Commentary

For you, the first visits with a newborn are a busy balancing act of gentle physical exam and empathic parent reassurance and education. It’s difficult to imagine that much else could fit into these visits. But your providing weekly and then monthly checks on a newborn puts you in a unique position to detect postpartum depression in that baby’s mother (as are obstetricians at the 6-week follow up). Postpartum depression is relatively common and very treatable, but it can go untreated because of the silence that is often grounded in shame and stigma. A few days of “baby blues” secondary to being tired and hormonal changes is quite different from persistent postpartum depression. Early detection of postpartum depression and referral to a psychiatrist can relieve extraordinary suffering in a parent and stress in a family, and can protect the critical relationship developing between mother and baby.

Postpartum depression was rarely discussed as recently as 30 years ago; it was not formally recognized by psychiatrists as a distinct illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until its fourth edition, released in 1994. It is only slightly more common than depression in nonpregnant women of childbearing age: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that depression affects 13% of women in the postpartum period, compared with 11% of age-matched controls. It is, however, more likely to be severe than depression in the nonperipartum woman (Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2004;26:289-95).Teenage mothers, women with a personal or family history of depression, women giving birth to twins or triplets, women with a history of miscarriage or stillbirth, and women who experienced premature labor and delivery all appear to be at elevated risk for postpartum depression. While other stressors such as marital conflict, single parenthood, or financial strain are challenging for new mothers, they have not been shown to significantly increase the risk of postpartum depression. It also should be noted that a history of previous deliveries without a postpartum mood disorder is not protective or predictive.

The diagnostic criteria for postpartum depression are the same as for a major depressive episode, except that symptoms start in the 4 weeks after the delivery of a baby (although they may be present during the pregnancy or may not be noted until weeks or months later). This can make it easy to mistake depression for the “baby blues” – a period of weepiness, anxiety, moodiness, and exhaustion that commonly occurs to new mothers. These symptoms affect as many as 75% of mothers in the first few days after delivery and can be very unsettling, but the symptoms always improve within 2 weeks, whereas postpartum depression will persist or worsen. Although it can be severe, postpartum depression will improve with treatment, typically psychotherapy and possibly medication. Without treatment, postpartum depression can persist for months. It may remit spontaneously after a substantial period, but it also may worsen. Untreated postpartum depression can (rarely) deteriorate into postpartum psychosis, which usually requires hospitalization and more significant psychopharmacologic intervention. Failure to detect and treat depression in new mothers can lead to a number of complications for the mother, ranging from difficulty with breastfeeding and forming an attachment with her newborn to an inability to return to work. It also raises the risk for suicide, which accounts for 20% of all deaths in the postpartum population (Arch. Womens Ment. Health 2005;8:77-87).The catastrophe of infanticide is diminishingly rare, but almost always associated with untreated postpartum depression or psychosis.

The complications of untreated depression do not affect only the symptomatic mother. There have been many studies that have demonstrated the negative developmental effects of maternal depression on children of all ages, from infancy through adolescence. Maternal depression in the newborn period can be especially disruptive of development, as it can interfere with healthy attachment and an infant’s development of the fundamentals of self-regulation. Infants of depressed mothers are more likely to be passive, withdrawn, and dysregulated. Cognitive development in infants and toddlers of depressed mothers is frequently delayed. Toddler children of depressed mothers more frequently display internalizing (depressed and anxious) and externalizing (disruptive) behavioral symptoms. Mood, anxiety, conduct disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are more common in the school-age and adolescent children of depressed mothers than in peers whose mothers are not depressed (Paediatr. Child Health 2004;9:575-83). Clearly, the consequences of untreated depression in a mother on even the youngest children can be profound and persistent. And, most importantly, they are preventable.

Why would new mothers experiencing such uncomfortable symptoms fail to actively seek help? There are many reasons for their silent suffering. Many new mothers assume that their symptoms are the “baby blues,” a normal part of the monumental adjustment from pregnancy to motherhood. When their symptoms fail to improve in the first few weeks as promised by friends or clinicians, they often assume that they are personally inadequate, not up to the task of parenting. Such feelings of worthlessness and guilt are actually common symptoms of depression, and contribute to the shame and silence that accompany depressive disorders. (This is one of the reasons depression is described as an “internalizing” disorder.) These feelings (or symptoms) of guilt often are heightened by popular expectations that new mothers should be experiencing delight and joy in the new child. While all of the attention was on the mother during her pregnancy, the focus of friends, family, and clinicians usually shifts entirely to the infant after delivery. Although the reality of postpartum depression is more comfortably and openly discussed now than a generation ago, these forces continue to compel most women suffering from depression to remain silent.

This is where you are in a unique position to facilitate the recognition and treatment of postpartum depression. While a new mother may have one follow-up visit with her obstetrician, she often will visit you weekly for the first month and monthly for the first 6 months of her infant’s life. These visits are structured around questions about routines of sleeping and eating, the mechanics of breastfeeding, and growing connection with the newborn. You are in a natural position to ask nonjudgmentally about these things, and to follow-up on suggestions that a mother’s sleep, appetite, and energy are problematic with a few screening questions. If it sounds to you like there may be postpartum depression, you are in a powerful position to point out that these feelings do not reflect inadequacy, but rather a common and treatable problem in new mothers. You are uniquely qualified to suggest to the guilt-ridden mother that it is not selfish to seek her own treatment, but it is critical to the healthy development of her newborn and other children, much like the routine airline warning that parents must put on their own oxygen masks before attempting to place the masks on their children. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended in a 2010 report that pediatricians screen new mothers for postpartum depression at the 1-, 2-, and 4-month check-ups of their newborns (Pediatrics 2010;126:1032).

So how best to screen during a busy check-up? The AAP recommends the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Screen (EPDS), an extensively validated 10-item questionnaire that a mother can fill out in the waiting room. Scoring is relatively fast and a cut-off at or above 10 points suggests a high risk of depression. The AAP also suggests using a “yes” answer to either of the following questions as a positive screen:

1. Over the past 2 weeks have you ever felt down, depressed, or hopeless?

2. Over the past 2 weeks have you felt little interest or pleasure in doing things?

Even without using specific questions or instruments, you can be vigilant for certain red flags. If a new mother reports that she is having difficulty falling asleep (despite the sleep deprivation that usually accompanies life with a newborn); if her appetite is decreasing despite breastfeeding; if she describes intense worries or doubts about the baby or motherhood that have persisted for more than a few days or that interfere with her function; if she reports that she is experiencing no feelings of happiness or pleasure with her infant; or if she describes feelings of hopelessness or recurring thoughts about death and dying, then you should be concerned that she may be suffering from postpartum depression. You might then suggest to the mother that these feelings may reflect postpartum depression, reassuring her that this is a common and treatable condition. When you calmly and comfortably discusses this topic, you provide hope and relief, dissolving some of the stigma that can surround psychiatric illness for mothers.

What to do once you have noted that a new mother may be suffering from postpartum depression? The problem is common enough that you may want to find a psychiatrist with an interest in postpartum depression and develop a collegial working relationship. It can be helpful to find out if the mother has ever seen a psychiatrist or therapist, as this can be an easy and effective referral for a comprehensive evaluation. If she does not already have a mental health provider, referring her to her primary care provider can be an efficient way to access a psychiatric evaluation. Many mothers will want to have more specialized treatment, especially as they consider the safety of medications while breastfeeding. Many academic medical centers will have psychiatrists who specialize in women’s health. Some states have created programs to facilitate access to treatment for mothers, such as Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Project (MCPAP) for Moms. There are several national organizations that provide online information about clinicians and other resources, such as Postpartum Support International, the American Psychological Association, and the CDC.

Finally, we have addressed depression in new mothers. But the rates of depression in new fathers also are higher than in age-matched controls. When a father is the primary parent and suggests problems with sleep and mood, asking the same questions, showing concern, and providing referral information can be just as important.

Remember, 13% of new mothers have postpartum depression, and the suffering of parent, family, and newborn is treatable. Unfortunately, many mothers do not get the help they need, as this condition has not been a priority of our health care system. You, the pediatrician or family physician, are in a unique position to make this a priority. You can detect depression in new parents, providing a critical link to treatment and relief for them, and protecting their children from potentially serious and preventable complications.

Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) program at the Vernon Cancer Center, Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. E-mail them at [email protected].

For you, the first visits with a newborn are a busy balancing act of gentle physical exam and empathic parent reassurance and education. It’s difficult to imagine that much else could fit into these visits. But your providing weekly and then monthly checks on a newborn puts you in a unique position to detect postpartum depression in that baby’s mother (as are obstetricians at the 6-week follow up). Postpartum depression is relatively common and very treatable, but it can go untreated because of the silence that is often grounded in shame and stigma. A few days of “baby blues” secondary to being tired and hormonal changes is quite different from persistent postpartum depression. Early detection of postpartum depression and referral to a psychiatrist can relieve extraordinary suffering in a parent and stress in a family, and can protect the critical relationship developing between mother and baby.

Postpartum depression was rarely discussed as recently as 30 years ago; it was not formally recognized by psychiatrists as a distinct illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until its fourth edition, released in 1994. It is only slightly more common than depression in nonpregnant women of childbearing age: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that depression affects 13% of women in the postpartum period, compared with 11% of age-matched controls. It is, however, more likely to be severe than depression in the nonperipartum woman (Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2004;26:289-95).Teenage mothers, women with a personal or family history of depression, women giving birth to twins or triplets, women with a history of miscarriage or stillbirth, and women who experienced premature labor and delivery all appear to be at elevated risk for postpartum depression. While other stressors such as marital conflict, single parenthood, or financial strain are challenging for new mothers, they have not been shown to significantly increase the risk of postpartum depression. It also should be noted that a history of previous deliveries without a postpartum mood disorder is not protective or predictive.

The diagnostic criteria for postpartum depression are the same as for a major depressive episode, except that symptoms start in the 4 weeks after the delivery of a baby (although they may be present during the pregnancy or may not be noted until weeks or months later). This can make it easy to mistake depression for the “baby blues” – a period of weepiness, anxiety, moodiness, and exhaustion that commonly occurs to new mothers. These symptoms affect as many as 75% of mothers in the first few days after delivery and can be very unsettling, but the symptoms always improve within 2 weeks, whereas postpartum depression will persist or worsen. Although it can be severe, postpartum depression will improve with treatment, typically psychotherapy and possibly medication. Without treatment, postpartum depression can persist for months. It may remit spontaneously after a substantial period, but it also may worsen. Untreated postpartum depression can (rarely) deteriorate into postpartum psychosis, which usually requires hospitalization and more significant psychopharmacologic intervention. Failure to detect and treat depression in new mothers can lead to a number of complications for the mother, ranging from difficulty with breastfeeding and forming an attachment with her newborn to an inability to return to work. It also raises the risk for suicide, which accounts for 20% of all deaths in the postpartum population (Arch. Womens Ment. Health 2005;8:77-87).The catastrophe of infanticide is diminishingly rare, but almost always associated with untreated postpartum depression or psychosis.

The complications of untreated depression do not affect only the symptomatic mother. There have been many studies that have demonstrated the negative developmental effects of maternal depression on children of all ages, from infancy through adolescence. Maternal depression in the newborn period can be especially disruptive of development, as it can interfere with healthy attachment and an infant’s development of the fundamentals of self-regulation. Infants of depressed mothers are more likely to be passive, withdrawn, and dysregulated. Cognitive development in infants and toddlers of depressed mothers is frequently delayed. Toddler children of depressed mothers more frequently display internalizing (depressed and anxious) and externalizing (disruptive) behavioral symptoms. Mood, anxiety, conduct disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are more common in the school-age and adolescent children of depressed mothers than in peers whose mothers are not depressed (Paediatr. Child Health 2004;9:575-83). Clearly, the consequences of untreated depression in a mother on even the youngest children can be profound and persistent. And, most importantly, they are preventable.

Why would new mothers experiencing such uncomfortable symptoms fail to actively seek help? There are many reasons for their silent suffering. Many new mothers assume that their symptoms are the “baby blues,” a normal part of the monumental adjustment from pregnancy to motherhood. When their symptoms fail to improve in the first few weeks as promised by friends or clinicians, they often assume that they are personally inadequate, not up to the task of parenting. Such feelings of worthlessness and guilt are actually common symptoms of depression, and contribute to the shame and silence that accompany depressive disorders. (This is one of the reasons depression is described as an “internalizing” disorder.) These feelings (or symptoms) of guilt often are heightened by popular expectations that new mothers should be experiencing delight and joy in the new child. While all of the attention was on the mother during her pregnancy, the focus of friends, family, and clinicians usually shifts entirely to the infant after delivery. Although the reality of postpartum depression is more comfortably and openly discussed now than a generation ago, these forces continue to compel most women suffering from depression to remain silent.

This is where you are in a unique position to facilitate the recognition and treatment of postpartum depression. While a new mother may have one follow-up visit with her obstetrician, she often will visit you weekly for the first month and monthly for the first 6 months of her infant’s life. These visits are structured around questions about routines of sleeping and eating, the mechanics of breastfeeding, and growing connection with the newborn. You are in a natural position to ask nonjudgmentally about these things, and to follow-up on suggestions that a mother’s sleep, appetite, and energy are problematic with a few screening questions. If it sounds to you like there may be postpartum depression, you are in a powerful position to point out that these feelings do not reflect inadequacy, but rather a common and treatable problem in new mothers. You are uniquely qualified to suggest to the guilt-ridden mother that it is not selfish to seek her own treatment, but it is critical to the healthy development of her newborn and other children, much like the routine airline warning that parents must put on their own oxygen masks before attempting to place the masks on their children. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended in a 2010 report that pediatricians screen new mothers for postpartum depression at the 1-, 2-, and 4-month check-ups of their newborns (Pediatrics 2010;126:1032).

So how best to screen during a busy check-up? The AAP recommends the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Screen (EPDS), an extensively validated 10-item questionnaire that a mother can fill out in the waiting room. Scoring is relatively fast and a cut-off at or above 10 points suggests a high risk of depression. The AAP also suggests using a “yes” answer to either of the following questions as a positive screen:

1. Over the past 2 weeks have you ever felt down, depressed, or hopeless?

2. Over the past 2 weeks have you felt little interest or pleasure in doing things?

Even without using specific questions or instruments, you can be vigilant for certain red flags. If a new mother reports that she is having difficulty falling asleep (despite the sleep deprivation that usually accompanies life with a newborn); if her appetite is decreasing despite breastfeeding; if she describes intense worries or doubts about the baby or motherhood that have persisted for more than a few days or that interfere with her function; if she reports that she is experiencing no feelings of happiness or pleasure with her infant; or if she describes feelings of hopelessness or recurring thoughts about death and dying, then you should be concerned that she may be suffering from postpartum depression. You might then suggest to the mother that these feelings may reflect postpartum depression, reassuring her that this is a common and treatable condition. When you calmly and comfortably discusses this topic, you provide hope and relief, dissolving some of the stigma that can surround psychiatric illness for mothers.

What to do once you have noted that a new mother may be suffering from postpartum depression? The problem is common enough that you may want to find a psychiatrist with an interest in postpartum depression and develop a collegial working relationship. It can be helpful to find out if the mother has ever seen a psychiatrist or therapist, as this can be an easy and effective referral for a comprehensive evaluation. If she does not already have a mental health provider, referring her to her primary care provider can be an efficient way to access a psychiatric evaluation. Many mothers will want to have more specialized treatment, especially as they consider the safety of medications while breastfeeding. Many academic medical centers will have psychiatrists who specialize in women’s health. Some states have created programs to facilitate access to treatment for mothers, such as Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Project (MCPAP) for Moms. There are several national organizations that provide online information about clinicians and other resources, such as Postpartum Support International, the American Psychological Association, and the CDC.

Finally, we have addressed depression in new mothers. But the rates of depression in new fathers also are higher than in age-matched controls. When a father is the primary parent and suggests problems with sleep and mood, asking the same questions, showing concern, and providing referral information can be just as important.

Remember, 13% of new mothers have postpartum depression, and the suffering of parent, family, and newborn is treatable. Unfortunately, many mothers do not get the help they need, as this condition has not been a priority of our health care system. You, the pediatrician or family physician, are in a unique position to make this a priority. You can detect depression in new parents, providing a critical link to treatment and relief for them, and protecting their children from potentially serious and preventable complications.

Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) program at the Vernon Cancer Center, Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. E-mail them at [email protected].

For you, the first visits with a newborn are a busy balancing act of gentle physical exam and empathic parent reassurance and education. It’s difficult to imagine that much else could fit into these visits. But your providing weekly and then monthly checks on a newborn puts you in a unique position to detect postpartum depression in that baby’s mother (as are obstetricians at the 6-week follow up). Postpartum depression is relatively common and very treatable, but it can go untreated because of the silence that is often grounded in shame and stigma. A few days of “baby blues” secondary to being tired and hormonal changes is quite different from persistent postpartum depression. Early detection of postpartum depression and referral to a psychiatrist can relieve extraordinary suffering in a parent and stress in a family, and can protect the critical relationship developing between mother and baby.

Postpartum depression was rarely discussed as recently as 30 years ago; it was not formally recognized by psychiatrists as a distinct illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until its fourth edition, released in 1994. It is only slightly more common than depression in nonpregnant women of childbearing age: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that depression affects 13% of women in the postpartum period, compared with 11% of age-matched controls. It is, however, more likely to be severe than depression in the nonperipartum woman (Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2004;26:289-95).Teenage mothers, women with a personal or family history of depression, women giving birth to twins or triplets, women with a history of miscarriage or stillbirth, and women who experienced premature labor and delivery all appear to be at elevated risk for postpartum depression. While other stressors such as marital conflict, single parenthood, or financial strain are challenging for new mothers, they have not been shown to significantly increase the risk of postpartum depression. It also should be noted that a history of previous deliveries without a postpartum mood disorder is not protective or predictive.

The diagnostic criteria for postpartum depression are the same as for a major depressive episode, except that symptoms start in the 4 weeks after the delivery of a baby (although they may be present during the pregnancy or may not be noted until weeks or months later). This can make it easy to mistake depression for the “baby blues” – a period of weepiness, anxiety, moodiness, and exhaustion that commonly occurs to new mothers. These symptoms affect as many as 75% of mothers in the first few days after delivery and can be very unsettling, but the symptoms always improve within 2 weeks, whereas postpartum depression will persist or worsen. Although it can be severe, postpartum depression will improve with treatment, typically psychotherapy and possibly medication. Without treatment, postpartum depression can persist for months. It may remit spontaneously after a substantial period, but it also may worsen. Untreated postpartum depression can (rarely) deteriorate into postpartum psychosis, which usually requires hospitalization and more significant psychopharmacologic intervention. Failure to detect and treat depression in new mothers can lead to a number of complications for the mother, ranging from difficulty with breastfeeding and forming an attachment with her newborn to an inability to return to work. It also raises the risk for suicide, which accounts for 20% of all deaths in the postpartum population (Arch. Womens Ment. Health 2005;8:77-87).The catastrophe of infanticide is diminishingly rare, but almost always associated with untreated postpartum depression or psychosis.

The complications of untreated depression do not affect only the symptomatic mother. There have been many studies that have demonstrated the negative developmental effects of maternal depression on children of all ages, from infancy through adolescence. Maternal depression in the newborn period can be especially disruptive of development, as it can interfere with healthy attachment and an infant’s development of the fundamentals of self-regulation. Infants of depressed mothers are more likely to be passive, withdrawn, and dysregulated. Cognitive development in infants and toddlers of depressed mothers is frequently delayed. Toddler children of depressed mothers more frequently display internalizing (depressed and anxious) and externalizing (disruptive) behavioral symptoms. Mood, anxiety, conduct disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are more common in the school-age and adolescent children of depressed mothers than in peers whose mothers are not depressed (Paediatr. Child Health 2004;9:575-83). Clearly, the consequences of untreated depression in a mother on even the youngest children can be profound and persistent. And, most importantly, they are preventable.

Why would new mothers experiencing such uncomfortable symptoms fail to actively seek help? There are many reasons for their silent suffering. Many new mothers assume that their symptoms are the “baby blues,” a normal part of the monumental adjustment from pregnancy to motherhood. When their symptoms fail to improve in the first few weeks as promised by friends or clinicians, they often assume that they are personally inadequate, not up to the task of parenting. Such feelings of worthlessness and guilt are actually common symptoms of depression, and contribute to the shame and silence that accompany depressive disorders. (This is one of the reasons depression is described as an “internalizing” disorder.) These feelings (or symptoms) of guilt often are heightened by popular expectations that new mothers should be experiencing delight and joy in the new child. While all of the attention was on the mother during her pregnancy, the focus of friends, family, and clinicians usually shifts entirely to the infant after delivery. Although the reality of postpartum depression is more comfortably and openly discussed now than a generation ago, these forces continue to compel most women suffering from depression to remain silent.

This is where you are in a unique position to facilitate the recognition and treatment of postpartum depression. While a new mother may have one follow-up visit with her obstetrician, she often will visit you weekly for the first month and monthly for the first 6 months of her infant’s life. These visits are structured around questions about routines of sleeping and eating, the mechanics of breastfeeding, and growing connection with the newborn. You are in a natural position to ask nonjudgmentally about these things, and to follow-up on suggestions that a mother’s sleep, appetite, and energy are problematic with a few screening questions. If it sounds to you like there may be postpartum depression, you are in a powerful position to point out that these feelings do not reflect inadequacy, but rather a common and treatable problem in new mothers. You are uniquely qualified to suggest to the guilt-ridden mother that it is not selfish to seek her own treatment, but it is critical to the healthy development of her newborn and other children, much like the routine airline warning that parents must put on their own oxygen masks before attempting to place the masks on their children. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended in a 2010 report that pediatricians screen new mothers for postpartum depression at the 1-, 2-, and 4-month check-ups of their newborns (Pediatrics 2010;126:1032).

So how best to screen during a busy check-up? The AAP recommends the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Screen (EPDS), an extensively validated 10-item questionnaire that a mother can fill out in the waiting room. Scoring is relatively fast and a cut-off at or above 10 points suggests a high risk of depression. The AAP also suggests using a “yes” answer to either of the following questions as a positive screen:

1. Over the past 2 weeks have you ever felt down, depressed, or hopeless?

2. Over the past 2 weeks have you felt little interest or pleasure in doing things?

Even without using specific questions or instruments, you can be vigilant for certain red flags. If a new mother reports that she is having difficulty falling asleep (despite the sleep deprivation that usually accompanies life with a newborn); if her appetite is decreasing despite breastfeeding; if she describes intense worries or doubts about the baby or motherhood that have persisted for more than a few days or that interfere with her function; if she reports that she is experiencing no feelings of happiness or pleasure with her infant; or if she describes feelings of hopelessness or recurring thoughts about death and dying, then you should be concerned that she may be suffering from postpartum depression. You might then suggest to the mother that these feelings may reflect postpartum depression, reassuring her that this is a common and treatable condition. When you calmly and comfortably discusses this topic, you provide hope and relief, dissolving some of the stigma that can surround psychiatric illness for mothers.

What to do once you have noted that a new mother may be suffering from postpartum depression? The problem is common enough that you may want to find a psychiatrist with an interest in postpartum depression and develop a collegial working relationship. It can be helpful to find out if the mother has ever seen a psychiatrist or therapist, as this can be an easy and effective referral for a comprehensive evaluation. If she does not already have a mental health provider, referring her to her primary care provider can be an efficient way to access a psychiatric evaluation. Many mothers will want to have more specialized treatment, especially as they consider the safety of medications while breastfeeding. Many academic medical centers will have psychiatrists who specialize in women’s health. Some states have created programs to facilitate access to treatment for mothers, such as Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Project (MCPAP) for Moms. There are several national organizations that provide online information about clinicians and other resources, such as Postpartum Support International, the American Psychological Association, and the CDC.

Finally, we have addressed depression in new mothers. But the rates of depression in new fathers also are higher than in age-matched controls. When a father is the primary parent and suggests problems with sleep and mood, asking the same questions, showing concern, and providing referral information can be just as important.

Remember, 13% of new mothers have postpartum depression, and the suffering of parent, family, and newborn is treatable. Unfortunately, many mothers do not get the help they need, as this condition has not been a priority of our health care system. You, the pediatrician or family physician, are in a unique position to make this a priority. You can detect depression in new parents, providing a critical link to treatment and relief for them, and protecting their children from potentially serious and preventable complications.

Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) program at the Vernon Cancer Center, Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. E-mail them at [email protected].

The Internet has changed many facets of modern life, and the practice of medicine has not gone untouched. Consider, for better or worse, the reliance of many patients on WebMD and various other sites for self-diagnosis before consulting with a physician. Even before the Internet, patients would self-diagnose their skin type (more than 80% of them get it wrong). The Internet allows them access to most cosmeceutical brands, the misuse of which leads to unintended consequences that can affect skin health. Clearly, patients who receive advice from a trained medical professional have better outcomes. One reason for this is that the doctor (or aesthetician) spends time with the patient, explaining what products to use and in which order to use them, and follows up with the patient to assess the outcome and adjust the regimen as needed. The problem arises when these patients decide to purchase the products from a source other than their treating physician. Only about 30% of patients buy refills from their doctor for second purchases, and just 15% purchase products from their doctor the third time around. Why is this? It is likely the convenience and the low cost that drive patients to purchase from sources other than their physician or aesthetician. This desire to save money carries significant risks. Many the products online are expired or counterfeit, or are old containers refilled with a different formulation. Patients should be cautioned to only buy products from a source they trust.

I have had dozens of patients bringing in counterfeit products in the last few months. It seems that the problem is becoming more common. I interviewed several companies about this to see whether others were experiencing the same trend. This is what I found:

Some companies report that they have seen their samples and trade size containers being sold on eBay. Joe Ragosta of Topix Pharmaceuticals reports that when his company has asked such sellers if they are obtaining these products – marked as samples – from the company, they hear a range of defensive responses, including: “I got it at a show” or “My doctor gave me samples, and I decided to sell them” and “I work at a doctor’s office, and they let me take products as needed.” Make sure that no one on your staff is taking samples and selling them online.

One example: NeoStrata is concerned about the fraudulent use of their products. They recommend that patients purchase their products only from a known physician, ideally from the physician’s office rather than the website. The company understands that customers may want to save money wherever they can and might prefer to buy products online. NeoStrata urges customers who opt to buy online to make such purchases through physician-affiliated websites, where the doctor is clearly identified. At the very least, the company urges patients to choose only sites where they can contact someone and obtain the name of a physician. Further, they strongly discourage using eBay or other auction sites, which do not vouch for the safety and authenticity of products sold through their services.

Other potential problems with skin care products sold online include the following.

Counterfeit products

Several reports have indicated that counterfeit skin products originating in other countries have made their way into the United States and, according to the article published on the website Fact Based Skin Care, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, including cosmetics, are among the top five types of products seized by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents (Coy, C. Dangers of Counterfeit Cosmetics, Aug. 4, 2014). Such products include old bottles refilled with inexpensive imitation creams or bottles made to look like legitimate products that in fact contain imitation creams. I once had a patient present with an adverse reaction to a retinol product, which she brought with her to the visit. I sent the bottle to the company, which confirmed my suspicion that the product was counterfeit – a different bottle with a similar label.

In February 2014, CBS New York ran a segment on the potential inclusion of carcinogenic and other harmful ingredients found in online personal care products touted for their low prices (CBS New York. Counterfeit Cosmetics May Be Harmful To Your Health. Feb. 27, 2014). Not even 2 weeks later, CNN reported on the arrest of two brothers in New York alleged to have masterminded a multimillion-dollar counterfeit health and beauty product ring (CNN. Zulueta A. Massive Fake Health and Beauty Supplies Ring Busted. March 9, 2014). ABC’s Good Morning America followed suit with a segment in April 2014 that exposed aspects of the use of knock-off cosmetic products (ABC News, Good Morning America. Online Beauty Bargains: Is It the Real Deal? April 3, 2014).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has posted memos concerning counterfeit and potentially compromised and hazardous cosmetics and fragrances, offering tips aimed at readily identifying or avoiding unauthorized products.

Torie Hardee of EltaMD summarized that counterfeit products can sometimes be identified by lack of an expiration date on the bottle, discoloration or slightly different fonts on bottles and packaging, and the manufacturer’s address on the bottle.

Jan Marini Company representative Stuart Mohr noted that their company has received returns of products that they had not manufactured, as well as their own current or discontinued products returned years after the expiration date. The Jan Marini Co., and most other companies, will not guarantee any product purchased via nonauthorized resellers, because the authenticity and safety of such products cannot be verified.

“These unauthorized resellers are sophisticated, often even working in rings, and find it easy to hide their real identity,” said Mr. Mohr. “Addresses are often hidden or vague; emails are not linked to any specific person; and it’s easy to use false names. If a person is caught in an unauthorized online transaction, it’s easy to change the email address or name and start again,” he added.

©Ingram Publishing/Thinkstockphotos.com

FBI’s tips for spotting counterfeit cosmetics and fragrances

• The product is a sample size.

• The packaging differs slightly from the authentic brand (different color or font).

• The product’s wrapping appears haphazard.

• The product is being advertised as a “limited edition” even though the authentic manufacturer doesn’t offer it as a limited edition.

• The product is not listed on the manufacturer’s website.

• The price is drastically lower than the MSRP.

• The product’s consistency or texture doesn’t feel or look like the authentic brand.

• For fragrances, something seems off about the scent, and the color of the fluid in the bottle might be different than the original.

• They are being sold at nonauthorized retailers, including flea markets and discount stores.

• The label does not contain lot number, bar code, manufacturer’s address, or expiration date.

Expired products

Unscrupulous online retailers may slash prices on expired products and remove the expiration date from the package. In my practice, a patient experiencing an erythematous reaction brought in the “SkinMedica” product bottle, which looked suspicious to me. The packaging that the product was in had been discontinued 8 years earlier. It is important to remember that ingredients, particularly retinol, degrade with exposure to air, sun, and heat, and over time. This is most likely what caused my patient’s adverse reaction, and her initial savings from the product caused her several weeks of irritated skin.

Diverted products

SkinMedica reports that diverted products are a trickier issue than counterfeit products, because their packaging and formulas are sufficiently complex to make counterfeiting too difficult to be profitable. Instead, their products have been sold on the so-called gray market below the manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP), typically online. In these cases, the company cannot help patients with returns or complaints because they cannot verify the chain of custody of the purchased product. They are addressing this problem, though, with an awareness campaign called “Authentic and Authorized.” Its goal is to alert patients and the physicians who dispense their products of the benefits of a physician-dispensed model of skin care, with best outcomes achieved when doctors are prescribing a skin care regimen. SkinMedica emphasizes that no website can guarantee outcomes comparable to a skin care professional and product quality and safety can only be enforced when dispensed through authorized channels.

Potentially illegal or toxic ingredients

Several products that have entered the United States marketed as skin lighteners, antiaging agents, and acne treatment products have been found to contain mercury, according to a consumer update from the FDA. Arsenic, lead, beryllium, and other harmful toxins as well as allergy-inducing fragrances or preservatives not approved as safe in the U.S. may also be found in such products of dubious origin.

Improper storage

Products purveyed online are often stored in hot warehouses. As mentioned above, heat degrades and alters ingredients, rendering compounds such as retinol, benzoyl peroxide, peptides, and ascorbic acid worthless. Extreme cold can also damage the chemical integrity of products. Notably, organic products are more vulnerable because they lack preservatives to gird them against temperature variations and microbes that grow in hot, damp environments.

Lookalike imposters

Generic formulations are packaged to piggyback onto the success of well-known products. Such products found in drugstores may be packaged to look like Cetaphil or Aveeno items, but cost less, and deliver less. While the ingredients on the copycats are identical to those found in the branded preparations, the order in which ingredients are added, the temperature, pH, and even when and how fast ingredients are stirred are part of the proprietary recipe of the company and play a significant role in the potential of the end product and the actions the product exerts on the skin.

Conclusion

Whether or not you sell skin care products in your office, there is much you can do to educate your patients about skin care product safety. Namely, the farther a consumer gets from the source of the product or from reliable endorsers of products, the greater the opportunity for encountering fraudulent or counterfeit products. Patients are best served by sources they can trust, such as their dermatologist. If you sell products in your office, encourage your patients to buy refills from you so they can be assured of the proper formulations. Finally, encourage your patients not to skimp when it comes to the health of their skin, reminding them that it may cost them much more in terms of time, skin irritation, improper treatment, and all related expenses to buy products cheaply from unreliable sources.

Give your patients a copy of this article so that they will understand the enormity of the problem.

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). She has contributed to the Cosmeceutical Critique column in Dermatology News since January 2001. Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.

The Internet has changed many facets of modern life, and the practice of medicine has not gone untouched. Consider, for better or worse, the reliance of many patients on WebMD and various other sites for self-diagnosis before consulting with a physician. Even before the Internet, patients would self-diagnose their skin type (more than 80% of them get it wrong). The Internet allows them access to most cosmeceutical brands, the misuse of which leads to unintended consequences that can affect skin health. Clearly, patients who receive advice from a trained medical professional have better outcomes. One reason for this is that the doctor (or aesthetician) spends time with the patient, explaining what products to use and in which order to use them, and follows up with the patient to assess the outcome and adjust the regimen as needed. The problem arises when these patients decide to purchase the products from a source other than their treating physician. Only about 30% of patients buy refills from their doctor for second purchases, and just 15% purchase products from their doctor the third time around. Why is this? It is likely the convenience and the low cost that drive patients to purchase from sources other than their physician or aesthetician. This desire to save money carries significant risks. Many the products online are expired or counterfeit, or are old containers refilled with a different formulation. Patients should be cautioned to only buy products from a source they trust.

I have had dozens of patients bringing in counterfeit products in the last few months. It seems that the problem is becoming more common. I interviewed several companies about this to see whether others were experiencing the same trend. This is what I found:

Some companies report that they have seen their samples and trade size containers being sold on eBay. Joe Ragosta of Topix Pharmaceuticals reports that when his company has asked such sellers if they are obtaining these products – marked as samples – from the company, they hear a range of defensive responses, including: “I got it at a show” or “My doctor gave me samples, and I decided to sell them” and “I work at a doctor’s office, and they let me take products as needed.” Make sure that no one on your staff is taking samples and selling them online.

One example: NeoStrata is concerned about the fraudulent use of their products. They recommend that patients purchase their products only from a known physician, ideally from the physician’s office rather than the website. The company understands that customers may want to save money wherever they can and might prefer to buy products online. NeoStrata urges customers who opt to buy online to make such purchases through physician-affiliated websites, where the doctor is clearly identified. At the very least, the company urges patients to choose only sites where they can contact someone and obtain the name of a physician. Further, they strongly discourage using eBay or other auction sites, which do not vouch for the safety and authenticity of products sold through their services.

Other potential problems with skin care products sold online include the following.

Counterfeit products

Several reports have indicated that counterfeit skin products originating in other countries have made their way into the United States and, according to the article published on the website Fact Based Skin Care, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, including cosmetics, are among the top five types of products seized by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents (Coy, C. Dangers of Counterfeit Cosmetics, Aug. 4, 2014). Such products include old bottles refilled with inexpensive imitation creams or bottles made to look like legitimate products that in fact contain imitation creams. I once had a patient present with an adverse reaction to a retinol product, which she brought with her to the visit. I sent the bottle to the company, which confirmed my suspicion that the product was counterfeit – a different bottle with a similar label.

In February 2014, CBS New York ran a segment on the potential inclusion of carcinogenic and other harmful ingredients found in online personal care products touted for their low prices (CBS New York. Counterfeit Cosmetics May Be Harmful To Your Health. Feb. 27, 2014). Not even 2 weeks later, CNN reported on the arrest of two brothers in New York alleged to have masterminded a multimillion-dollar counterfeit health and beauty product ring (CNN. Zulueta A. Massive Fake Health and Beauty Supplies Ring Busted. March 9, 2014). ABC’s Good Morning America followed suit with a segment in April 2014 that exposed aspects of the use of knock-off cosmetic products (ABC News, Good Morning America. Online Beauty Bargains: Is It the Real Deal? April 3, 2014).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has posted memos concerning counterfeit and potentially compromised and hazardous cosmetics and fragrances, offering tips aimed at readily identifying or avoiding unauthorized products.

Torie Hardee of EltaMD summarized that counterfeit products can sometimes be identified by lack of an expiration date on the bottle, discoloration or slightly different fonts on bottles and packaging, and the manufacturer’s address on the bottle.

Jan Marini Company representative Stuart Mohr noted that their company has received returns of products that they had not manufactured, as well as their own current or discontinued products returned years after the expiration date. The Jan Marini Co., and most other companies, will not guarantee any product purchased via nonauthorized resellers, because the authenticity and safety of such products cannot be verified.

“These unauthorized resellers are sophisticated, often even working in rings, and find it easy to hide their real identity,” said Mr. Mohr. “Addresses are often hidden or vague; emails are not linked to any specific person; and it’s easy to use false names. If a person is caught in an unauthorized online transaction, it’s easy to change the email address or name and start again,” he added.

©Ingram Publishing/Thinkstockphotos.com

FBI’s tips for spotting counterfeit cosmetics and fragrances

• The product is a sample size.

• The packaging differs slightly from the authentic brand (different color or font).

• The product’s wrapping appears haphazard.

• The product is being advertised as a “limited edition” even though the authentic manufacturer doesn’t offer it as a limited edition.

• The product is not listed on the manufacturer’s website.

• The price is drastically lower than the MSRP.

• The product’s consistency or texture doesn’t feel or look like the authentic brand.

• For fragrances, something seems off about the scent, and the color of the fluid in the bottle might be different than the original.

• They are being sold at nonauthorized retailers, including flea markets and discount stores.

• The label does not contain lot number, bar code, manufacturer’s address, or expiration date.

Expired products

Unscrupulous online retailers may slash prices on expired products and remove the expiration date from the package. In my practice, a patient experiencing an erythematous reaction brought in the “SkinMedica” product bottle, which looked suspicious to me. The packaging that the product was in had been discontinued 8 years earlier. It is important to remember that ingredients, particularly retinol, degrade with exposure to air, sun, and heat, and over time. This is most likely what caused my patient’s adverse reaction, and her initial savings from the product caused her several weeks of irritated skin.

Diverted products

SkinMedica reports that diverted products are a trickier issue than counterfeit products, because their packaging and formulas are sufficiently complex to make counterfeiting too difficult to be profitable. Instead, their products have been sold on the so-called gray market below the manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP), typically online. In these cases, the company cannot help patients with returns or complaints because they cannot verify the chain of custody of the purchased product. They are addressing this problem, though, with an awareness campaign called “Authentic and Authorized.” Its goal is to alert patients and the physicians who dispense their products of the benefits of a physician-dispensed model of skin care, with best outcomes achieved when doctors are prescribing a skin care regimen. SkinMedica emphasizes that no website can guarantee outcomes comparable to a skin care professional and product quality and safety can only be enforced when dispensed through authorized channels.

Potentially illegal or toxic ingredients

Several products that have entered the United States marketed as skin lighteners, antiaging agents, and acne treatment products have been found to contain mercury, according to a consumer update from the FDA. Arsenic, lead, beryllium, and other harmful toxins as well as allergy-inducing fragrances or preservatives not approved as safe in the U.S. may also be found in such products of dubious origin.

Improper storage

Products purveyed online are often stored in hot warehouses. As mentioned above, heat degrades and alters ingredients, rendering compounds such as retinol, benzoyl peroxide, peptides, and ascorbic acid worthless. Extreme cold can also damage the chemical integrity of products. Notably, organic products are more vulnerable because they lack preservatives to gird them against temperature variations and microbes that grow in hot, damp environments.

Lookalike imposters

Generic formulations are packaged to piggyback onto the success of well-known products. Such products found in drugstores may be packaged to look like Cetaphil or Aveeno items, but cost less, and deliver less. While the ingredients on the copycats are identical to those found in the branded preparations, the order in which ingredients are added, the temperature, pH, and even when and how fast ingredients are stirred are part of the proprietary recipe of the company and play a significant role in the potential of the end product and the actions the product exerts on the skin.

Conclusion

Whether or not you sell skin care products in your office, there is much you can do to educate your patients about skin care product safety. Namely, the farther a consumer gets from the source of the product or from reliable endorsers of products, the greater the opportunity for encountering fraudulent or counterfeit products. Patients are best served by sources they can trust, such as their dermatologist. If you sell products in your office, encourage your patients to buy refills from you so they can be assured of the proper formulations. Finally, encourage your patients not to skimp when it comes to the health of their skin, reminding them that it may cost them much more in terms of time, skin irritation, improper treatment, and all related expenses to buy products cheaply from unreliable sources.

Give your patients a copy of this article so that they will understand the enormity of the problem.

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). She has contributed to the Cosmeceutical Critique column in Dermatology News since January 2001. Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.

The Internet has changed many facets of modern life, and the practice of medicine has not gone untouched. Consider, for better or worse, the reliance of many patients on WebMD and various other sites for self-diagnosis before consulting with a physician. Even before the Internet, patients would self-diagnose their skin type (more than 80% of them get it wrong). The Internet allows them access to most cosmeceutical brands, the misuse of which leads to unintended consequences that can affect skin health. Clearly, patients who receive advice from a trained medical professional have better outcomes. One reason for this is that the doctor (or aesthetician) spends time with the patient, explaining what products to use and in which order to use them, and follows up with the patient to assess the outcome and adjust the regimen as needed. The problem arises when these patients decide to purchase the products from a source other than their treating physician. Only about 30% of patients buy refills from their doctor for second purchases, and just 15% purchase products from their doctor the third time around. Why is this? It is likely the convenience and the low cost that drive patients to purchase from sources other than their physician or aesthetician. This desire to save money carries significant risks. Many the products online are expired or counterfeit, or are old containers refilled with a different formulation. Patients should be cautioned to only buy products from a source they trust.

I have had dozens of patients bringing in counterfeit products in the last few months. It seems that the problem is becoming more common. I interviewed several companies about this to see whether others were experiencing the same trend. This is what I found:

Some companies report that they have seen their samples and trade size containers being sold on eBay. Joe Ragosta of Topix Pharmaceuticals reports that when his company has asked such sellers if they are obtaining these products – marked as samples – from the company, they hear a range of defensive responses, including: “I got it at a show” or “My doctor gave me samples, and I decided to sell them” and “I work at a doctor’s office, and they let me take products as needed.” Make sure that no one on your staff is taking samples and selling them online.

One example: NeoStrata is concerned about the fraudulent use of their products. They recommend that patients purchase their products only from a known physician, ideally from the physician’s office rather than the website. The company understands that customers may want to save money wherever they can and might prefer to buy products online. NeoStrata urges customers who opt to buy online to make such purchases through physician-affiliated websites, where the doctor is clearly identified. At the very least, the company urges patients to choose only sites where they can contact someone and obtain the name of a physician. Further, they strongly discourage using eBay or other auction sites, which do not vouch for the safety and authenticity of products sold through their services.

Other potential problems with skin care products sold online include the following.

Counterfeit products

Several reports have indicated that counterfeit skin products originating in other countries have made their way into the United States and, according to the article published on the website Fact Based Skin Care, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, including cosmetics, are among the top five types of products seized by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents (Coy, C. Dangers of Counterfeit Cosmetics, Aug. 4, 2014). Such products include old bottles refilled with inexpensive imitation creams or bottles made to look like legitimate products that in fact contain imitation creams. I once had a patient present with an adverse reaction to a retinol product, which she brought with her to the visit. I sent the bottle to the company, which confirmed my suspicion that the product was counterfeit – a different bottle with a similar label.

In February 2014, CBS New York ran a segment on the potential inclusion of carcinogenic and other harmful ingredients found in online personal care products touted for their low prices (CBS New York. Counterfeit Cosmetics May Be Harmful To Your Health. Feb. 27, 2014). Not even 2 weeks later, CNN reported on the arrest of two brothers in New York alleged to have masterminded a multimillion-dollar counterfeit health and beauty product ring (CNN. Zulueta A. Massive Fake Health and Beauty Supplies Ring Busted. March 9, 2014). ABC’s Good Morning America followed suit with a segment in April 2014 that exposed aspects of the use of knock-off cosmetic products (ABC News, Good Morning America. Online Beauty Bargains: Is It the Real Deal? April 3, 2014).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has posted memos concerning counterfeit and potentially compromised and hazardous cosmetics and fragrances, offering tips aimed at readily identifying or avoiding unauthorized products.

Torie Hardee of EltaMD summarized that counterfeit products can sometimes be identified by lack of an expiration date on the bottle, discoloration or slightly different fonts on bottles and packaging, and the manufacturer’s address on the bottle.

Jan Marini Company representative Stuart Mohr noted that their company has received returns of products that they had not manufactured, as well as their own current or discontinued products returned years after the expiration date. The Jan Marini Co., and most other companies, will not guarantee any product purchased via nonauthorized resellers, because the authenticity and safety of such products cannot be verified.

“These unauthorized resellers are sophisticated, often even working in rings, and find it easy to hide their real identity,” said Mr. Mohr. “Addresses are often hidden or vague; emails are not linked to any specific person; and it’s easy to use false names. If a person is caught in an unauthorized online transaction, it’s easy to change the email address or name and start again,” he added.

©Ingram Publishing/Thinkstockphotos.com

FBI’s tips for spotting counterfeit cosmetics and fragrances

• The product is a sample size.

• The packaging differs slightly from the authentic brand (different color or font).

• The product’s wrapping appears haphazard.

• The product is being advertised as a “limited edition” even though the authentic manufacturer doesn’t offer it as a limited edition.

• The product is not listed on the manufacturer’s website.

• The price is drastically lower than the MSRP.

• The product’s consistency or texture doesn’t feel or look like the authentic brand.

• For fragrances, something seems off about the scent, and the color of the fluid in the bottle might be different than the original.

• They are being sold at nonauthorized retailers, including flea markets and discount stores.

• The label does not contain lot number, bar code, manufacturer’s address, or expiration date.

Expired products

Unscrupulous online retailers may slash prices on expired products and remove the expiration date from the package. In my practice, a patient experiencing an erythematous reaction brought in the “SkinMedica” product bottle, which looked suspicious to me. The packaging that the product was in had been discontinued 8 years earlier. It is important to remember that ingredients, particularly retinol, degrade with exposure to air, sun, and heat, and over time. This is most likely what caused my patient’s adverse reaction, and her initial savings from the product caused her several weeks of irritated skin.

Diverted products

SkinMedica reports that diverted products are a trickier issue than counterfeit products, because their packaging and formulas are sufficiently complex to make counterfeiting too difficult to be profitable. Instead, their products have been sold on the so-called gray market below the manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP), typically online. In these cases, the company cannot help patients with returns or complaints because they cannot verify the chain of custody of the purchased product. They are addressing this problem, though, with an awareness campaign called “Authentic and Authorized.” Its goal is to alert patients and the physicians who dispense their products of the benefits of a physician-dispensed model of skin care, with best outcomes achieved when doctors are prescribing a skin care regimen. SkinMedica emphasizes that no website can guarantee outcomes comparable to a skin care professional and product quality and safety can only be enforced when dispensed through authorized channels.

Potentially illegal or toxic ingredients

Several products that have entered the United States marketed as skin lighteners, antiaging agents, and acne treatment products have been found to contain mercury, according to a consumer update from the FDA. Arsenic, lead, beryllium, and other harmful toxins as well as allergy-inducing fragrances or preservatives not approved as safe in the U.S. may also be found in such products of dubious origin.

Improper storage

Products purveyed online are often stored in hot warehouses. As mentioned above, heat degrades and alters ingredients, rendering compounds such as retinol, benzoyl peroxide, peptides, and ascorbic acid worthless. Extreme cold can also damage the chemical integrity of products. Notably, organic products are more vulnerable because they lack preservatives to gird them against temperature variations and microbes that grow in hot, damp environments.

Lookalike imposters

Generic formulations are packaged to piggyback onto the success of well-known products. Such products found in drugstores may be packaged to look like Cetaphil or Aveeno items, but cost less, and deliver less. While the ingredients on the copycats are identical to those found in the branded preparations, the order in which ingredients are added, the temperature, pH, and even when and how fast ingredients are stirred are part of the proprietary recipe of the company and play a significant role in the potential of the end product and the actions the product exerts on the skin.

Conclusion

Whether or not you sell skin care products in your office, there is much you can do to educate your patients about skin care product safety. Namely, the farther a consumer gets from the source of the product or from reliable endorsers of products, the greater the opportunity for encountering fraudulent or counterfeit products. Patients are best served by sources they can trust, such as their dermatologist. If you sell products in your office, encourage your patients to buy refills from you so they can be assured of the proper formulations. Finally, encourage your patients not to skimp when it comes to the health of their skin, reminding them that it may cost them much more in terms of time, skin irritation, improper treatment, and all related expenses to buy products cheaply from unreliable sources.

Give your patients a copy of this article so that they will understand the enormity of the problem.

Dr. Baumann is chief executive officer of the Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute in the Design District in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote the textbook “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and a book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). She has contributed to the Cosmeceutical Critique column in Dermatology News since January 2001. Her latest book, “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients,” was published in November 2014. Dr. Baumann has received funding for clinical grants from Allergan, Aveeno, Avon Products, Evolus, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Mary Kay, Medicis Pharmaceuticals, Neutrogena, Philosophy, Topix Pharmaceuticals, and Unilever.

While much has been written about the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to shift its payment system away from fee for service and toward a “value-based” structure, most physicians in small and solo private settings have given little, if any, thought to its potential impact on their practices. That is about to change.

The principal vehicle for the CMS plan is something called the Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBM), a component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The VBM has been off the radar of smaller private practices, because up until now it has applied only to groups with more than 10 providers. Starting this year, it applies to everyone. If you accept Medicare patients, regardless of the size of your practice, VBM will become part of your life – because your 2017 Medicare payments will be adjusted based on your 2015 VBM “score.”

That score will be based on your “quality of care” (as defined by the CMS) and how much your care costs the system, compared with care provided by other physicians. The quality component will be calculated from measures reported through the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). Your practice will then be “tiered” to determine whether your performance is statistically better, the same, or worse than the national mean. The CMS has not shared all the details of its “quality tiering” formula, but you can get an idea of their general criteria by reviewing the recently released “Quality Benchmarks for the 2015 Value Modifier” at CMS.org.

To calculate the cost component, the CMS will evaluate measures that include total overall costs per beneficiary, and total costs for a composite of chronic conditions, such as (for internists) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and diabetes; no one has speculated on which diseases might be used for dermatology. Practitioners are eligible for a 1% bonus if their average score is in the top 25% of all scores nationwide. You can get some sense of where you stand in the national hierarchy by studying your Quality Resource and Use Report (QRUR), which gathers information about each practice’s quality and performance rates for the VBM. Reports for the first half of 2014 were released by the CMS in April, and can be downloaded from the QRUR section of CMS.gov.

The ACA requires that the program be budget neutral – which means that all bonuses to physicians in the highest 25% must be offset by penalties – “negative adjustments” – to those in the lowest 25%. The good news is that groups with two to nine providers, and solo practitioners who report successfully for PQRS, receive only the upward or neutral adjustment for 2017, with no downward adjustments. That means you will have at least one penalty-free year to determine where you stand in the VBM pecking order – and perhaps earn a bonus.

So in summary, here is what you have to do now, in 2015, to maximize your chances of earning that upward adjustment in 2017:

• If you haven’t already, make sure your practice data are correct in the Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS). This is where CMS will gather data for the VBM and the Physician Feedback Reports.

• Study the Quality Benchmarks and download your practice’s QRUR, as mentioned.

• Report successfully for PQRS in 2015, which will also avoid an automatic penalty of 4% in 2017.

Are there serious potential consequences inherent in this unprecedented new system? I think so. For all the talk that the transition from fee-for-service to “value-based” reimbursement would result in better care at a lower cost, there is little evidence that care is improving, and even less that costs are decreasing.

In essence, the VBM establishes arbitrary practice standards and spending ceilings. It creates new incentives to practice “cookbook” medicine, and new disincentives to order tests, consults, or medications, even when doing so would clearly be in a patient’s best interest. Physicians who have the temerity to practice medicine as they see fit, irrespective of the costs involved, will be punished.

Patients will certainly not welcome their physicians’ new reluctance to recommend appropriate interventions for fear of generating excessive costs, and should a less-than-thorough work-up lead to a missed diagnosis, the ACA offers no protection at all from any resulting malpractice litigation.

All of that said, the VBM is a reality, and can no longer be ignored if you treat Medicare patients.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters.

While much has been written about the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to shift its payment system away from fee for service and toward a “value-based” structure, most physicians in small and solo private settings have given little, if any, thought to its potential impact on their practices. That is about to change.

The principal vehicle for the CMS plan is something called the Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBM), a component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The VBM has been off the radar of smaller private practices, because up until now it has applied only to groups with more than 10 providers. Starting this year, it applies to everyone. If you accept Medicare patients, regardless of the size of your practice, VBM will become part of your life – because your 2017 Medicare payments will be adjusted based on your 2015 VBM “score.”

That score will be based on your “quality of care” (as defined by the CMS) and how much your care costs the system, compared with care provided by other physicians. The quality component will be calculated from measures reported through the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). Your practice will then be “tiered” to determine whether your performance is statistically better, the same, or worse than the national mean. The CMS has not shared all the details of its “quality tiering” formula, but you can get an idea of their general criteria by reviewing the recently released “Quality Benchmarks for the 2015 Value Modifier” at CMS.org.

To calculate the cost component, the CMS will evaluate measures that include total overall costs per beneficiary, and total costs for a composite of chronic conditions, such as (for internists) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and diabetes; no one has speculated on which diseases might be used for dermatology. Practitioners are eligible for a 1% bonus if their average score is in the top 25% of all scores nationwide. You can get some sense of where you stand in the national hierarchy by studying your Quality Resource and Use Report (QRUR), which gathers information about each practice’s quality and performance rates for the VBM. Reports for the first half of 2014 were released by the CMS in April, and can be downloaded from the QRUR section of CMS.gov.

The ACA requires that the program be budget neutral – which means that all bonuses to physicians in the highest 25% must be offset by penalties – “negative adjustments” – to those in the lowest 25%. The good news is that groups with two to nine providers, and solo practitioners who report successfully for PQRS, receive only the upward or neutral adjustment for 2017, with no downward adjustments. That means you will have at least one penalty-free year to determine where you stand in the VBM pecking order – and perhaps earn a bonus.

So in summary, here is what you have to do now, in 2015, to maximize your chances of earning that upward adjustment in 2017:

• If you haven’t already, make sure your practice data are correct in the Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS). This is where CMS will gather data for the VBM and the Physician Feedback Reports.

• Study the Quality Benchmarks and download your practice’s QRUR, as mentioned.

• Report successfully for PQRS in 2015, which will also avoid an automatic penalty of 4% in 2017.

Are there serious potential consequences inherent in this unprecedented new system? I think so. For all the talk that the transition from fee-for-service to “value-based” reimbursement would result in better care at a lower cost, there is little evidence that care is improving, and even less that costs are decreasing.

In essence, the VBM establishes arbitrary practice standards and spending ceilings. It creates new incentives to practice “cookbook” medicine, and new disincentives to order tests, consults, or medications, even when doing so would clearly be in a patient’s best interest. Physicians who have the temerity to practice medicine as they see fit, irrespective of the costs involved, will be punished.

Patients will certainly not welcome their physicians’ new reluctance to recommend appropriate interventions for fear of generating excessive costs, and should a less-than-thorough work-up lead to a missed diagnosis, the ACA offers no protection at all from any resulting malpractice litigation.

All of that said, the VBM is a reality, and can no longer be ignored if you treat Medicare patients.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters.

While much has been written about the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to shift its payment system away from fee for service and toward a “value-based” structure, most physicians in small and solo private settings have given little, if any, thought to its potential impact on their practices. That is about to change.

The principal vehicle for the CMS plan is something called the Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBM), a component of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The VBM has been off the radar of smaller private practices, because up until now it has applied only to groups with more than 10 providers. Starting this year, it applies to everyone. If you accept Medicare patients, regardless of the size of your practice, VBM will become part of your life – because your 2017 Medicare payments will be adjusted based on your 2015 VBM “score.”

That score will be based on your “quality of care” (as defined by the CMS) and how much your care costs the system, compared with care provided by other physicians. The quality component will be calculated from measures reported through the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). Your practice will then be “tiered” to determine whether your performance is statistically better, the same, or worse than the national mean. The CMS has not shared all the details of its “quality tiering” formula, but you can get an idea of their general criteria by reviewing the recently released “Quality Benchmarks for the 2015 Value Modifier” at CMS.org.

To calculate the cost component, the CMS will evaluate measures that include total overall costs per beneficiary, and total costs for a composite of chronic conditions, such as (for internists) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and diabetes; no one has speculated on which diseases might be used for dermatology. Practitioners are eligible for a 1% bonus if their average score is in the top 25% of all scores nationwide. You can get some sense of where you stand in the national hierarchy by studying your Quality Resource and Use Report (QRUR), which gathers information about each practice’s quality and performance rates for the VBM. Reports for the first half of 2014 were released by the CMS in April, and can be downloaded from the QRUR section of CMS.gov.

The ACA requires that the program be budget neutral – which means that all bonuses to physicians in the highest 25% must be offset by penalties – “negative adjustments” – to those in the lowest 25%. The good news is that groups with two to nine providers, and solo practitioners who report successfully for PQRS, receive only the upward or neutral adjustment for 2017, with no downward adjustments. That means you will have at least one penalty-free year to determine where you stand in the VBM pecking order – and perhaps earn a bonus.

So in summary, here is what you have to do now, in 2015, to maximize your chances of earning that upward adjustment in 2017:

• If you haven’t already, make sure your practice data are correct in the Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS). This is where CMS will gather data for the VBM and the Physician Feedback Reports.

• Study the Quality Benchmarks and download your practice’s QRUR, as mentioned.

• Report successfully for PQRS in 2015, which will also avoid an automatic penalty of 4% in 2017.

Are there serious potential consequences inherent in this unprecedented new system? I think so. For all the talk that the transition from fee-for-service to “value-based” reimbursement would result in better care at a lower cost, there is little evidence that care is improving, and even less that costs are decreasing.

In essence, the VBM establishes arbitrary practice standards and spending ceilings. It creates new incentives to practice “cookbook” medicine, and new disincentives to order tests, consults, or medications, even when doing so would clearly be in a patient’s best interest. Physicians who have the temerity to practice medicine as they see fit, irrespective of the costs involved, will be punished.

Patients will certainly not welcome their physicians’ new reluctance to recommend appropriate interventions for fear of generating excessive costs, and should a less-than-thorough work-up lead to a missed diagnosis, the ACA offers no protection at all from any resulting malpractice litigation.

All of that said, the VBM is a reality, and can no longer be ignored if you treat Medicare patients.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters.

The last time I spoke with my 70-year-old mother in Rhode Island, I asked her how she made out at her latest dermatology appointment. She burst forth: “Don’t get me started! The doctor spent the whole time with his face in the computer screen. He hardly examined me!” It went downhill from there.

I feel both her pain and his. As a Gen-X physician, I’m in a unique position. I trained in the pre-EHR age with the Dr. Marcus Welby–type physicians my parents knew and admired. I have also embraced the digitization of medicine and the advances this affords. At Kaiser Permanente, I help run one of the country’s most robust telemedicine programs, and I answer dozens of patient e-mails each week. Yet I too experience the frustration of having to split my attention between my screens and my patients.

At conferences and in articles, it seems the chasm between physicians who eagerly embrace the new digital world of medicine and those who long for the way things used to be is expanding rather than shrinking. Too often, there is insufficient dialogue between these two groups. Dr. Robert Wachter hopes to change that.

Professor and associate chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Wachter has authored six books, has developed the concept of the “hospitalist,” and has been a leader in patient safety. His latest book, “The Digital Doctor: Hope, Hype, and Harm at the Dawn of Medicine’s Computer Age,” (McGraw-Hill, 2015) has been hailed as a “must read” for physicians and other health care practitioners. I agree.

Medicine is in the midst of profound change that is as frightening as it is exciting. Dr. Wachter captures this tension through memorable patient stories and interviews. He argues that technology has made medicine both better and worse. It has enabled clinicians to improve diagnostics and health care delivery. Consider the explosive growth of “big data” in health care and of patient empowerment (e-mailing, texting, Skyping, OpenNotes). Yet, an astute observer acknowledges technology’s shortfalls. For example, what happens when information is incorrectly entered in an EHR? What are physicians to do with the massive patient data we receive?

To illustrate his theme, Dr. Wachter examines EHRs in depth. He argues that the most brilliant engineers can create the most complex computer systems, but if they’re not implemented and funded systemically, how will they be successful? Why would private practice physicians want to relinquish their “tried-and-true paper prescription and record system for an expensive and complex EHR?” And what happens when EHRs don’t talk to one another?

Despite their obvious advantages, EHRs have several drawbacks, including poor usability, time-consuming data entry (that adversely affects the doctor-patient relationship), the high cost of implementation, and decreased satisfaction among physicians with their jobs, Dr. Wachter notes. Who has the solution to these problems? Is it Silicon Valley? Or did they create the problem? (Dr. Wachter spends a great deal of time interviewing key players from that region.) Ultimately, he determines that the EHR, despite its brilliant advantages, wasn’t designed to give both physicians and patients what they really want.

The most compelling patient story that Dr. Wachter shares concerns a teenage boy who nearly died from an overdose of an antibiotic. He shows with devastating clarity how one wrong click of the keypad can lead to tragedy. No one – physicians, nurses, nor pharmacists – caught the error (the patient was administered 38.5 tablets instead of 1 tablet). Why? Dr. Wachter blames our “blind trust” in computers, which causes us to not question when something seems wrong. Moreover, multiple warnings went unheeded by nurses, who probably suffered from “alert fatigue,” desensitization to warning alarms (think of the ubiquitous car alarms sounding and how no one reacts to them), he says.

This leads to Dr. Wachter’s dive into the “complex interface between technology and people.” At what point do computers stop assisting physicians and begin replacing them? While he clearly believes that the human component of the doctor-patient relationship is irreplaceable, he does acknowledge through interviews with people such as Vinod Khosla, cofounder of Sun Microsystems, that computers will continue to “displace” much of the physician’s diagnostic and prescription work.

As Dr. Wachter seesaws through both sides of this argument, he finds himself “stick[ing] up for my teams: humans and the subset of humans called doctors.” After all, isn’t diagnostic skill at the core of an astute clinician’s arsenal? How do we relinquish it to computers?

What about technologies like OpenNotes that empower patients? How will this affect the doctor-patient relationship? What are we to do about patients who make bad choices, opt for high copays to save money up front, or choose Minute Clinics for all their health care needs? Will patients be harmed by such openness? The jury is still out.

For those who like clear black-and-white answers, Dr. Wachter’s book will seem maddeningly gray. Yet as a practicing clinician, I found it enlightening and thought provoking, and hope you will, too. I also hope it prompts you to step away from the computer, walk next door to your colleague’s office, and start a real-life conversation.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter.

The last time I spoke with my 70-year-old mother in Rhode Island, I asked her how she made out at her latest dermatology appointment. She burst forth: “Don’t get me started! The doctor spent the whole time with his face in the computer screen. He hardly examined me!” It went downhill from there.

I feel both her pain and his. As a Gen-X physician, I’m in a unique position. I trained in the pre-EHR age with the Dr. Marcus Welby–type physicians my parents knew and admired. I have also embraced the digitization of medicine and the advances this affords. At Kaiser Permanente, I help run one of the country’s most robust telemedicine programs, and I answer dozens of patient e-mails each week. Yet I too experience the frustration of having to split my attention between my screens and my patients.

At conferences and in articles, it seems the chasm between physicians who eagerly embrace the new digital world of medicine and those who long for the way things used to be is expanding rather than shrinking. Too often, there is insufficient dialogue between these two groups. Dr. Robert Wachter hopes to change that.

Professor and associate chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Wachter has authored six books, has developed the concept of the “hospitalist,” and has been a leader in patient safety. His latest book, “The Digital Doctor: Hope, Hype, and Harm at the Dawn of Medicine’s Computer Age,” (McGraw-Hill, 2015) has been hailed as a “must read” for physicians and other health care practitioners. I agree.

Medicine is in the midst of profound change that is as frightening as it is exciting. Dr. Wachter captures this tension through memorable patient stories and interviews. He argues that technology has made medicine both better and worse. It has enabled clinicians to improve diagnostics and health care delivery. Consider the explosive growth of “big data” in health care and of patient empowerment (e-mailing, texting, Skyping, OpenNotes). Yet, an astute observer acknowledges technology’s shortfalls. For example, what happens when information is incorrectly entered in an EHR? What are physicians to do with the massive patient data we receive?

To illustrate his theme, Dr. Wachter examines EHRs in depth. He argues that the most brilliant engineers can create the most complex computer systems, but if they’re not implemented and funded systemically, how will they be successful? Why would private practice physicians want to relinquish their “tried-and-true paper prescription and record system for an expensive and complex EHR?” And what happens when EHRs don’t talk to one another?

Despite their obvious advantages, EHRs have several drawbacks, including poor usability, time-consuming data entry (that adversely affects the doctor-patient relationship), the high cost of implementation, and decreased satisfaction among physicians with their jobs, Dr. Wachter notes. Who has the solution to these problems? Is it Silicon Valley? Or did they create the problem? (Dr. Wachter spends a great deal of time interviewing key players from that region.) Ultimately, he determines that the EHR, despite its brilliant advantages, wasn’t designed to give both physicians and patients what they really want.

The most compelling patient story that Dr. Wachter shares concerns a teenage boy who nearly died from an overdose of an antibiotic. He shows with devastating clarity how one wrong click of the keypad can lead to tragedy. No one – physicians, nurses, nor pharmacists – caught the error (the patient was administered 38.5 tablets instead of 1 tablet). Why? Dr. Wachter blames our “blind trust” in computers, which causes us to not question when something seems wrong. Moreover, multiple warnings went unheeded by nurses, who probably suffered from “alert fatigue,” desensitization to warning alarms (think of the ubiquitous car alarms sounding and how no one reacts to them), he says.

This leads to Dr. Wachter’s dive into the “complex interface between technology and people.” At what point do computers stop assisting physicians and begin replacing them? While he clearly believes that the human component of the doctor-patient relationship is irreplaceable, he does acknowledge through interviews with people such as Vinod Khosla, cofounder of Sun Microsystems, that computers will continue to “displace” much of the physician’s diagnostic and prescription work.

As Dr. Wachter seesaws through both sides of this argument, he finds himself “stick[ing] up for my teams: humans and the subset of humans called doctors.” After all, isn’t diagnostic skill at the core of an astute clinician’s arsenal? How do we relinquish it to computers?

What about technologies like OpenNotes that empower patients? How will this affect the doctor-patient relationship? What are we to do about patients who make bad choices, opt for high copays to save money up front, or choose Minute Clinics for all their health care needs? Will patients be harmed by such openness? The jury is still out.

For those who like clear black-and-white answers, Dr. Wachter’s book will seem maddeningly gray. Yet as a practicing clinician, I found it enlightening and thought provoking, and hope you will, too. I also hope it prompts you to step away from the computer, walk next door to your colleague’s office, and start a real-life conversation.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter.

The last time I spoke with my 70-year-old mother in Rhode Island, I asked her how she made out at her latest dermatology appointment. She burst forth: “Don’t get me started! The doctor spent the whole time with his face in the computer screen. He hardly examined me!” It went downhill from there.

I feel both her pain and his. As a Gen-X physician, I’m in a unique position. I trained in the pre-EHR age with the Dr. Marcus Welby–type physicians my parents knew and admired. I have also embraced the digitization of medicine and the advances this affords. At Kaiser Permanente, I help run one of the country’s most robust telemedicine programs, and I answer dozens of patient e-mails each week. Yet I too experience the frustration of having to split my attention between my screens and my patients.

At conferences and in articles, it seems the chasm between physicians who eagerly embrace the new digital world of medicine and those who long for the way things used to be is expanding rather than shrinking. Too often, there is insufficient dialogue between these two groups. Dr. Robert Wachter hopes to change that.

Professor and associate chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Wachter has authored six books, has developed the concept of the “hospitalist,” and has been a leader in patient safety. His latest book, “The Digital Doctor: Hope, Hype, and Harm at the Dawn of Medicine’s Computer Age,” (McGraw-Hill, 2015) has been hailed as a “must read” for physicians and other health care practitioners. I agree.

Medicine is in the midst of profound change that is as frightening as it is exciting. Dr. Wachter captures this tension through memorable patient stories and interviews. He argues that technology has made medicine both better and worse. It has enabled clinicians to improve diagnostics and health care delivery. Consider the explosive growth of “big data” in health care and of patient empowerment (e-mailing, texting, Skyping, OpenNotes). Yet, an astute observer acknowledges technology’s shortfalls. For example, what happens when information is incorrectly entered in an EHR? What are physicians to do with the massive patient data we receive?

To illustrate his theme, Dr. Wachter examines EHRs in depth. He argues that the most brilliant engineers can create the most complex computer systems, but if they’re not implemented and funded systemically, how will they be successful? Why would private practice physicians want to relinquish their “tried-and-true paper prescription and record system for an expensive and complex EHR?” And what happens when EHRs don’t talk to one another?

Despite their obvious advantages, EHRs have several drawbacks, including poor usability, time-consuming data entry (that adversely affects the doctor-patient relationship), the high cost of implementation, and decreased satisfaction among physicians with their jobs, Dr. Wachter notes. Who has the solution to these problems? Is it Silicon Valley? Or did they create the problem? (Dr. Wachter spends a great deal of time interviewing key players from that region.) Ultimately, he determines that the EHR, despite its brilliant advantages, wasn’t designed to give both physicians and patients what they really want.

The most compelling patient story that Dr. Wachter shares concerns a teenage boy who nearly died from an overdose of an antibiotic. He shows with devastating clarity how one wrong click of the keypad can lead to tragedy. No one – physicians, nurses, nor pharmacists – caught the error (the patient was administered 38.5 tablets instead of 1 tablet). Why? Dr. Wachter blames our “blind trust” in computers, which causes us to not question when something seems wrong. Moreover, multiple warnings went unheeded by nurses, who probably suffered from “alert fatigue,” desensitization to warning alarms (think of the ubiquitous car alarms sounding and how no one reacts to them), he says.

This leads to Dr. Wachter’s dive into the “complex interface between technology and people.” At what point do computers stop assisting physicians and begin replacing them? While he clearly believes that the human component of the doctor-patient relationship is irreplaceable, he does acknowledge through interviews with people such as Vinod Khosla, cofounder of Sun Microsystems, that computers will continue to “displace” much of the physician’s diagnostic and prescription work.

As Dr. Wachter seesaws through both sides of this argument, he finds himself “stick[ing] up for my teams: humans and the subset of humans called doctors.” After all, isn’t diagnostic skill at the core of an astute clinician’s arsenal? How do we relinquish it to computers?

What about technologies like OpenNotes that empower patients? How will this affect the doctor-patient relationship? What are we to do about patients who make bad choices, opt for high copays to save money up front, or choose Minute Clinics for all their health care needs? Will patients be harmed by such openness? The jury is still out.

For those who like clear black-and-white answers, Dr. Wachter’s book will seem maddeningly gray. Yet as a practicing clinician, I found it enlightening and thought provoking, and hope you will, too. I also hope it prompts you to step away from the computer, walk next door to your colleague’s office, and start a real-life conversation.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter.

Approximately 740,000 women are diagnosed with cancer every year in the United States, and because of improved screening, diagnosis, and treatment, women of reproductive age have an 80%-90% 5-year survival rate. The most common cancers in reproductive age women include breast, thyroid, melanoma, colorectal, and cervical cancers. Fertility intention is a critical topic to discuss with reproductive-age cancer patients. Women with cancer often have unmet contraception needs during and following cancer treatment. Providing women with a desired, effective form of contraception that is appropriate with regard to the cancer is critical.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that pregnancy prevention is not adequately addressed in cancer patients. On the one hand, many patients believe they are no longer fertile because of a combination of the illness and the cancer treatment, and on the other hand, many providers may not be adequately trained to offer their patients the full range of contraceptive options (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009;201:191.e1-4). One study demonstrated that discussions around fecundity and contraception are occurring about 50% of the time (J. Natl. Cancer. Inst. Monogr. 2005:98-100).

In response, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has issued guidelines regarding fertility planning in cancer patients (Fertil. Steril. 2005;83:1622-8). While every patient’s circumstance is unique, recommendations are for patients to avoid pregnancy for at least 1 year beyond the completion of medical and surgical treatment of cancer. For those cancers that are hormone mediated, recommendations are to wait 2-5 years before attempting to conceive (J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2002;24:164-80; J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2009; 24: S401-6).

Unless patients are educated about and offered the most effective forms of contraception, they are at risk of unintended pregnancy, which may result in severe consequences, as patients may be on teratogenic medications or dealing with comorbid conditions originating from cancer and cancer treatment (Contraception 2012;86:191-8).

Cancer treatments have variable impact on subsequent fertility (with the obvious exception of surgical removal of gynecologic organs resulting in sterilization). With all nonsurgical cancer treatments, the potential for subsequent fertility depends on the chemotherapeutic agents, the duration of treatment, or use of pelvic radiation. As in patients without cancer, age is inversely related to subsequent fertility. Reviews of the literature have shown that fecundability decreases by 10%-50% post chemotherapy.

Clinicians caring for these women may find it challenging to assess future fertility. Some chemotherapies induce amenorrhea, but spontaneous return of menstruation and ovarian function is possible in younger women. Traditional diagnostic tests to assess fertility, including serum FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) and/or AMH (anti-Müllerian hormone), may help in predicting future fertility. These tests can be used both in patients who desire to pursue pregnancy and in those desiring to avoid pregnancy as menstrual status may not accurately predict fertility.

Contraception counseling should begin by informing women of the most effective forms of contraception (Obstet. Gynecol. 2011;118:184-96). It is important to consider the option of sterilization, especially when this desire predated the cancer diagnosis. In patients who are in a monogamous relationship with a male partner, vasectomy should be encouraged as a safe and effective alternative. When a woman is considering sterilization, she needs to be counseled as to the risk of regret, which is higher in younger women. Sterilization should not be performed if the consent or decision-making process is rushed by the cancer treatment.

As cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment continue to improve, more reproductive-age women will be living longer with a need for effective contraception. In the next edition of Gynecologic Oncology Consult, I will review the safety and efficacy of specific contraceptive methods in patients with cancer.

Dr. Zerden is a family planning fellow in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research interests include postpartum contraception, methods of female sterilization, and family planning health services integration. He reported having no financial disclosures.

Approximately 740,000 women are diagnosed with cancer every year in the United States, and because of improved screening, diagnosis, and treatment, women of reproductive age have an 80%-90% 5-year survival rate. The most common cancers in reproductive age women include breast, thyroid, melanoma, colorectal, and cervical cancers. Fertility intention is a critical topic to discuss with reproductive-age cancer patients. Women with cancer often have unmet contraception needs during and following cancer treatment. Providing women with a desired, effective form of contraception that is appropriate with regard to the cancer is critical.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that pregnancy prevention is not adequately addressed in cancer patients. On the one hand, many patients believe they are no longer fertile because of a combination of the illness and the cancer treatment, and on the other hand, many providers may not be adequately trained to offer their patients the full range of contraceptive options (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009;201:191.e1-4). One study demonstrated that discussions around fecundity and contraception are occurring about 50% of the time (J. Natl. Cancer. Inst. Monogr. 2005:98-100).

In response, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has issued guidelines regarding fertility planning in cancer patients (Fertil. Steril. 2005;83:1622-8). While every patient’s circumstance is unique, recommendations are for patients to avoid pregnancy for at least 1 year beyond the completion of medical and surgical treatment of cancer. For those cancers that are hormone mediated, recommendations are to wait 2-5 years before attempting to conceive (J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2002;24:164-80; J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2009; 24: S401-6).

Unless patients are educated about and offered the most effective forms of contraception, they are at risk of unintended pregnancy, which may result in severe consequences, as patients may be on teratogenic medications or dealing with comorbid conditions originating from cancer and cancer treatment (Contraception 2012;86:191-8).

Cancer treatments have variable impact on subsequent fertility (with the obvious exception of surgical removal of gynecologic organs resulting in sterilization). With all nonsurgical cancer treatments, the potential for subsequent fertility depends on the chemotherapeutic agents, the duration of treatment, or use of pelvic radiation. As in patients without cancer, age is inversely related to subsequent fertility. Reviews of the literature have shown that fecundability decreases by 10%-50% post chemotherapy.

Clinicians caring for these women may find it challenging to assess future fertility. Some chemotherapies induce amenorrhea, but spontaneous return of menstruation and ovarian function is possible in younger women. Traditional diagnostic tests to assess fertility, including serum FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) and/or AMH (anti-Müllerian hormone), may help in predicting future fertility. These tests can be used both in patients who desire to pursue pregnancy and in those desiring to avoid pregnancy as menstrual status may not accurately predict fertility.

Contraception counseling should begin by informing women of the most effective forms of contraception (Obstet. Gynecol. 2011;118:184-96). It is important to consider the option of sterilization, especially when this desire predated the cancer diagnosis. In patients who are in a monogamous relationship with a male partner, vasectomy should be encouraged as a safe and effective alternative. When a woman is considering sterilization, she needs to be counseled as to the risk of regret, which is higher in younger women. Sterilization should not be performed if the consent or decision-making process is rushed by the cancer treatment.

As cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment continue to improve, more reproductive-age women will be living longer with a need for effective contraception. In the next edition of Gynecologic Oncology Consult, I will review the safety and efficacy of specific contraceptive methods in patients with cancer.

Dr. Zerden is a family planning fellow in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research interests include postpartum contraception, methods of female sterilization, and family planning health services integration. He reported having no financial disclosures.

Approximately 740,000 women are diagnosed with cancer every year in the United States, and because of improved screening, diagnosis, and treatment, women of reproductive age have an 80%-90% 5-year survival rate. The most common cancers in reproductive age women include breast, thyroid, melanoma, colorectal, and cervical cancers. Fertility intention is a critical topic to discuss with reproductive-age cancer patients. Women with cancer often have unmet contraception needs during and following cancer treatment. Providing women with a desired, effective form of contraception that is appropriate with regard to the cancer is critical.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that pregnancy prevention is not adequately addressed in cancer patients. On the one hand, many patients believe they are no longer fertile because of a combination of the illness and the cancer treatment, and on the other hand, many providers may not be adequately trained to offer their patients the full range of contraceptive options (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009;201:191.e1-4). One study demonstrated that discussions around fecundity and contraception are occurring about 50% of the time (J. Natl. Cancer. Inst. Monogr. 2005:98-100).

In response, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has issued guidelines regarding fertility planning in cancer patients (Fertil. Steril. 2005;83:1622-8). While every patient’s circumstance is unique, recommendations are for patients to avoid pregnancy for at least 1 year beyond the completion of medical and surgical treatment of cancer. For those cancers that are hormone mediated, recommendations are to wait 2-5 years before attempting to conceive (J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2002;24:164-80; J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2009; 24: S401-6).

Unless patients are educated about and offered the most effective forms of contraception, they are at risk of unintended pregnancy, which may result in severe consequences, as patients may be on teratogenic medications or dealing with comorbid conditions originating from cancer and cancer treatment (Contraception 2012;86:191-8).

Cancer treatments have variable impact on subsequent fertility (with the obvious exception of surgical removal of gynecologic organs resulting in sterilization). With all nonsurgical cancer treatments, the potential for subsequent fertility depends on the chemotherapeutic agents, the duration of treatment, or use of pelvic radiation. As in patients without cancer, age is inversely related to subsequent fertility. Reviews of the literature have shown that fecundability decreases by 10%-50% post chemotherapy.

Clinicians caring for these women may find it challenging to assess future fertility. Some chemotherapies induce amenorrhea, but spontaneous return of menstruation and ovarian function is possible in younger women. Traditional diagnostic tests to assess fertility, including serum FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) and/or AMH (anti-Müllerian hormone), may help in predicting future fertility. These tests can be used both in patients who desire to pursue pregnancy and in those desiring to avoid pregnancy as menstrual status may not accurately predict fertility.

Contraception counseling should begin by informing women of the most effective forms of contraception (Obstet. Gynecol. 2011;118:184-96). It is important to consider the option of sterilization, especially when this desire predated the cancer diagnosis. In patients who are in a monogamous relationship with a male partner, vasectomy should be encouraged as a safe and effective alternative. When a woman is considering sterilization, she needs to be counseled as to the risk of regret, which is higher in younger women. Sterilization should not be performed if the consent or decision-making process is rushed by the cancer treatment.

As cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment continue to improve, more reproductive-age women will be living longer with a need for effective contraception. In the next edition of Gynecologic Oncology Consult, I will review the safety and efficacy of specific contraceptive methods in patients with cancer.

Dr. Zerden is a family planning fellow in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research interests include postpartum contraception, methods of female sterilization, and family planning health services integration. He reported having no financial disclosures.

The other day, I received an electronic message that my patient presented to the emergency department following his attempt at lifting a relatively immovable object. The only thing apparently moved by this activity was his intervertebral disk – outward from its usual place and onto a nerve. He was quickly diagnosed with acute sciatica and treated with a healthy dose of steroids.

I enjoyed the subsequent soliloquy of the brilliance and outstanding clinical skill of our emergency department clinicians (which is true, by the way) when I saw him for follow-up. He was markedly improved.

In a moment of introspection, I questioned why we do not tend to use this strategy more in my practice, especially because it worked so well for my patient.

Perhaps it is because we are so used to dealing with medication side effects and the downstream consequences of insulin resistance in primary care that steroids make us squeamish. Perhaps it is also because we tend to see patients later in the course of their disease and think that it is too late for steroids to be beneficial. Maybe we are uncertain of their benefits.

So, how well do they work?

Dr. Harley Goldberg and colleagues recently published data from a randomized clinical trial exploring the efficacy of oral steroids for the treatment of acute sciatica (JAMA 2015;313:1915-23). A total of 269 adults with radicular pain for 3 months or less, an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of at least 30, and a herniated disk confirmed on MRI were randomized to prednisone or placebo. The prednisone dose was 60 mg for 5 days, then 40 mg for 5 days, and finally 20 mg for 5 days.

The prednisone group demonstrated significant reduction in the ODI at 3 weeks and 12 months, compared with placebo. No differences in pain or in rates of surgery were observed.

Adverse events were more common with prednisone, the most common being insomnia, increased appetite, and nervousness. No serious adverse events occurred related to treatment, and no differences were observed at 1 year.

The authors point out that the observation of a reduction in disability but no reduction in pain may be related to the fact that as patients improve functionally, they increase activity and experience more pain. Although analyses did not demonstrate a relationship between time until starting the steroids and identified effects of prednisone, clinical sense may press us to want to start them earlier in the course of disease.

Steroids might be a reasonable option in this setting, and combining them with other modalities (e.g., gabapentin) might further improve patients’ functional status and pain. As always, engaging patients in the shared decision making may help manage expectations.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician. Dr. Ebbert has no disclosures about this article.

The other day, I received an electronic message that my patient presented to the emergency department following his attempt at lifting a relatively immovable object. The only thing apparently moved by this activity was his intervertebral disk – outward from its usual place and onto a nerve. He was quickly diagnosed with acute sciatica and treated with a healthy dose of steroids.

I enjoyed the subsequent soliloquy of the brilliance and outstanding clinical skill of our emergency department clinicians (which is true, by the way) when I saw him for follow-up. He was markedly improved.

In a moment of introspection, I questioned why we do not tend to use this strategy more in my practice, especially because it worked so well for my patient.

Perhaps it is because we are so used to dealing with medication side effects and the downstream consequences of insulin resistance in primary care that steroids make us squeamish. Perhaps it is also because we tend to see patients later in the course of their disease and think that it is too late for steroids to be beneficial. Maybe we are uncertain of their benefits.

So, how well do they work?

Dr. Harley Goldberg and colleagues recently published data from a randomized clinical trial exploring the efficacy of oral steroids for the treatment of acute sciatica (JAMA 2015;313:1915-23). A total of 269 adults with radicular pain for 3 months or less, an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of at least 30, and a herniated disk confirmed on MRI were randomized to prednisone or placebo. The prednisone dose was 60 mg for 5 days, then 40 mg for 5 days, and finally 20 mg for 5 days.

The prednisone group demonstrated significant reduction in the ODI at 3 weeks and 12 months, compared with placebo. No differences in pain or in rates of surgery were observed.

Adverse events were more common with prednisone, the most common being insomnia, increased appetite, and nervousness. No serious adverse events occurred related to treatment, and no differences were observed at 1 year.

The authors point out that the observation of a reduction in disability but no reduction in pain may be related to the fact that as patients improve functionally, they increase activity and experience more pain. Although analyses did not demonstrate a relationship between time until starting the steroids and identified effects of prednisone, clinical sense may press us to want to start them earlier in the course of disease.

Steroids might be a reasonable option in this setting, and combining them with other modalities (e.g., gabapentin) might further improve patients’ functional status and pain. As always, engaging patients in the shared decision making may help manage expectations.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician. Dr. Ebbert has no disclosures about this article.

The other day, I received an electronic message that my patient presented to the emergency department following his attempt at lifting a relatively immovable object. The only thing apparently moved by this activity was his intervertebral disk – outward from its usual place and onto a nerve. He was quickly diagnosed with acute sciatica and treated with a healthy dose of steroids.

I enjoyed the subsequent soliloquy of the brilliance and outstanding clinical skill of our emergency department clinicians (which is true, by the way) when I saw him for follow-up. He was markedly improved.

In a moment of introspection, I questioned why we do not tend to use this strategy more in my practice, especially because it worked so well for my patient.

Perhaps it is because we are so used to dealing with medication side effects and the downstream consequences of insulin resistance in primary care that steroids make us squeamish. Perhaps it is also because we tend to see patients later in the course of their disease and think that it is too late for steroids to be beneficial. Maybe we are uncertain of their benefits.

So, how well do they work?

Dr. Harley Goldberg and colleagues recently published data from a randomized clinical trial exploring the efficacy of oral steroids for the treatment of acute sciatica (JAMA 2015;313:1915-23). A total of 269 adults with radicular pain for 3 months or less, an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of at least 30, and a herniated disk confirmed on MRI were randomized to prednisone or placebo. The prednisone dose was 60 mg for 5 days, then 40 mg for 5 days, and finally 20 mg for 5 days.

The prednisone group demonstrated significant reduction in the ODI at 3 weeks and 12 months, compared with placebo. No differences in pain or in rates of surgery were observed.

Adverse events were more common with prednisone, the most common being insomnia, increased appetite, and nervousness. No serious adverse events occurred related to treatment, and no differences were observed at 1 year.

The authors point out that the observation of a reduction in disability but no reduction in pain may be related to the fact that as patients improve functionally, they increase activity and experience more pain. Although analyses did not demonstrate a relationship between time until starting the steroids and identified effects of prednisone, clinical sense may press us to want to start them earlier in the course of disease.

Steroids might be a reasonable option in this setting, and combining them with other modalities (e.g., gabapentin) might further improve patients’ functional status and pain. As always, engaging patients in the shared decision making may help manage expectations.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician. Dr. Ebbert has no disclosures about this article.

Melasma can be a very frustrating, remitting, and relapsing condition, particularly in the summer months. Often patients get good results with at-home and in-office treatments and return frustrated as the melasma frequently recurs. A thorough history can help identify melasma triggers.

Ask about exposure to:

1. Any heat source. You will be surprised by the answers. Examples include overhead work lights, overhead desk lamps, extensive cooking over an oven or a grill, lamps used to treat seasonal affective disorder, heating lamps, and hair dryers. Heat is a very common trigger for melasma as it increases vasodilation. Melasma is typically thought of as solely hyperpigmentation; however, vascular dilatation often occurs in the affected area. In addition, heat may lead to more inflammation, also stimulating melanocyte pigment production.

2. UV sources. These include computer screens, car side windows, sunroofs (even if the roof glass is closed, UV can penetrate the glass, so the sunroof shade also should be closed), and a window near an office desk or a window near a bed (UVA penetrates window glass).

3. Visible light sources. Examples are overhead lights at home and in office buildings. These lights increase pigmentation. Iron oxide in sunscreens helps block visible light.

4. Hormonal triggers. These include birth control pills, hormone-releasing intrauterine devices, hormone therapy, and vitamin supplements such as those used for pregnancy, nursing, and perimenopausal symptoms (such as black cohosh and dong quai).

5. Other triggers:• Scented or deodorant soaps, toiletries, cosmetics, or fragrances that may cause phototoxic reactions. These reactions may in turn trigger melasma, which may then persist.

• Sunglasses. This is the most common avoidable trigger. Aviator sunglasses or sunglasses with metal rims, or metal attached to the inside handle or rim absorb the heat when in the sun and/or when left in the car. The metal gets warm, and the heat transfers to the skin when the sunglasses are placed on the face. I ask every melasma patient to bring in all their sunglasses so I can check for metal on the rim or handles. This is a very common trigger, and patients are shocked after they observe that streaks of melasma can often follow the pattern of their sunglasses.

• Autoimmune thyroid disorders, chronic stress, or adrenal dysfunction.

• Triggers of melanocyte-stimulating hormone.

The history is crucial to long-term clearance of melasma. Asking questions to get to the source of the trigger often can help isolate the cause and help eliminate significant recurrences of melasma in skin of color patients.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to a monthly Aesthetic Dermatology column in Dermatology News. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month's column is by Dr. Talakoub.

Melasma can be a very frustrating, remitting, and relapsing condition, particularly in the summer months. Often patients get good results with at-home and in-office treatments and return frustrated as the melasma frequently recurs. A thorough history can help identify melasma triggers.

Ask about exposure to:

1. Any heat source. You will be surprised by the answers. Examples include overhead work lights, overhead desk lamps, extensive cooking over an oven or a grill, lamps used to treat seasonal affective disorder, heating lamps, and hair dryers. Heat is a very common trigger for melasma as it increases vasodilation. Melasma is typically thought of as solely hyperpigmentation; however, vascular dilatation often occurs in the affected area. In addition, heat may lead to more inflammation, also stimulating melanocyte pigment production.

2. UV sources. These include computer screens, car side windows, sunroofs (even if the roof glass is closed, UV can penetrate the glass, so the sunroof shade also should be closed), and a window near an office desk or a window near a bed (UVA penetrates window glass).

3. Visible light sources. Examples are overhead lights at home and in office buildings. These lights increase pigmentation. Iron oxide in sunscreens helps block visible light.

4. Hormonal triggers. These include birth control pills, hormone-releasing intrauterine devices, hormone therapy, and vitamin supplements such as those used for pregnancy, nursing, and perimenopausal symptoms (such as black cohosh and dong quai).

5. Other triggers:• Scented or deodorant soaps, toiletries, cosmetics, or fragrances that may cause phototoxic reactions. These reactions may in turn trigger melasma, which may then persist.

• Sunglasses. This is the most common avoidable trigger. Aviator sunglasses or sunglasses with metal rims, or metal attached to the inside handle or rim absorb the heat when in the sun and/or when left in the car. The metal gets warm, and the heat transfers to the skin when the sunglasses are placed on the face. I ask every melasma patient to bring in all their sunglasses so I can check for metal on the rim or handles. This is a very common trigger, and patients are shocked after they observe that streaks of melasma can often follow the pattern of their sunglasses.

• Autoimmune thyroid disorders, chronic stress, or adrenal dysfunction.

• Triggers of melanocyte-stimulating hormone.

The history is crucial to long-term clearance of melasma. Asking questions to get to the source of the trigger often can help isolate the cause and help eliminate significant recurrences of melasma in skin of color patients.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to a monthly Aesthetic Dermatology column in Dermatology News. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month's column is by Dr. Talakoub.

Melasma can be a very frustrating, remitting, and relapsing condition, particularly in the summer months. Often patients get good results with at-home and in-office treatments and return frustrated as the melasma frequently recurs. A thorough history can help identify melasma triggers.

Ask about exposure to:

1. Any heat source. You will be surprised by the answers. Examples include overhead work lights, overhead desk lamps, extensive cooking over an oven or a grill, lamps used to treat seasonal affective disorder, heating lamps, and hair dryers. Heat is a very common trigger for melasma as it increases vasodilation. Melasma is typically thought of as solely hyperpigmentation; however, vascular dilatation often occurs in the affected area. In addition, heat may lead to more inflammation, also stimulating melanocyte pigment production.

2. UV sources. These include computer screens, car side windows, sunroofs (even if the roof glass is closed, UV can penetrate the glass, so the sunroof shade also should be closed), and a window near an office desk or a window near a bed (UVA penetrates window glass).

3. Visible light sources. Examples are overhead lights at home and in office buildings. These lights increase pigmentation. Iron oxide in sunscreens helps block visible light.

4. Hormonal triggers. These include birth control pills, hormone-releasing intrauterine devices, hormone therapy, and vitamin supplements such as those used for pregnancy, nursing, and perimenopausal symptoms (such as black cohosh and dong quai).

5. Other triggers:• Scented or deodorant soaps, toiletries, cosmetics, or fragrances that may cause phototoxic reactions. These reactions may in turn trigger melasma, which may then persist.

• Sunglasses. This is the most common avoidable trigger. Aviator sunglasses or sunglasses with metal rims, or metal attached to the inside handle or rim absorb the heat when in the sun and/or when left in the car. The metal gets warm, and the heat transfers to the skin when the sunglasses are placed on the face. I ask every melasma patient to bring in all their sunglasses so I can check for metal on the rim or handles. This is a very common trigger, and patients are shocked after they observe that streaks of melasma can often follow the pattern of their sunglasses.

• Autoimmune thyroid disorders, chronic stress, or adrenal dysfunction.

• Triggers of melanocyte-stimulating hormone.

The history is crucial to long-term clearance of melasma. Asking questions to get to the source of the trigger often can help isolate the cause and help eliminate significant recurrences of melasma in skin of color patients.

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to a monthly Aesthetic Dermatology column in Dermatology News. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month's column is by Dr. Talakoub.