 911. They sounded a little bit out of their element. They certainly weren’t medically trained.
I leaned down next to the man on the ground. He was probably in his mid-to-late 40s. Unconscious. I always start with, “Hello? Can you hear me?” No response.
I felt for a pulse and he had one, but he didn’t appear to be breathing. I thought, I know what this is. I said, “Sir, I’m going to open your eyes.” I opened his eyes, and his pupils were tiny. It was almost certainly an opioid overdose.
And I had naloxone in my bag.
I got it out and started to assemble it. I didn’t have Narcan, which is the easy one. I had to put this kit together, draw up the medication, and put on the little nasal atomizer.
The two other guys were standing there watching. Then the one on the phone walked down to the end of the alley to where the ambulance was probably going to arrive so he could wave them down.
I gave the man the 4 mg of naloxone, two in each nostril.
He still wasn’t breathing. I did a basic maneuver where you lift his jaw a little bit to help open up the airway.
Suddenly, he started breathing again. I couldn’t do any meaningful measurements of his oxygen saturation or anything like that. I just kind of looked at him and thought, Okay, he has a pulse. He’s breathing now. That’s good.
Luckily, the cavalry arrived soon after that. Our Denver Health paramedics pulled up into the alley, and one of them recognized me from the ER. I explained that I had already given the guy naloxone. They did their assessment, and he still wasn’t breathing well, so they gave him some breaths with a mask and a bag.
We got him onto the gurney and into the back of the ambulance. They started an IV. He seemed to be breathing okay by then, and his numbers looked okay. But he wasn’t awake yet by any means.
I handed off care to them and disposed of my sharp in the ambulance. Then they took him into the ER that I had just left moments ago.
The two other guys had already disappeared. I think they saw the ambulance and thought, our job is done. So, I didn’t end up talking to them at all.
So, just like that ... I started walking home again.
I like to think of myself as a cool, calm, collected person working in the ER. But my heart was definitely going fast at that point. I called my wife to tell her about the crazy thing that just happened, and she could hear in my voice how amped up I was.
In the ER, it’s very common to see patients who need naloxone, have opioid toxicity, or have received Narcan in the community. Luckily, this man was found right away. He had likely overdosed only a few minutes earlier. Those scenarios can go bad very quickly. If there’s no one there, people often die.
That’s why I started carrying naloxone.
Now, I encourage all my friends to have some, and I suggest all medical professionals to keep some with them. Just be prepared. Put it in your backpack, your purse, keep it in the house, in the car, wherever. The nasal autoinjectors are incredibly easy. Like, stick it up the nose, push the big red button. Done.
When we train lay people to administer Narcan, we try to keep it simple. If you see someone, and they’re not responsive, not breathing, just give it. It’s not that there’s no possible harm if you’re wrong. But the benefits so vastly outweigh the risks that we are very aggressive to say, go ahead and give it.
I think we all have a responsibility to care for our communities. Obviously, that can take a lot of different forms. I had the privilege of being in the right place at the right time with the right tool to potentially save a life. That was the form it took for me that day.
Later, I followed up with a friend who took care of the man in the ER. He went through our standard procedure, being monitored to make sure the opioids didn’t outlast the naloxone. We have a lot of resources and next steps for people that have opioid use disorder. He was made aware of those. And then he walked out. I never saw him again.
It’s not the sexy part of our job in emergency medicine, not the super high–intensity adrenaline rush–type work, but a lot of what we do is talk to people like this guy. We counsel them. We think about their longer-term health and not just the overdose. This is an incredibly high-risk population in terms of their mortality risk from the opioid use disorder. It’s astronomical.
I obviously believed in this work before, but that day changed something for me. It added a layer of urgency. Now, when I have a moment in the emergency room to connect with someone, I know the reality — this person sitting in front of me could die in an alley. Maybe not today, but next week or next month.
I have the naloxone in my bag. Just in case.
Patrick Joynt, MD, is an emergency medicine physician with Denver Health in Denver.
Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.
I had worked a normal 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift in our emergency department. It was a nice day out, so I put my headphones in and started walking home through the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Denver. I passed a couple of buildings and reached an alleyway. At that moment, I glanced over.
Two guys were standing over a third person who was down on the ground. One of the people standing was on the phone. I paused for a second and thought, that doesn’t look right.
The guy on the ground was clearly out. And the other two were looking concerned like they didn’t know what to do.
I walked up the alley and asked, “What’s going on? Can I help?” One of the guys explained that they had just found this man lying here and had already called 911. They sounded a little bit out of their element. They certainly weren’t medically trained.
I leaned down next to the man on the ground. He was probably in his mid-to-late 40s. Unconscious. I always start with, “Hello? Can you hear me?” No response.
I felt for a pulse and he had one, but he didn’t appear to be breathing. I thought, I know what this is. I said, “Sir, I’m going to open your eyes.” I opened his eyes, and his pupils were tiny. It was almost certainly an opioid overdose.
And I had naloxone in my bag.
I got it out and started to assemble it. I didn’t have Narcan, which is the easy one. I had to put this kit together, draw up the medication, and put on the little nasal atomizer.
The two other guys were standing there watching. Then the one on the phone walked down to the end of the alley to where the ambulance was probably going to arrive so he could wave them down.
I gave the man the 4 mg of naloxone, two in each nostril.
He still wasn’t breathing. I did a basic maneuver where you lift his jaw a little bit to help open up the airway.
Suddenly, he started breathing again. I couldn’t do any meaningful measurements of his oxygen saturation or anything like that. I just kind of looked at him and thought, Okay, he has a pulse. He’s breathing now. That’s good.
Luckily, the cavalry arrived soon after that. Our Denver Health paramedics pulled up into the alley, and one of them recognized me from the ER. I explained that I had already given the guy naloxone. They did their assessment, and he still wasn’t breathing well, so they gave him some breaths with a mask and a bag.
We got him onto the gurney and into the back of the ambulance. They started an IV. He seemed to be breathing okay by then, and his numbers looked okay. But he wasn’t awake yet by any means.
I handed off care to them and disposed of my sharp in the ambulance. Then they took him into the ER that I had just left moments ago.
The two other guys had already disappeared. I think they saw the ambulance and thought, our job is done. So, I didn’t end up talking to them at all.
So, just like that ... I started walking home again.
I like to think of myself as a cool, calm, collected person working in the ER. But my heart was definitely going fast at that point. I called my wife to tell her about the crazy thing that just happened, and she could hear in my voice how amped up I was.
In the ER, it’s very common to see patients who need naloxone, have opioid toxicity, or have received Narcan in the community. Luckily, this man was found right away. He had likely overdosed only a few minutes earlier. Those scenarios can go bad very quickly. If there’s no one there, people often die.
That’s why I started carrying naloxone.
Now, I encourage all my friends to have some, and I suggest all medical professionals to keep some with them. Just be prepared. Put it in your backpack, your purse, keep it in the house, in the car, wherever. The nasal autoinjectors are incredibly easy. Like, stick it up the nose, push the big red button. Done.
When we train lay people to administer Narcan, we try to keep it simple. If you see someone, and they’re not responsive, not breathing, just give it. It’s not that there’s no possible harm if you’re wrong. But the benefits so vastly outweigh the risks that we are very aggressive to say, go ahead and give it.
I think we all have a responsibility to care for our communities. Obviously, that can take a lot of different forms. I had the privilege of being in the right place at the right time with the right tool to potentially save a life. That was the form it took for me that day.
Later, I followed up with a friend who took care of the man in the ER. He went through our standard procedure, being monitored to make sure the opioids didn’t outlast the naloxone. We have a lot of resources and next steps for people that have opioid use disorder. He was made aware of those. And then he walked out. I never saw him again.
It’s not the sexy part of our job in emergency medicine, not the super high–intensity adrenaline rush–type work, but a lot of what we do is talk to people like this guy. We counsel them. We think about their longer-term health and not just the overdose. This is an incredibly high-risk population in terms of their mortality risk from the opioid use disorder. It’s astronomical.
I obviously believed in this work before, but that day changed something for me. It added a layer of urgency. Now, when I have a moment in the emergency room to connect with someone, I know the reality — this person sitting in front of me could die in an alley. Maybe not today, but next week or next month.
I have the naloxone in my bag. Just in case.
Patrick Joynt, MD, is an emergency medicine physician with Denver Health in Denver.
Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Long COVID Can’t Be Solved Until We Decide What It Is
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I want to help people suffering from long COVID as much as anyone. But we have a real problem. In brief, we are being too inclusive. The first thing you learn, when you start studying the epidemiology of diseases, is that you need a good case definition. And our case definition for long COVID sucks. Just last week, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) issued a definition of long COVID with the aim of “improving consistency, documentation, and treatment.” Good news, right? Here’s the definition: “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.”
This is not helpful. The symptoms can be in any organ system, can be continuous or relapsing and remitting. Basically, if you’ve had COVID — and essentially all of us have by now — and you have any symptom, even one that comes and goes, 3 months after that, it’s long COVID. They don’t even specify that it has to be a new symptom.
And I have sort of a case study in this problem today, based on a paper getting a lot of press suggesting that one out of every five people has long COVID.
We are talking about this study, “Epidemiologic Features of Recovery From SARS-CoV-2 Infection,” appearing in JAMA Network Open this week. While I think the idea is important, the study really highlights why it can be so hard to study long COVID.
As part of efforts to understand long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) leveraged 14 of its ongoing cohort studies. The NIH has multiple longitudinal cohort studies that follow various groups of people over time. You may have heard of the REGARDS study, for example, which focuses on cardiovascular risks to people living in the southern United States. Or the ARIC study, which followed adults in four communities across the United States for the development of heart disease. All 14 of the cohorts in this study are long-running projects with ongoing data collection. So, it was not a huge lift to add some questions to the yearly surveys and studies the participants were already getting.
To wit: “Do you think that you have had COVID-19?” and “Would you say that you are completely recovered now?” Those who said they weren’t fully recovered were asked how long it had been since their infection, and anyone who answered with a duration > 90 days was considered to have long COVID.
So, we have self-report of infection, self-report of duration of symptoms, and self-report of recovery. This is fine, of course; individuals’ perceptions of their own health are meaningful. But the vagaries inherent in those perceptions are going to muddy the waters as we attempt to discover the true nature of the long COVID syndrome.
But let’s look at some results. Out of 4708 individuals studied, 842 (17.9%) had not recovered by 90 days.
This study included not only people hospitalized with COVID, as some prior long COVID studies did, but people self-diagnosed, tested at home, etc. This estimate is as reflective of the broader US population as we can get.
And there are some interesting trends here.
Recovery time was longer in the first waves of COVID than in the Omicron wave.
Recovery times were longer for smokers, those with diabetes, and those who were obese.
Recovery times were longer if the disease was more severe, in general. Though there is an unusual finding that women had longer recovery times despite their lower average severity of illness.
Vaccination was associated with shorter recovery times, as you can see here. 
This is all quite interesting. It’s clear that people feel they are sick for a while after COVID. But we need to understand whether these symptoms are due to the lingering effects of a bad infection that knocks you down a peg, or to an ongoing syndrome — this thing we call long COVID — that has a physiologic basis and thus can be treated. And this study doesn’t help us much with that.
Not that this was the authors’ intention. This is a straight-up epidemiology study. But the problem is deeper than that. Let’s imagine that you want to really dig into this long COVID thing and get blood samples from people with it, ideally from controls with some other respiratory virus infection, and do all kinds of genetic and proteomic studies and stuff to really figure out what’s going on. Who do you enroll to be in the long COVID group? Do you enroll anyone who says they had COVID and still has some symptom more than 90 days after? You are going to find an awful lot of eligible people, and I guarantee that if there is a pathognomonic signature of long COVID, not all of them will have it.
And what about other respiratory viruses? This study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases compared long-term outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID vs influenza. In general, the COVID outcomes are worse, but let’s not knock the concept of “long flu.” Across the board, roughly 50% of people report symptoms across any given organ system.
What this is all about is something called misclassification bias, a form of information bias that arises in a study where you label someone as diseased when they are not, or vice versa. If this happens at random, it’s bad; you’ve lost your ability to distinguish characteristics from the diseased and nondiseased population.
When it’s not random, it’s really bad. If we are more likely to misclassify women as having long COVID, for example, then it will appear that long COVID is more likely among women, or more likely among those with higher estrogen levels, or something. And that might simply be wrong.
I’m not saying that’s what happened here; this study does a really great job of what it set out to do, which was to describe the patterns of lingering symptoms after COVID. But we are not going to make progress toward understanding long COVID until we are less inclusive with our case definition. To paraphrase Syndrome from The Incredibles: If everyone has long COVID, then no one does.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I want to help people suffering from long COVID as much as anyone. But we have a real problem. In brief, we are being too inclusive. The first thing you learn, when you start studying the epidemiology of diseases, is that you need a good case definition. And our case definition for long COVID sucks. Just last week, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) issued a definition of long COVID with the aim of “improving consistency, documentation, and treatment.” Good news, right? Here’s the definition: “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.”
This is not helpful. The symptoms can be in any organ system, can be continuous or relapsing and remitting. Basically, if you’ve had COVID — and essentially all of us have by now — and you have any symptom, even one that comes and goes, 3 months after that, it’s long COVID. They don’t even specify that it has to be a new symptom.
And I have sort of a case study in this problem today, based on a paper getting a lot of press suggesting that one out of every five people has long COVID.
We are talking about this study, “Epidemiologic Features of Recovery From SARS-CoV-2 Infection,” appearing in JAMA Network Open this week. While I think the idea is important, the study really highlights why it can be so hard to study long COVID.
As part of efforts to understand long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) leveraged 14 of its ongoing cohort studies. The NIH has multiple longitudinal cohort studies that follow various groups of people over time. You may have heard of the REGARDS study, for example, which focuses on cardiovascular risks to people living in the southern United States. Or the ARIC study, which followed adults in four communities across the United States for the development of heart disease. All 14 of the cohorts in this study are long-running projects with ongoing data collection. So, it was not a huge lift to add some questions to the yearly surveys and studies the participants were already getting.
To wit: “Do you think that you have had COVID-19?” and “Would you say that you are completely recovered now?” Those who said they weren’t fully recovered were asked how long it had been since their infection, and anyone who answered with a duration > 90 days was considered to have long COVID.
So, we have self-report of infection, self-report of duration of symptoms, and self-report of recovery. This is fine, of course; individuals’ perceptions of their own health are meaningful. But the vagaries inherent in those perceptions are going to muddy the waters as we attempt to discover the true nature of the long COVID syndrome.
But let’s look at some results. Out of 4708 individuals studied, 842 (17.9%) had not recovered by 90 days.
This study included not only people hospitalized with COVID, as some prior long COVID studies did, but people self-diagnosed, tested at home, etc. This estimate is as reflective of the broader US population as we can get.
And there are some interesting trends here.
Recovery time was longer in the first waves of COVID than in the Omicron wave.
Recovery times were longer for smokers, those with diabetes, and those who were obese.
Recovery times were longer if the disease was more severe, in general. Though there is an unusual finding that women had longer recovery times despite their lower average severity of illness.
Vaccination was associated with shorter recovery times, as you can see here.
This is all quite interesting. It’s clear that people feel they are sick for a while after COVID. But we need to understand whether these symptoms are due to the lingering effects of a bad infection that knocks you down a peg, or to an ongoing syndrome — this thing we call long COVID — that has a physiologic basis and thus can be treated. And this study doesn’t help us much with that.
Not that this was the authors’ intention. This is a straight-up epidemiology study. But the problem is deeper than that. Let’s imagine that you want to really dig into this long COVID thing and get blood samples from people with it, ideally from controls with some other respiratory virus infection, and do all kinds of genetic and proteomic studies and stuff to really figure out what’s going on. Who do you enroll to be in the long COVID group? Do you enroll anyone who says they had COVID and still has some symptom more than 90 days after? You are going to find an awful lot of eligible people, and I guarantee that if there is a pathognomonic signature of long COVID, not all of them will have it.
And what about other respiratory viruses? This study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases compared long-term outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID vs influenza. In general, the COVID outcomes are worse, but let’s not knock the concept of “long flu.” Across the board, roughly 50% of people report symptoms across any given organ system.
What this is all about is something called misclassification bias, a form of information bias that arises in a study where you label someone as diseased when they are not, or vice versa. If this happens at random, it’s bad; you’ve lost your ability to distinguish characteristics from the diseased and nondiseased population.
When it’s not random, it’s really bad. If we are more likely to misclassify women as having long COVID, for example, then it will appear that long COVID is more likely among women, or more likely among those with higher estrogen levels, or something. And that might simply be wrong.
I’m not saying that’s what happened here; this study does a really great job of what it set out to do, which was to describe the patterns of lingering symptoms after COVID. But we are not going to make progress toward understanding long COVID until we are less inclusive with our case definition. To paraphrase Syndrome from The Incredibles: If everyone has long COVID, then no one does.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I want to help people suffering from long COVID as much as anyone. But we have a real problem. In brief, we are being too inclusive. The first thing you learn, when you start studying the epidemiology of diseases, is that you need a good case definition. And our case definition for long COVID sucks. Just last week, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) issued a definition of long COVID with the aim of “improving consistency, documentation, and treatment.” Good news, right? Here’s the definition: “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.”
This is not helpful. The symptoms can be in any organ system, can be continuous or relapsing and remitting. Basically, if you’ve had COVID — and essentially all of us have by now — and you have any symptom, even one that comes and goes, 3 months after that, it’s long COVID. They don’t even specify that it has to be a new symptom.
And I have sort of a case study in this problem today, based on a paper getting a lot of press suggesting that one out of every five people has long COVID.
We are talking about this study, “Epidemiologic Features of Recovery From SARS-CoV-2 Infection,” appearing in JAMA Network Open this week. While I think the idea is important, the study really highlights why it can be so hard to study long COVID.
As part of efforts to understand long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) leveraged 14 of its ongoing cohort studies. The NIH has multiple longitudinal cohort studies that follow various groups of people over time. You may have heard of the REGARDS study, for example, which focuses on cardiovascular risks to people living in the southern United States. Or the ARIC study, which followed adults in four communities across the United States for the development of heart disease. All 14 of the cohorts in this study are long-running projects with ongoing data collection. So, it was not a huge lift to add some questions to the yearly surveys and studies the participants were already getting.
To wit: “Do you think that you have had COVID-19?” and “Would you say that you are completely recovered now?” Those who said they weren’t fully recovered were asked how long it had been since their infection, and anyone who answered with a duration > 90 days was considered to have long COVID.
So, we have self-report of infection, self-report of duration of symptoms, and self-report of recovery. This is fine, of course; individuals’ perceptions of their own health are meaningful. But the vagaries inherent in those perceptions are going to muddy the waters as we attempt to discover the true nature of the long COVID syndrome.
But let’s look at some results. Out of 4708 individuals studied, 842 (17.9%) had not recovered by 90 days.
This study included not only people hospitalized with COVID, as some prior long COVID studies did, but people self-diagnosed, tested at home, etc. This estimate is as reflective of the broader US population as we can get.
And there are some interesting trends here.
Recovery time was longer in the first waves of COVID than in the Omicron wave.
Recovery times were longer for smokers, those with diabetes, and those who were obese.
Recovery times were longer if the disease was more severe, in general. Though there is an unusual finding that women had longer recovery times despite their lower average severity of illness.
Vaccination was associated with shorter recovery times, as you can see here.
This is all quite interesting. It’s clear that people feel they are sick for a while after COVID. But we need to understand whether these symptoms are due to the lingering effects of a bad infection that knocks you down a peg, or to an ongoing syndrome — this thing we call long COVID — that has a physiologic basis and thus can be treated. And this study doesn’t help us much with that.
Not that this was the authors’ intention. This is a straight-up epidemiology study. But the problem is deeper than that. Let’s imagine that you want to really dig into this long COVID thing and get blood samples from people with it, ideally from controls with some other respiratory virus infection, and do all kinds of genetic and proteomic studies and stuff to really figure out what’s going on. Who do you enroll to be in the long COVID group? Do you enroll anyone who says they had COVID and still has some symptom more than 90 days after? You are going to find an awful lot of eligible people, and I guarantee that if there is a pathognomonic signature of long COVID, not all of them will have it.
And what about other respiratory viruses? This study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases compared long-term outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID vs influenza. In general, the COVID outcomes are worse, but let’s not knock the concept of “long flu.” Across the board, roughly 50% of people report symptoms across any given organ system.
What this is all about is something called misclassification bias, a form of information bias that arises in a study where you label someone as diseased when they are not, or vice versa. If this happens at random, it’s bad; you’ve lost your ability to distinguish characteristics from the diseased and nondiseased population.
When it’s not random, it’s really bad. If we are more likely to misclassify women as having long COVID, for example, then it will appear that long COVID is more likely among women, or more likely among those with higher estrogen levels, or something. And that might simply be wrong.
I’m not saying that’s what happened here; this study does a really great job of what it set out to do, which was to describe the patterns of lingering symptoms after COVID. But we are not going to make progress toward understanding long COVID until we are less inclusive with our case definition. To paraphrase Syndrome from The Incredibles: If everyone has long COVID, then no one does.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.