Commentary

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

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

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

Welcome, Lewis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Nelson: Or moderation.

Dr. Glatter: Until research proves further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome, Lewis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Nelson: Or moderation.

Dr. Glatter: Until research proves further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome, Lewis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Nelson: Or moderation.

Dr. Glatter: Until research proves further.

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

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

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

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

We have long recognized that our environment has a significant impact on our general health. Air pollution is known to contribute to respiratory conditions, poor cardiovascular outcomes, and certain kinds of cancer. Less well-known (or studied) is the potential impact of such fumes on bone health.

It’s increasingly important to identify factors that might contribute to suboptimal bone density and associated fracture risk in the population as a whole, and particularly in older adults. Aging is associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis and fractures, with their attendant morbidity, but individuals differ in their extent of bone loss and risk for fractures.

Known factors affecting bone health include genetics, age, sex, nutrition, physical activity, and hormonal factors. Certain medications, diseases, and lifestyle choices – such as smoking and alcohol intake – can also have deleterious effects on bone.

More recently, researchers have started examining the impact of air pollution on bone health.

As we know, the degree of pollution varies greatly from one region to another and can potentially significantly affect life in many parts of the world. In fact, the World Health Organization indicates that 99% of the world’s population breathes air exceeding the WHO guideline limits for pollutants.

Air pollutants include particulate matter (PM) as well as gases, such as nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and certain volatile organic compounds. Particulate pollutants include a variety of substances produced from mostly human activities (such as vehicle emissions, biofuel combustion, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing, and also forest fires). They are classified not by their composition, but by their size (for example, PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 indicate PM with a diameter < 1.0, 2.5, and 10 microns, respectively). The finer the particle, the more likely it is to cross into the systemic circulation from the respiratory tract, with the potential to induce oxidative, inflammatory, and other changes in the body.

Many studies report that air pollution is a risk factor for osteoporosis. Some have found associations of lower bone density, osteoporosis, and fracture risk with higher concentrations of PM1.0, PM2.5, or PM10, even after controlling for other factors that could affect bone health. Some researchers have reported that although they didn’t find a significant association between PM and bone health, they did find an association between distance from the freeway and bone health – thus, exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and black carbon from vehicle emissions needs to be studied as a contributor to fracture risk.

Importantly, a prospective, observational study from the Women’s Health Initiative (which included more than 9,000 ethnically diverse women from three sites in the United States) reported a significant negative impact of PM10, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide over 1, 3, and 5 years on bone density at multiple sites, and particularly at the lumbar spine, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors. This study reported that nitrogen dioxide exposure may be a key determinant of bone density at the lumbar spine and in the whole body. Similarly, other studies have reported associations between atmospheric nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide and risk for osteoporotic fractures.
 

Why the impact on bones?

The potential negative impact of pollution on bone has been attributed to many factors. PM induces systemic inflammation and an increase in cytokines that stimulate bone cells (osteoclasts) that cause bone loss. Other pollutants (gases and metal compounds) can cause oxidative damage to bone cells, whereas others act as endocrine disrupters and affect the functioning of these cells.

Pollution might also affect the synthesis and metabolism of vitamin D, which is necessary for absorption of calcium from the gut. High rates of pollution can reduce the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth which is important because certain wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation are necessary for vitamin D synthesis in our skin. Reduced vitamin D synthesis in skin can lead to poorly mineralized bone unless there is sufficient intake of vitamin D in diet or as supplements. Also, the conversion of vitamin D to its active form happens in the kidneys, and PM can be harmful to renal function. PM is also believed to cause increased breakdown of vitamin D into its inactive form.

Conversely, some studies have reported no association between pollution and bone density or osteoporosis risk, and two meta-analyses indicated that the association between the two is inconsistent. Some factors explaining variances in results include the number of individuals included in the study (larger studies are generally considered to be more reproducible), the fact that most studies are cross-sectional and not prospective, many do not control for other factors that might be deleterious to bone, and prediction models for the extent of PM or other exposure may not be completely accurate.

However, another recent meta-analysis reported an increased risk for lower total-body bone density and hip fracture after exposure to air pollution, particularly PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide, but not to PM10, nitric oxide, or ozone. More studies are needed to confirm, or refute, the association between air pollution and impaired bone health. But accumulating evidence suggests that air pollution very likely has a deleterious effect on bone.

When feasible, it’s important to avoid living or working in areas with poor air quality and high pollution rates. However, this isn’t always possible based on one’s occupation, geography, circumstances, or economic status. Therefore, attention to a cleaner environment is critical at both the individual and the macro level.

As an example of the latter, the city of London extended its ultralow emission zone (ULEZ) farther out of the city in October 2021, and a further expansion is planned to include all of the city’s boroughs in August 2023.

We can do our bit by driving less and walking, biking, or using public transportation more often. We can also turn off the car engine when it’s not running, maintain our vehicles, switch to electric or hand-powered yard equipment, and not burn household garbage and limit backyard fires. We can also switch from gas to solar energy or wind, use efficient appliances and heating, and avoid unnecessary energy use. And we can choose sustainable products when possible.

For optimal bone health, we should remind patients to eat a healthy diet with the requisite amount of protein, calcium, and vitamin D. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation may be necessary for people whose intake of dairy and dairy products is low. Other important strategies to optimize bone health include engaging in healthy physical activity; avoiding smoking or excessive alcohol intake; and treating underlying gastrointestinal, endocrine, or other conditions that can reduce bone density.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is the chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children; the associate director of the Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; and the director of the Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital, Boston.

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

We have long recognized that our environment has a significant impact on our general health. Air pollution is known to contribute to respiratory conditions, poor cardiovascular outcomes, and certain kinds of cancer. Less well-known (or studied) is the potential impact of such fumes on bone health.

It’s increasingly important to identify factors that might contribute to suboptimal bone density and associated fracture risk in the population as a whole, and particularly in older adults. Aging is associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis and fractures, with their attendant morbidity, but individuals differ in their extent of bone loss and risk for fractures.

Known factors affecting bone health include genetics, age, sex, nutrition, physical activity, and hormonal factors. Certain medications, diseases, and lifestyle choices – such as smoking and alcohol intake – can also have deleterious effects on bone.

More recently, researchers have started examining the impact of air pollution on bone health.

As we know, the degree of pollution varies greatly from one region to another and can potentially significantly affect life in many parts of the world. In fact, the World Health Organization indicates that 99% of the world’s population breathes air exceeding the WHO guideline limits for pollutants.

Air pollutants include particulate matter (PM) as well as gases, such as nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and certain volatile organic compounds. Particulate pollutants include a variety of substances produced from mostly human activities (such as vehicle emissions, biofuel combustion, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing, and also forest fires). They are classified not by their composition, but by their size (for example, PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 indicate PM with a diameter < 1.0, 2.5, and 10 microns, respectively). The finer the particle, the more likely it is to cross into the systemic circulation from the respiratory tract, with the potential to induce oxidative, inflammatory, and other changes in the body.

Many studies report that air pollution is a risk factor for osteoporosis. Some have found associations of lower bone density, osteoporosis, and fracture risk with higher concentrations of PM1.0, PM2.5, or PM10, even after controlling for other factors that could affect bone health. Some researchers have reported that although they didn’t find a significant association between PM and bone health, they did find an association between distance from the freeway and bone health – thus, exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and black carbon from vehicle emissions needs to be studied as a contributor to fracture risk.

Importantly, a prospective, observational study from the Women’s Health Initiative (which included more than 9,000 ethnically diverse women from three sites in the United States) reported a significant negative impact of PM10, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide over 1, 3, and 5 years on bone density at multiple sites, and particularly at the lumbar spine, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors. This study reported that nitrogen dioxide exposure may be a key determinant of bone density at the lumbar spine and in the whole body. Similarly, other studies have reported associations between atmospheric nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide and risk for osteoporotic fractures.
 

Why the impact on bones?

The potential negative impact of pollution on bone has been attributed to many factors. PM induces systemic inflammation and an increase in cytokines that stimulate bone cells (osteoclasts) that cause bone loss. Other pollutants (gases and metal compounds) can cause oxidative damage to bone cells, whereas others act as endocrine disrupters and affect the functioning of these cells.

Pollution might also affect the synthesis and metabolism of vitamin D, which is necessary for absorption of calcium from the gut. High rates of pollution can reduce the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth which is important because certain wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation are necessary for vitamin D synthesis in our skin. Reduced vitamin D synthesis in skin can lead to poorly mineralized bone unless there is sufficient intake of vitamin D in diet or as supplements. Also, the conversion of vitamin D to its active form happens in the kidneys, and PM can be harmful to renal function. PM is also believed to cause increased breakdown of vitamin D into its inactive form.

Conversely, some studies have reported no association between pollution and bone density or osteoporosis risk, and two meta-analyses indicated that the association between the two is inconsistent. Some factors explaining variances in results include the number of individuals included in the study (larger studies are generally considered to be more reproducible), the fact that most studies are cross-sectional and not prospective, many do not control for other factors that might be deleterious to bone, and prediction models for the extent of PM or other exposure may not be completely accurate.

However, another recent meta-analysis reported an increased risk for lower total-body bone density and hip fracture after exposure to air pollution, particularly PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide, but not to PM10, nitric oxide, or ozone. More studies are needed to confirm, or refute, the association between air pollution and impaired bone health. But accumulating evidence suggests that air pollution very likely has a deleterious effect on bone.

When feasible, it’s important to avoid living or working in areas with poor air quality and high pollution rates. However, this isn’t always possible based on one’s occupation, geography, circumstances, or economic status. Therefore, attention to a cleaner environment is critical at both the individual and the macro level.

As an example of the latter, the city of London extended its ultralow emission zone (ULEZ) farther out of the city in October 2021, and a further expansion is planned to include all of the city’s boroughs in August 2023.

We can do our bit by driving less and walking, biking, or using public transportation more often. We can also turn off the car engine when it’s not running, maintain our vehicles, switch to electric or hand-powered yard equipment, and not burn household garbage and limit backyard fires. We can also switch from gas to solar energy or wind, use efficient appliances and heating, and avoid unnecessary energy use. And we can choose sustainable products when possible.

For optimal bone health, we should remind patients to eat a healthy diet with the requisite amount of protein, calcium, and vitamin D. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation may be necessary for people whose intake of dairy and dairy products is low. Other important strategies to optimize bone health include engaging in healthy physical activity; avoiding smoking or excessive alcohol intake; and treating underlying gastrointestinal, endocrine, or other conditions that can reduce bone density.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is the chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children; the associate director of the Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; and the director of the Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital, Boston.

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

We have long recognized that our environment has a significant impact on our general health. Air pollution is known to contribute to respiratory conditions, poor cardiovascular outcomes, and certain kinds of cancer. Less well-known (or studied) is the potential impact of such fumes on bone health.

It’s increasingly important to identify factors that might contribute to suboptimal bone density and associated fracture risk in the population as a whole, and particularly in older adults. Aging is associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis and fractures, with their attendant morbidity, but individuals differ in their extent of bone loss and risk for fractures.

Known factors affecting bone health include genetics, age, sex, nutrition, physical activity, and hormonal factors. Certain medications, diseases, and lifestyle choices – such as smoking and alcohol intake – can also have deleterious effects on bone.

More recently, researchers have started examining the impact of air pollution on bone health.

As we know, the degree of pollution varies greatly from one region to another and can potentially significantly affect life in many parts of the world. In fact, the World Health Organization indicates that 99% of the world’s population breathes air exceeding the WHO guideline limits for pollutants.

Air pollutants include particulate matter (PM) as well as gases, such as nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and certain volatile organic compounds. Particulate pollutants include a variety of substances produced from mostly human activities (such as vehicle emissions, biofuel combustion, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing, and also forest fires). They are classified not by their composition, but by their size (for example, PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 indicate PM with a diameter < 1.0, 2.5, and 10 microns, respectively). The finer the particle, the more likely it is to cross into the systemic circulation from the respiratory tract, with the potential to induce oxidative, inflammatory, and other changes in the body.

Many studies report that air pollution is a risk factor for osteoporosis. Some have found associations of lower bone density, osteoporosis, and fracture risk with higher concentrations of PM1.0, PM2.5, or PM10, even after controlling for other factors that could affect bone health. Some researchers have reported that although they didn’t find a significant association between PM and bone health, they did find an association between distance from the freeway and bone health – thus, exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and black carbon from vehicle emissions needs to be studied as a contributor to fracture risk.

Importantly, a prospective, observational study from the Women’s Health Initiative (which included more than 9,000 ethnically diverse women from three sites in the United States) reported a significant negative impact of PM10, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide over 1, 3, and 5 years on bone density at multiple sites, and particularly at the lumbar spine, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors. This study reported that nitrogen dioxide exposure may be a key determinant of bone density at the lumbar spine and in the whole body. Similarly, other studies have reported associations between atmospheric nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide and risk for osteoporotic fractures.
 

Why the impact on bones?

The potential negative impact of pollution on bone has been attributed to many factors. PM induces systemic inflammation and an increase in cytokines that stimulate bone cells (osteoclasts) that cause bone loss. Other pollutants (gases and metal compounds) can cause oxidative damage to bone cells, whereas others act as endocrine disrupters and affect the functioning of these cells.

Pollution might also affect the synthesis and metabolism of vitamin D, which is necessary for absorption of calcium from the gut. High rates of pollution can reduce the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth which is important because certain wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation are necessary for vitamin D synthesis in our skin. Reduced vitamin D synthesis in skin can lead to poorly mineralized bone unless there is sufficient intake of vitamin D in diet or as supplements. Also, the conversion of vitamin D to its active form happens in the kidneys, and PM can be harmful to renal function. PM is also believed to cause increased breakdown of vitamin D into its inactive form.

Conversely, some studies have reported no association between pollution and bone density or osteoporosis risk, and two meta-analyses indicated that the association between the two is inconsistent. Some factors explaining variances in results include the number of individuals included in the study (larger studies are generally considered to be more reproducible), the fact that most studies are cross-sectional and not prospective, many do not control for other factors that might be deleterious to bone, and prediction models for the extent of PM or other exposure may not be completely accurate.

However, another recent meta-analysis reported an increased risk for lower total-body bone density and hip fracture after exposure to air pollution, particularly PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide, but not to PM10, nitric oxide, or ozone. More studies are needed to confirm, or refute, the association between air pollution and impaired bone health. But accumulating evidence suggests that air pollution very likely has a deleterious effect on bone.

When feasible, it’s important to avoid living or working in areas with poor air quality and high pollution rates. However, this isn’t always possible based on one’s occupation, geography, circumstances, or economic status. Therefore, attention to a cleaner environment is critical at both the individual and the macro level.

As an example of the latter, the city of London extended its ultralow emission zone (ULEZ) farther out of the city in October 2021, and a further expansion is planned to include all of the city’s boroughs in August 2023.

We can do our bit by driving less and walking, biking, or using public transportation more often. We can also turn off the car engine when it’s not running, maintain our vehicles, switch to electric or hand-powered yard equipment, and not burn household garbage and limit backyard fires. We can also switch from gas to solar energy or wind, use efficient appliances and heating, and avoid unnecessary energy use. And we can choose sustainable products when possible.

For optimal bone health, we should remind patients to eat a healthy diet with the requisite amount of protein, calcium, and vitamin D. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation may be necessary for people whose intake of dairy and dairy products is low. Other important strategies to optimize bone health include engaging in healthy physical activity; avoiding smoking or excessive alcohol intake; and treating underlying gastrointestinal, endocrine, or other conditions that can reduce bone density.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is the chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children; the associate director of the Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; and the director of the Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital, Boston.

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

When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.

Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.

CDC

Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.

However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.

Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.

1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?

Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.

Healthy dog:

1. Observe for 10 days.

2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.

Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:

1. Begin PEP.

2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.

Dog unavailable:

Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.

2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?

Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.

In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).

For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.

3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?

Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.

PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.

4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?

While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.

CDC

You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.

Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.

CDC

Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.

However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.

Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.

1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?

Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.

Healthy dog:

1. Observe for 10 days.

2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.

Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:

1. Begin PEP.

2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.

Dog unavailable:

Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.

2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?

Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.

In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).

For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.

3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?

Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.

PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.

4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?

While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.

CDC

You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.

Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.

CDC

Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.

However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.

Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.

1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?

Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.

Healthy dog:

1. Observe for 10 days.

2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.

Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:

1. Begin PEP.

2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.

Dog unavailable:

Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.

2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?

Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.

In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).

For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.

3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?

Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.

PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.

4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?

While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.

CDC

You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

A skin care trend, particularly in the Korean beauty product market and now worldwide, cleansing balms are a soft, yet solid variation of an oil-based cleanser. The solid oily component is combined with a surfactant or emulsifier. The cream balm texture melts into more of an oil texture once warmed with fingertips and applied to facial skin. The oils are effective at breaking down or attracting skin care products, oil, and grime on the skin surface. Once warm water is added, the oil emulsifies, and after it is wiped or rinsed off, what’s left behind is clean, hydrated skin.

Unlike surfactant-based liquid cleansers that typically produce foam, cleansing balms are thicker in consistency and do not foam. These products are often packaged in a jar as a thick creamy cleanser or a solid stick. They don’t tend to compromise the moisture barrier or disrupt skin pH, thus, resulting in less dry skin and have less potential to cause irritation. These products are particularly useful during drier, colder months, or in dry climates, and for those who have dry skin or eczema.

The popularity of cleansing balms has largely been based on their ability to remove makeup, similar to an oil cleanser, without the need to necessarily “double cleanse” with a regular cleanser afterward.

Alternatives to remove makeup besides cleansing balms, oil cleansers, and regular liquid water-based cleansers include micellar water (oil in water), chemical makeup removing cloths, and nonchemical makeup removing pads used with water. Micellar water is also gentle on the skin; it requires a cotton pad, tip, or cloth to remove makeup, without the need for water or washing. Both are effective, but it may be easier to remove makeup with cleansing balms, without the need for rubbing dry skin, than with micellar water. A study published in 2020 of 20 individuals reported that waterproof sunscreen was more effectively removed with a cleansing oil than a non–oil-based cleanser, with less irritation and dryness. Both were effective at removing non-waterproof sunscreen.

Both cleansing balms and oil-based cleansers need to be kept at room temperature (not in the refrigerator), since they may separate or solidify at low temperatures.

Jose A. Bernat Bacete/Getty Images

Most cleansing balms can be applied to dry skin, massaged, and rinsed off with warm water, but they are sometimes easier to remove with a wet cloth (typically either cotton or muslin). Many are nonirritating to the eyes, which is important when used to remove eye makeup and mascara on delicate skin. While many cleansing balms are noncomedogenic, residue from balms that are too thick or not rinsed off properly can contribute to comedones or milia. If residue is present after use, then “double-cleansing” with a water-based cleanser is reasonable, but not necessary for most users.

Did the development of Ponds cold cream mark the beginning of this trend? Yes and no. The creation of the first cold cream prototype has been attributed to the Greek physician, Galen (who lived in Rome), a combination of rose water, beeswax, and olive oil in 150 CE. While Ponds also has manufactured a cleansing balm, the original cold cream is a 50% moisturizer in a cleanser. So while similar in containing an oil, water, emulsifier, and thickener, and effective, it is more of a moisturizer and less of a solid oil/balm in its consistency.

Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at [email protected]. She had no relevant disclosures.

A skin care trend, particularly in the Korean beauty product market and now worldwide, cleansing balms are a soft, yet solid variation of an oil-based cleanser. The solid oily component is combined with a surfactant or emulsifier. The cream balm texture melts into more of an oil texture once warmed with fingertips and applied to facial skin. The oils are effective at breaking down or attracting skin care products, oil, and grime on the skin surface. Once warm water is added, the oil emulsifies, and after it is wiped or rinsed off, what’s left behind is clean, hydrated skin.

Unlike surfactant-based liquid cleansers that typically produce foam, cleansing balms are thicker in consistency and do not foam. These products are often packaged in a jar as a thick creamy cleanser or a solid stick. They don’t tend to compromise the moisture barrier or disrupt skin pH, thus, resulting in less dry skin and have less potential to cause irritation. These products are particularly useful during drier, colder months, or in dry climates, and for those who have dry skin or eczema.

The popularity of cleansing balms has largely been based on their ability to remove makeup, similar to an oil cleanser, without the need to necessarily “double cleanse” with a regular cleanser afterward.

Alternatives to remove makeup besides cleansing balms, oil cleansers, and regular liquid water-based cleansers include micellar water (oil in water), chemical makeup removing cloths, and nonchemical makeup removing pads used with water. Micellar water is also gentle on the skin; it requires a cotton pad, tip, or cloth to remove makeup, without the need for water or washing. Both are effective, but it may be easier to remove makeup with cleansing balms, without the need for rubbing dry skin, than with micellar water. A study published in 2020 of 20 individuals reported that waterproof sunscreen was more effectively removed with a cleansing oil than a non–oil-based cleanser, with less irritation and dryness. Both were effective at removing non-waterproof sunscreen.

Both cleansing balms and oil-based cleansers need to be kept at room temperature (not in the refrigerator), since they may separate or solidify at low temperatures.

Jose A. Bernat Bacete/Getty Images

Most cleansing balms can be applied to dry skin, massaged, and rinsed off with warm water, but they are sometimes easier to remove with a wet cloth (typically either cotton or muslin). Many are nonirritating to the eyes, which is important when used to remove eye makeup and mascara on delicate skin. While many cleansing balms are noncomedogenic, residue from balms that are too thick or not rinsed off properly can contribute to comedones or milia. If residue is present after use, then “double-cleansing” with a water-based cleanser is reasonable, but not necessary for most users.

Did the development of Ponds cold cream mark the beginning of this trend? Yes and no. The creation of the first cold cream prototype has been attributed to the Greek physician, Galen (who lived in Rome), a combination of rose water, beeswax, and olive oil in 150 CE. While Ponds also has manufactured a cleansing balm, the original cold cream is a 50% moisturizer in a cleanser. So while similar in containing an oil, water, emulsifier, and thickener, and effective, it is more of a moisturizer and less of a solid oil/balm in its consistency.

Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at [email protected]. She had no relevant disclosures.

A skin care trend, particularly in the Korean beauty product market and now worldwide, cleansing balms are a soft, yet solid variation of an oil-based cleanser. The solid oily component is combined with a surfactant or emulsifier. The cream balm texture melts into more of an oil texture once warmed with fingertips and applied to facial skin. The oils are effective at breaking down or attracting skin care products, oil, and grime on the skin surface. Once warm water is added, the oil emulsifies, and after it is wiped or rinsed off, what’s left behind is clean, hydrated skin.

Unlike surfactant-based liquid cleansers that typically produce foam, cleansing balms are thicker in consistency and do not foam. These products are often packaged in a jar as a thick creamy cleanser or a solid stick. They don’t tend to compromise the moisture barrier or disrupt skin pH, thus, resulting in less dry skin and have less potential to cause irritation. These products are particularly useful during drier, colder months, or in dry climates, and for those who have dry skin or eczema.

The popularity of cleansing balms has largely been based on their ability to remove makeup, similar to an oil cleanser, without the need to necessarily “double cleanse” with a regular cleanser afterward.

Alternatives to remove makeup besides cleansing balms, oil cleansers, and regular liquid water-based cleansers include micellar water (oil in water), chemical makeup removing cloths, and nonchemical makeup removing pads used with water. Micellar water is also gentle on the skin; it requires a cotton pad, tip, or cloth to remove makeup, without the need for water or washing. Both are effective, but it may be easier to remove makeup with cleansing balms, without the need for rubbing dry skin, than with micellar water. A study published in 2020 of 20 individuals reported that waterproof sunscreen was more effectively removed with a cleansing oil than a non–oil-based cleanser, with less irritation and dryness. Both were effective at removing non-waterproof sunscreen.

Both cleansing balms and oil-based cleansers need to be kept at room temperature (not in the refrigerator), since they may separate or solidify at low temperatures.

Jose A. Bernat Bacete/Getty Images

Most cleansing balms can be applied to dry skin, massaged, and rinsed off with warm water, but they are sometimes easier to remove with a wet cloth (typically either cotton or muslin). Many are nonirritating to the eyes, which is important when used to remove eye makeup and mascara on delicate skin. While many cleansing balms are noncomedogenic, residue from balms that are too thick or not rinsed off properly can contribute to comedones or milia. If residue is present after use, then “double-cleansing” with a water-based cleanser is reasonable, but not necessary for most users.

Did the development of Ponds cold cream mark the beginning of this trend? Yes and no. The creation of the first cold cream prototype has been attributed to the Greek physician, Galen (who lived in Rome), a combination of rose water, beeswax, and olive oil in 150 CE. While Ponds also has manufactured a cleansing balm, the original cold cream is a 50% moisturizer in a cleanser. So while similar in containing an oil, water, emulsifier, and thickener, and effective, it is more of a moisturizer and less of a solid oil/balm in its consistency.

Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at [email protected]. She had no relevant disclosures.

“Papa! Where donut?” asks my 2½ year-old sitting with her legs dangling and hands folded in a bustling Starbucks. We’ve been waiting for 8 minutes and we’ve reached her limit of tolerance. She’s unimpressed by the queued customers who compliment her curly blonde hair, many of whom have come and gone since we’ve been waiting. I agree – how long does it take to pour a kiddie milk and grab a donut? We can both see it in the case right there!

No one likes to wait. Truly, one of the great benefits of the modern world is that wait times are now incredibly short. Many Starbucks customers, unlike my daughter, ordered their drink ahead and waited exactly 0 minutes to get their drink. What about Amazon? I ordered a bird feeder this morning and it’s already hanging in the yard. It’s still daylight. Feel like Himalayan Momo Dumplings tonight? Your food could arrive in 37 minutes. The modern wait standard has been set impossibly high for us.

Yes, medicine is no doubt at the top of the list of “Worst Wait Times.” We make patients wait for appointments (sometimes months), wait to be seen, wait for biopsy results, wait for follow-up surgery, wait for those second results, even wait for PET scans and treatment plans for some. We created a whole room just for waiting. Airlines call theirs “The Platinum Executive Lounge.” Ours is “The waiting room.”

Excess waiting is a significant reason why health care gets beat up in reviews. We’re unable to keep up with the new expectations. Waiting is also a significant cause of distress. Many patients report the most difficult part of their cancer diagnosis was the waiting for results, not the treatment. It’s because when under stress, we are hardwired to take action. Binding patients into inaction while they wait is very uncomfortable.

Fortunately, the psychology of waiting is well understood and there are best practices that can help. First, anxiety makes waiting much worse. Conveying confidence and reassuring patients they are in the right place and that everything will be OK makes the wait time feel shorter for them. Uncertainty also compounds their apprehension. If you believe the diagnosis will be melanoma, tell them that at the time of the biopsy and tell them what you expect next. This is better than saying, “Well, that could be cancer. We’ll see.”

Knowing a wait time is also much better than not. Have your staff advise patients on how much longer they can expect before seeing you (telling them they’re next isn’t as effective). Advise that test results should be back by the end of next week. Of course, under promise and over deliver. When the results are back on Tuesday, you’ve got a pleased patient.

Explaining that you had to add in an urgent patient helps. Even if it’s not your fault, it’s still better to apologize. For example, the 78 highway, the left anterior descending artery to our office, has been closed because of a sinkhole this month (not kidding). I’ve been apologizing to a lot of patients saying that all our patients are arriving late, which is putting us behind. As they can envision the linear parking lot that used to be a highway, it helps.

Lastly, as any child can tell you, waiting has to not only be, but to also appear, fair. The only thing worse than waiting for an appointment, or donut, is seeing someone who came in after you get their donut before you do. If you’re pulling both Mohs and cosmetics patients from the same waiting area, then your surgery patients will see a lot of patients come and go while they are sitting. Demarcating one sitting area for Mohs and one for clinics might help. So does ordering ahead. I’d show my daughter how to use the app so we don’t have to wait so long next week, but she’s 2 and I’m quite sure she already knows.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

“Papa! Where donut?” asks my 2½ year-old sitting with her legs dangling and hands folded in a bustling Starbucks. We’ve been waiting for 8 minutes and we’ve reached her limit of tolerance. She’s unimpressed by the queued customers who compliment her curly blonde hair, many of whom have come and gone since we’ve been waiting. I agree – how long does it take to pour a kiddie milk and grab a donut? We can both see it in the case right there!

No one likes to wait. Truly, one of the great benefits of the modern world is that wait times are now incredibly short. Many Starbucks customers, unlike my daughter, ordered their drink ahead and waited exactly 0 minutes to get their drink. What about Amazon? I ordered a bird feeder this morning and it’s already hanging in the yard. It’s still daylight. Feel like Himalayan Momo Dumplings tonight? Your food could arrive in 37 minutes. The modern wait standard has been set impossibly high for us.

Yes, medicine is no doubt at the top of the list of “Worst Wait Times.” We make patients wait for appointments (sometimes months), wait to be seen, wait for biopsy results, wait for follow-up surgery, wait for those second results, even wait for PET scans and treatment plans for some. We created a whole room just for waiting. Airlines call theirs “The Platinum Executive Lounge.” Ours is “The waiting room.”

Excess waiting is a significant reason why health care gets beat up in reviews. We’re unable to keep up with the new expectations. Waiting is also a significant cause of distress. Many patients report the most difficult part of their cancer diagnosis was the waiting for results, not the treatment. It’s because when under stress, we are hardwired to take action. Binding patients into inaction while they wait is very uncomfortable.

Fortunately, the psychology of waiting is well understood and there are best practices that can help. First, anxiety makes waiting much worse. Conveying confidence and reassuring patients they are in the right place and that everything will be OK makes the wait time feel shorter for them. Uncertainty also compounds their apprehension. If you believe the diagnosis will be melanoma, tell them that at the time of the biopsy and tell them what you expect next. This is better than saying, “Well, that could be cancer. We’ll see.”

Knowing a wait time is also much better than not. Have your staff advise patients on how much longer they can expect before seeing you (telling them they’re next isn’t as effective). Advise that test results should be back by the end of next week. Of course, under promise and over deliver. When the results are back on Tuesday, you’ve got a pleased patient.

Explaining that you had to add in an urgent patient helps. Even if it’s not your fault, it’s still better to apologize. For example, the 78 highway, the left anterior descending artery to our office, has been closed because of a sinkhole this month (not kidding). I’ve been apologizing to a lot of patients saying that all our patients are arriving late, which is putting us behind. As they can envision the linear parking lot that used to be a highway, it helps.

Lastly, as any child can tell you, waiting has to not only be, but to also appear, fair. The only thing worse than waiting for an appointment, or donut, is seeing someone who came in after you get their donut before you do. If you’re pulling both Mohs and cosmetics patients from the same waiting area, then your surgery patients will see a lot of patients come and go while they are sitting. Demarcating one sitting area for Mohs and one for clinics might help. So does ordering ahead. I’d show my daughter how to use the app so we don’t have to wait so long next week, but she’s 2 and I’m quite sure she already knows.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

“Papa! Where donut?” asks my 2½ year-old sitting with her legs dangling and hands folded in a bustling Starbucks. We’ve been waiting for 8 minutes and we’ve reached her limit of tolerance. She’s unimpressed by the queued customers who compliment her curly blonde hair, many of whom have come and gone since we’ve been waiting. I agree – how long does it take to pour a kiddie milk and grab a donut? We can both see it in the case right there!

No one likes to wait. Truly, one of the great benefits of the modern world is that wait times are now incredibly short. Many Starbucks customers, unlike my daughter, ordered their drink ahead and waited exactly 0 minutes to get their drink. What about Amazon? I ordered a bird feeder this morning and it’s already hanging in the yard. It’s still daylight. Feel like Himalayan Momo Dumplings tonight? Your food could arrive in 37 minutes. The modern wait standard has been set impossibly high for us.

Yes, medicine is no doubt at the top of the list of “Worst Wait Times.” We make patients wait for appointments (sometimes months), wait to be seen, wait for biopsy results, wait for follow-up surgery, wait for those second results, even wait for PET scans and treatment plans for some. We created a whole room just for waiting. Airlines call theirs “The Platinum Executive Lounge.” Ours is “The waiting room.”

Excess waiting is a significant reason why health care gets beat up in reviews. We’re unable to keep up with the new expectations. Waiting is also a significant cause of distress. Many patients report the most difficult part of their cancer diagnosis was the waiting for results, not the treatment. It’s because when under stress, we are hardwired to take action. Binding patients into inaction while they wait is very uncomfortable.

Fortunately, the psychology of waiting is well understood and there are best practices that can help. First, anxiety makes waiting much worse. Conveying confidence and reassuring patients they are in the right place and that everything will be OK makes the wait time feel shorter for them. Uncertainty also compounds their apprehension. If you believe the diagnosis will be melanoma, tell them that at the time of the biopsy and tell them what you expect next. This is better than saying, “Well, that could be cancer. We’ll see.”

Knowing a wait time is also much better than not. Have your staff advise patients on how much longer they can expect before seeing you (telling them they’re next isn’t as effective). Advise that test results should be back by the end of next week. Of course, under promise and over deliver. When the results are back on Tuesday, you’ve got a pleased patient.

Explaining that you had to add in an urgent patient helps. Even if it’s not your fault, it’s still better to apologize. For example, the 78 highway, the left anterior descending artery to our office, has been closed because of a sinkhole this month (not kidding). I’ve been apologizing to a lot of patients saying that all our patients are arriving late, which is putting us behind. As they can envision the linear parking lot that used to be a highway, it helps.

Lastly, as any child can tell you, waiting has to not only be, but to also appear, fair. The only thing worse than waiting for an appointment, or donut, is seeing someone who came in after you get their donut before you do. If you’re pulling both Mohs and cosmetics patients from the same waiting area, then your surgery patients will see a lot of patients come and go while they are sitting. Demarcating one sitting area for Mohs and one for clinics might help. So does ordering ahead. I’d show my daughter how to use the app so we don’t have to wait so long next week, but she’s 2 and I’m quite sure she already knows.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

The bacterial, fungal, and atypical mycobacterial cultures from the lesions performed at the emergency department were all negative.

Pediatric dermatology was consulted and a punch biopsy of one of the lesions was done. Histopathologic examination showed a mixed perifollicular infiltrate of predominantly eosinophils with some neutrophils and associated microabscesses. Periodic acid Schiff and Fite stains failed to reveal any organisms. CD1 immunostain was negative. Fresh tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative.

Given the clinical presentation of chronic recurrent sterile pustules on an infant with associated eosinophilia and the reported histopathologic findings, the patient was diagnosed with eosinophilic pustular folliculitis of infancy (EPFI).

Dr. Catalina Matiz

EPFI is a rare and idiopathic cutaneous disorder present in children. About 70% of the cases reported occur in the first 6 month of life and rarely present past 3 years of age. EPF encompasses a group of conditions including the classic adult form, or Ofuji disease. EPF is seen in immunosuppressed patients, mainly HIV positive, and EPF is also seen in infants and children.

In EPFI, males are most commonly affected. The condition presents, as it did in our patient, with recurrent crops of sterile papules and pustules mainly on the scalp, but they can occur in other parts of the body. The lesions go away within a few weeks to months without leaving any scars but it can take months to years to resolve. Histopathologic analysis of the lesions show an eosinophilic infiltrate which can be follicular, perifollicular, or periadnexal with associated flame figures in about 26% of cases.

Aggressive treatment is usually not needed as lesions are self-limited. Lesions can be treated with topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamine medications like cetirizine if symptomatic.

If the lesions start to present during the neonatal period, one may consider in the differential diagnosis, neonatal rashes like transient neonatal pustular melanosis and erythema toxicum neonatorum. Both of these neonatal conditions tend to resolve in the first month of life, compared with EPFI where lesions can come and go for months to years. EPFI lesions can be described as pustules and inflammatory papules, as well as furuncles and vesicles. All of the lesions may be seen in one patient at one time, which will not be typical for transient neonatal pustular melanosis or erythema toxicum. Eosinophils can be seen in erythema toxicum but folliculitis is not present. The inflammatory infiltrate seen in transient neonatal pustular melanosis is polymorphonuclear, not eosinophilic.

Early in the presentation, infectious conditions like staphylococcal or streptococcal folliculitis, cellulitis and furunculosis, tinea capitis, atypical mycobacterial infections, herpes simplex, and parasitic infections like scabies should be considered. In young infants, empiric antibiotic treatment may be started until cultures are finalized. If there is a family history of pruritic papules and pustules, scabies should be considered. A scabies prep can be done to rule out this entity.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis can also present with pustules and papules in early infancy and also has a predilection for the scalp. When this condition is in question, a skin biopsy should be performed which shows a CD1 positive histiocytic infiltrate.

In conclusion, EPFI is a benign rare condition that can present in infants as recurrent pustules and papules, mainly on the scalp, which are self-limited and if symptomatic can be treated with topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.
 

References

Alonso-Castro L et al. Dermatol Online J. 2012 Oct 15;18(10):6.

Frølunde AS et al. Clin Case Rep. 2021 May 11;9(5):e04167.

Hernández-Martín Á et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jan;68(1):150-5.

The bacterial, fungal, and atypical mycobacterial cultures from the lesions performed at the emergency department were all negative.

Pediatric dermatology was consulted and a punch biopsy of one of the lesions was done. Histopathologic examination showed a mixed perifollicular infiltrate of predominantly eosinophils with some neutrophils and associated microabscesses. Periodic acid Schiff and Fite stains failed to reveal any organisms. CD1 immunostain was negative. Fresh tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative.

Given the clinical presentation of chronic recurrent sterile pustules on an infant with associated eosinophilia and the reported histopathologic findings, the patient was diagnosed with eosinophilic pustular folliculitis of infancy (EPFI).

Dr. Catalina Matiz

EPFI is a rare and idiopathic cutaneous disorder present in children. About 70% of the cases reported occur in the first 6 month of life and rarely present past 3 years of age. EPF encompasses a group of conditions including the classic adult form, or Ofuji disease. EPF is seen in immunosuppressed patients, mainly HIV positive, and EPF is also seen in infants and children.

In EPFI, males are most commonly affected. The condition presents, as it did in our patient, with recurrent crops of sterile papules and pustules mainly on the scalp, but they can occur in other parts of the body. The lesions go away within a few weeks to months without leaving any scars but it can take months to years to resolve. Histopathologic analysis of the lesions show an eosinophilic infiltrate which can be follicular, perifollicular, or periadnexal with associated flame figures in about 26% of cases.

Aggressive treatment is usually not needed as lesions are self-limited. Lesions can be treated with topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamine medications like cetirizine if symptomatic.

If the lesions start to present during the neonatal period, one may consider in the differential diagnosis, neonatal rashes like transient neonatal pustular melanosis and erythema toxicum neonatorum. Both of these neonatal conditions tend to resolve in the first month of life, compared with EPFI where lesions can come and go for months to years. EPFI lesions can be described as pustules and inflammatory papules, as well as furuncles and vesicles. All of the lesions may be seen in one patient at one time, which will not be typical for transient neonatal pustular melanosis or erythema toxicum. Eosinophils can be seen in erythema toxicum but folliculitis is not present. The inflammatory infiltrate seen in transient neonatal pustular melanosis is polymorphonuclear, not eosinophilic.

Early in the presentation, infectious conditions like staphylococcal or streptococcal folliculitis, cellulitis and furunculosis, tinea capitis, atypical mycobacterial infections, herpes simplex, and parasitic infections like scabies should be considered. In young infants, empiric antibiotic treatment may be started until cultures are finalized. If there is a family history of pruritic papules and pustules, scabies should be considered. A scabies prep can be done to rule out this entity.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis can also present with pustules and papules in early infancy and also has a predilection for the scalp. When this condition is in question, a skin biopsy should be performed which shows a CD1 positive histiocytic infiltrate.

In conclusion, EPFI is a benign rare condition that can present in infants as recurrent pustules and papules, mainly on the scalp, which are self-limited and if symptomatic can be treated with topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.
 

References

Alonso-Castro L et al. Dermatol Online J. 2012 Oct 15;18(10):6.

Frølunde AS et al. Clin Case Rep. 2021 May 11;9(5):e04167.

Hernández-Martín Á et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jan;68(1):150-5.

The bacterial, fungal, and atypical mycobacterial cultures from the lesions performed at the emergency department were all negative.

Pediatric dermatology was consulted and a punch biopsy of one of the lesions was done. Histopathologic examination showed a mixed perifollicular infiltrate of predominantly eosinophils with some neutrophils and associated microabscesses. Periodic acid Schiff and Fite stains failed to reveal any organisms. CD1 immunostain was negative. Fresh tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative.

Given the clinical presentation of chronic recurrent sterile pustules on an infant with associated eosinophilia and the reported histopathologic findings, the patient was diagnosed with eosinophilic pustular folliculitis of infancy (EPFI).

Dr. Catalina Matiz

EPFI is a rare and idiopathic cutaneous disorder present in children. About 70% of the cases reported occur in the first 6 month of life and rarely present past 3 years of age. EPF encompasses a group of conditions including the classic adult form, or Ofuji disease. EPF is seen in immunosuppressed patients, mainly HIV positive, and EPF is also seen in infants and children.

In EPFI, males are most commonly affected. The condition presents, as it did in our patient, with recurrent crops of sterile papules and pustules mainly on the scalp, but they can occur in other parts of the body. The lesions go away within a few weeks to months without leaving any scars but it can take months to years to resolve. Histopathologic analysis of the lesions show an eosinophilic infiltrate which can be follicular, perifollicular, or periadnexal with associated flame figures in about 26% of cases.

Aggressive treatment is usually not needed as lesions are self-limited. Lesions can be treated with topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamine medications like cetirizine if symptomatic.

If the lesions start to present during the neonatal period, one may consider in the differential diagnosis, neonatal rashes like transient neonatal pustular melanosis and erythema toxicum neonatorum. Both of these neonatal conditions tend to resolve in the first month of life, compared with EPFI where lesions can come and go for months to years. EPFI lesions can be described as pustules and inflammatory papules, as well as furuncles and vesicles. All of the lesions may be seen in one patient at one time, which will not be typical for transient neonatal pustular melanosis or erythema toxicum. Eosinophils can be seen in erythema toxicum but folliculitis is not present. The inflammatory infiltrate seen in transient neonatal pustular melanosis is polymorphonuclear, not eosinophilic.

Early in the presentation, infectious conditions like staphylococcal or streptococcal folliculitis, cellulitis and furunculosis, tinea capitis, atypical mycobacterial infections, herpes simplex, and parasitic infections like scabies should be considered. In young infants, empiric antibiotic treatment may be started until cultures are finalized. If there is a family history of pruritic papules and pustules, scabies should be considered. A scabies prep can be done to rule out this entity.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis can also present with pustules and papules in early infancy and also has a predilection for the scalp. When this condition is in question, a skin biopsy should be performed which shows a CD1 positive histiocytic infiltrate.

In conclusion, EPFI is a benign rare condition that can present in infants as recurrent pustules and papules, mainly on the scalp, which are self-limited and if symptomatic can be treated with topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.
 

References

Alonso-Castro L et al. Dermatol Online J. 2012 Oct 15;18(10):6.

Frølunde AS et al. Clin Case Rep. 2021 May 11;9(5):e04167.

Hernández-Martín Á et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jan;68(1):150-5.

Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).

Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).

IntimMedicine Specialists

Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
 

Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial

More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).

However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).

Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).

Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
 

Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult

The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.

A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).

Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).

One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).

Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.

It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).

Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).

Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).

While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, there do appear to be some women who are more sensitive, either mood-related or otherwise, directly or indirectly to their contraceptive progestogens in terms of mood. They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.

Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
 

Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation

An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.

I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.

Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.

Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at [email protected].

Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).

Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).

IntimMedicine Specialists

Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
 

Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial

More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).

However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).

Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).

Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
 

Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult

The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.

A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).

Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).

One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).

Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.

It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).

Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).

Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).

While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, there do appear to be some women who are more sensitive, either mood-related or otherwise, directly or indirectly to their contraceptive progestogens in terms of mood. They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.

Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
 

Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation

An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.

I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.

Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.

Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at [email protected].

Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).

Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).

IntimMedicine Specialists

Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
 

Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial

More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).

However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).

Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).

Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
 

Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult

The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.

A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).

Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).

One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).

Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.

It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).

Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).

Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).

While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, there do appear to be some women who are more sensitive, either mood-related or otherwise, directly or indirectly to their contraceptive progestogens in terms of mood. They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.

Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
 

Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation

An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.

I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.

Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.

Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at [email protected].

Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently gained significant public attention, primarily driven by the launch of a noteworthy program by OpenAI called Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT). This large language model is an AI system that enables users to interact with it using plain language. In just the first 2 months since its release, over 100 million subscribers have registered to use ChatGPT.

AI is now deeply integrated into our daily lives, pervading a wide array of smart devices such as phones, tablets, and numerous other gadgets that we rely on every day. These sophisticated technologies operate seamlessly in the background, often without us being consciously aware of their presence. Nevertheless, we greatly appreciate the way they enhance our lives by simplifying tasks and streamlining our routines.

A key factor contributing to ChatGPT’s popularity is its ability to accept input in the form of prompts in plain English. Our team published a comprehensive journal article showcasing examples of how this technology can be utilized by general ob.gyn. practitioners. ChatGPT has the potential to streamline work flow, generate letters to insurance companies, draft clinical plans, and assist with various other routine tasks in any ob.gyn. practice environment.

As with any new technology, it is essential for users to familiarize themselves with its capabilities and understand its limitations. A critical aspect to consider with the current version of ChatGPT is that it was developed using information primarily sourced from the Internet up until September 2021. This limitation is especially significant in the field of medicine, where practitioners consistently seek the most up-to-date and current information to inform their decisions.

However, it is expected that, in the near future, these programs will gain access to real-time information from a diverse range of sources, including but not limited to the Internet. This development will enhance the program’s utility and relevance in medical contexts.

Another limitation of ChatGPT is its propensity to “hallucinate.” Large language models are trained to respond to the best of their abilities, occasionally attempting to fill knowledge gaps with fabricated information. Being aware of these limitations enables users to recognize the program’s potential while also understanding the need for careful monitoring.

Our expertise and clinical knowledge are crucial in guiding and refining this technology, ensuring that it serves as a valuable tool in the ever-evolving landscape of medicine.

Another crucial factor to consider is that users must adhere to all guidelines and policies established within their work environment. This entails complying with HIPAA regulations and ensuring that any information generated by these programs is thoroughly examined before being integrated into practice work flows. As an increasing number of organizations develop specific guidelines for such technologies, the aim is to safeguard patients, users, and the organization itself. The individuals utilizing these technologies must exercise utmost caution and refrain from storing or sharing any sensitive or proprietary information.

The aim of this article is not to provide an exhaustive overview, but rather to offer a selection of examples and inspire readers to consider adopting these programs. By doing so, we hope to facilitate the exploration of innovative approaches that can improve the practice of ob.gyn.

The first example illustrates a common scenario that we frequently encounter – the situation in which an insurance company denies coverage for specific care or treatment for a patient. In fact, this was one of the first examples that was demonstrated by others on social media as a possible benefit for this technology. It effectively demonstrated the ability to save time and surmount the challenges of writer’s block that we occasionally encounter.
 

Prompt input:

“Write a letter to the insurance company who is denying cervical length surveillance for a patient with a short cervix and add references.”

ChatGPT response:

[Your Name]

[Your Address]

[City, State, Zip Code]

[Date]

[Insurance Company Name]

[Claims Department]

[Insurance Company Address]

[City, State, Zip Code]

Re: Request for Reconsideration – Cervical Length Surveillance

Policy Number: [Policy Number]

Insured: [Patient’s Name]

Date of Birth: [Patient’s Date of Birth]

Claim Number: [Claim Number]

Date of Service: [Date of Service]

Dear Claims Reviewer,

I am writing to request a reconsideration of the denial for cervical length surveillance for my patient, [Patient’s Name], who has been diagnosed with a short cervix. As a healthcare provider, I strongly believe that this is a medically necessary service for the patient in order to prevent preterm birth and its associated complications.

A short cervix is a well-established risk factor for preterm birth, and numerous studies have shown the efficacy of cervical length surveillance in the prevention and management of preterm birth. I kindly request that you reconsider the coverage for this essential service and refer to the following authoritative sources:

Berghella, V., & Saccone, G. (2019). Fetal fibronectin testing for reducing the risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(7). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004843.pub3

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2016). Practice Bulletin No. 171: Management of Preterm Labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 128(4), e155-e164. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001711

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), McIntosh, J., Feltovich, H., Berghella, V., & Manuck, T. (2016). The role of routine cervical length screening in selected high- and low-risk women for preterm birth prevention. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 215(3), B2-B7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.03.015

By denying coverage for cervical length surveillance, the insurance company is putting [Patient’s Name] at an increased risk for preterm birth and the numerous health complications that can accompany it, both for the mother and the infant. It is crucial to provide this service in order to improve health outcomes and reduce the risk of costly neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions and long-term medical issues.

I kindly request that you review this case with the provided references and reconsider the coverage for cervical length surveillance for [Patient’s Name]. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or clarification.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Title]

[Your Phone Number]

[Your Email Address]

The document took less than 15 seconds to generate, it is well written and concise, and can also be utilized as a template for future use. But as mentioned above, it is important to confirm all the information within the document. For example, references 1 and 3 in the ChatGPT-generated letter above include document objective identifiers that do not correctly correspond to the reference.

Other uses that the reader might consider: patient education, helping to answer a patient question utilizing appropriate grade-level language, dietary plans for a patient - the potential list is endless. Another key aspect of utilizing these types of programs is understanding how to effectively ask a question. This involves providing ample detail about the inquiry you wish to have answered by the program. With some practice and review of guidance on how to do this from the Internet, one can become highly proficient at crafting questions and generating relevant responses. But as mentioned above, it is important to keep in mind that all information generated by this program needs to be vetted prior to utilization.

This groundbreaking technology is not only here to stay but will continue to become increasingly pervasive. It is already being integrated into conventional search engines such as Google and Bing. Microsoft has ambitious plans to incorporate this innovation into its entire suite of Office products. Just imagine working on a document and seeking assistance for editing or rephrasing, effortlessly searching your inbox for all emails containing a specific phrase or topic, or even crafting a PowerPoint presentation for a lecture while receiving help with both content and formatting. These scenarios offer just a glimpse of how AI programs can significantly assist and enhance our workflow.

I also anticipate that our patients will increasingly adopt this type of technology to generate customized lists of questions tailored to their specific medical conditions, which they can then ask their health care providers. Often, our patients express uncertainty about the appropriate questions to ask during a particular visit. Now envision a scenario in which they can effortlessly obtain a comprehensive list of relevant questions, specifically designed for their office consultation. This would empower them to engage more actively in their health care and enhance communication with their clinical team.

I highly recommend that readers explore and experiment with these programs. By doing so, we can provide valuable assistance and guidance not only within our specific medical specialties but also for our patients. In this way, we can effectively harness the power of technology to improve patient care and optimize our office work flow, ultimately benefiting both our patients and our practices.

Dr. Chavez is professor, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at NYU Long Island School of Medicine and director of maternal and fetal medicine at NYU Langone Hospital–Long Island, both in Mineola, N.Y. He has no disclosures.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently gained significant public attention, primarily driven by the launch of a noteworthy program by OpenAI called Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT). This large language model is an AI system that enables users to interact with it using plain language. In just the first 2 months since its release, over 100 million subscribers have registered to use ChatGPT.

AI is now deeply integrated into our daily lives, pervading a wide array of smart devices such as phones, tablets, and numerous other gadgets that we rely on every day. These sophisticated technologies operate seamlessly in the background, often without us being consciously aware of their presence. Nevertheless, we greatly appreciate the way they enhance our lives by simplifying tasks and streamlining our routines.

A key factor contributing to ChatGPT’s popularity is its ability to accept input in the form of prompts in plain English. Our team published a comprehensive journal article showcasing examples of how this technology can be utilized by general ob.gyn. practitioners. ChatGPT has the potential to streamline work flow, generate letters to insurance companies, draft clinical plans, and assist with various other routine tasks in any ob.gyn. practice environment.

As with any new technology, it is essential for users to familiarize themselves with its capabilities and understand its limitations. A critical aspect to consider with the current version of ChatGPT is that it was developed using information primarily sourced from the Internet up until September 2021. This limitation is especially significant in the field of medicine, where practitioners consistently seek the most up-to-date and current information to inform their decisions.

However, it is expected that, in the near future, these programs will gain access to real-time information from a diverse range of sources, including but not limited to the Internet. This development will enhance the program’s utility and relevance in medical contexts.

Another limitation of ChatGPT is its propensity to “hallucinate.” Large language models are trained to respond to the best of their abilities, occasionally attempting to fill knowledge gaps with fabricated information. Being aware of these limitations enables users to recognize the program’s potential while also understanding the need for careful monitoring.

Our expertise and clinical knowledge are crucial in guiding and refining this technology, ensuring that it serves as a valuable tool in the ever-evolving landscape of medicine.

Another crucial factor to consider is that users must adhere to all guidelines and policies established within their work environment. This entails complying with HIPAA regulations and ensuring that any information generated by these programs is thoroughly examined before being integrated into practice work flows. As an increasing number of organizations develop specific guidelines for such technologies, the aim is to safeguard patients, users, and the organization itself. The individuals utilizing these technologies must exercise utmost caution and refrain from storing or sharing any sensitive or proprietary information.

The aim of this article is not to provide an exhaustive overview, but rather to offer a selection of examples and inspire readers to consider adopting these programs. By doing so, we hope to facilitate the exploration of innovative approaches that can improve the practice of ob.gyn.

The first example illustrates a common scenario that we frequently encounter – the situation in which an insurance company denies coverage for specific care or treatment for a patient. In fact, this was one of the first examples that was demonstrated by others on social media as a possible benefit for this technology. It effectively demonstrated the ability to save time and surmount the challenges of writer’s block that we occasionally encounter.
 

Prompt input:

“Write a letter to the insurance company who is denying cervical length surveillance for a patient with a short cervix and add references.”

ChatGPT response:

[Your Name]

[Your Address]

[City, State, Zip Code]

[Date]

[Insurance Company Name]

[Claims Department]

[Insurance Company Address]

[City, State, Zip Code]

Re: Request for Reconsideration – Cervical Length Surveillance

Policy Number: [Policy Number]

Insured: [Patient’s Name]

Date of Birth: [Patient’s Date of Birth]

Claim Number: [Claim Number]

Date of Service: [Date of Service]

Dear Claims Reviewer,

I am writing to request a reconsideration of the denial for cervical length surveillance for my patient, [Patient’s Name], who has been diagnosed with a short cervix. As a healthcare provider, I strongly believe that this is a medically necessary service for the patient in order to prevent preterm birth and its associated complications.

A short cervix is a well-established risk factor for preterm birth, and numerous studies have shown the efficacy of cervical length surveillance in the prevention and management of preterm birth. I kindly request that you reconsider the coverage for this essential service and refer to the following authoritative sources:

Berghella, V., & Saccone, G. (2019). Fetal fibronectin testing for reducing the risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(7). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004843.pub3

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2016). Practice Bulletin No. 171: Management of Preterm Labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 128(4), e155-e164. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001711

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), McIntosh, J., Feltovich, H., Berghella, V., & Manuck, T. (2016). The role of routine cervical length screening in selected high- and low-risk women for preterm birth prevention. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 215(3), B2-B7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.03.015

By denying coverage for cervical length surveillance, the insurance company is putting [Patient’s Name] at an increased risk for preterm birth and the numerous health complications that can accompany it, both for the mother and the infant. It is crucial to provide this service in order to improve health outcomes and reduce the risk of costly neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions and long-term medical issues.

I kindly request that you review this case with the provided references and reconsider the coverage for cervical length surveillance for [Patient’s Name]. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or clarification.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Title]

[Your Phone Number]

[Your Email Address]

The document took less than 15 seconds to generate, it is well written and concise, and can also be utilized as a template for future use. But as mentioned above, it is important to confirm all the information within the document. For example, references 1 and 3 in the ChatGPT-generated letter above include document objective identifiers that do not correctly correspond to the reference.

Other uses that the reader might consider: patient education, helping to answer a patient question utilizing appropriate grade-level language, dietary plans for a patient - the potential list is endless. Another key aspect of utilizing these types of programs is understanding how to effectively ask a question. This involves providing ample detail about the inquiry you wish to have answered by the program. With some practice and review of guidance on how to do this from the Internet, one can become highly proficient at crafting questions and generating relevant responses. But as mentioned above, it is important to keep in mind that all information generated by this program needs to be vetted prior to utilization.

This groundbreaking technology is not only here to stay but will continue to become increasingly pervasive. It is already being integrated into conventional search engines such as Google and Bing. Microsoft has ambitious plans to incorporate this innovation into its entire suite of Office products. Just imagine working on a document and seeking assistance for editing or rephrasing, effortlessly searching your inbox for all emails containing a specific phrase or topic, or even crafting a PowerPoint presentation for a lecture while receiving help with both content and formatting. These scenarios offer just a glimpse of how AI programs can significantly assist and enhance our workflow.

I also anticipate that our patients will increasingly adopt this type of technology to generate customized lists of questions tailored to their specific medical conditions, which they can then ask their health care providers. Often, our patients express uncertainty about the appropriate questions to ask during a particular visit. Now envision a scenario in which they can effortlessly obtain a comprehensive list of relevant questions, specifically designed for their office consultation. This would empower them to engage more actively in their health care and enhance communication with their clinical team.

I highly recommend that readers explore and experiment with these programs. By doing so, we can provide valuable assistance and guidance not only within our specific medical specialties but also for our patients. In this way, we can effectively harness the power of technology to improve patient care and optimize our office work flow, ultimately benefiting both our patients and our practices.

Dr. Chavez is professor, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at NYU Long Island School of Medicine and director of maternal and fetal medicine at NYU Langone Hospital–Long Island, both in Mineola, N.Y. He has no disclosures.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently gained significant public attention, primarily driven by the launch of a noteworthy program by OpenAI called Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT). This large language model is an AI system that enables users to interact with it using plain language. In just the first 2 months since its release, over 100 million subscribers have registered to use ChatGPT.

AI is now deeply integrated into our daily lives, pervading a wide array of smart devices such as phones, tablets, and numerous other gadgets that we rely on every day. These sophisticated technologies operate seamlessly in the background, often without us being consciously aware of their presence. Nevertheless, we greatly appreciate the way they enhance our lives by simplifying tasks and streamlining our routines.

A key factor contributing to ChatGPT’s popularity is its ability to accept input in the form of prompts in plain English. Our team published a comprehensive journal article showcasing examples of how this technology can be utilized by general ob.gyn. practitioners. ChatGPT has the potential to streamline work flow, generate letters to insurance companies, draft clinical plans, and assist with various other routine tasks in any ob.gyn. practice environment.

As with any new technology, it is essential for users to familiarize themselves with its capabilities and understand its limitations. A critical aspect to consider with the current version of ChatGPT is that it was developed using information primarily sourced from the Internet up until September 2021. This limitation is especially significant in the field of medicine, where practitioners consistently seek the most up-to-date and current information to inform their decisions.

However, it is expected that, in the near future, these programs will gain access to real-time information from a diverse range of sources, including but not limited to the Internet. This development will enhance the program’s utility and relevance in medical contexts.

Another limitation of ChatGPT is its propensity to “hallucinate.” Large language models are trained to respond to the best of their abilities, occasionally attempting to fill knowledge gaps with fabricated information. Being aware of these limitations enables users to recognize the program’s potential while also understanding the need for careful monitoring.

Our expertise and clinical knowledge are crucial in guiding and refining this technology, ensuring that it serves as a valuable tool in the ever-evolving landscape of medicine.

Another crucial factor to consider is that users must adhere to all guidelines and policies established within their work environment. This entails complying with HIPAA regulations and ensuring that any information generated by these programs is thoroughly examined before being integrated into practice work flows. As an increasing number of organizations develop specific guidelines for such technologies, the aim is to safeguard patients, users, and the organization itself. The individuals utilizing these technologies must exercise utmost caution and refrain from storing or sharing any sensitive or proprietary information.

The aim of this article is not to provide an exhaustive overview, but rather to offer a selection of examples and inspire readers to consider adopting these programs. By doing so, we hope to facilitate the exploration of innovative approaches that can improve the practice of ob.gyn.

The first example illustrates a common scenario that we frequently encounter – the situation in which an insurance company denies coverage for specific care or treatment for a patient. In fact, this was one of the first examples that was demonstrated by others on social media as a possible benefit for this technology. It effectively demonstrated the ability to save time and surmount the challenges of writer’s block that we occasionally encounter.
 

Prompt input:

“Write a letter to the insurance company who is denying cervical length surveillance for a patient with a short cervix and add references.”

ChatGPT response:

[Your Name]

[Your Address]

[City, State, Zip Code]

[Date]

[Insurance Company Name]

[Claims Department]

[Insurance Company Address]

[City, State, Zip Code]

Re: Request for Reconsideration – Cervical Length Surveillance

Policy Number: [Policy Number]

Insured: [Patient’s Name]

Date of Birth: [Patient’s Date of Birth]

Claim Number: [Claim Number]

Date of Service: [Date of Service]

Dear Claims Reviewer,

I am writing to request a reconsideration of the denial for cervical length surveillance for my patient, [Patient’s Name], who has been diagnosed with a short cervix. As a healthcare provider, I strongly believe that this is a medically necessary service for the patient in order to prevent preterm birth and its associated complications.

A short cervix is a well-established risk factor for preterm birth, and numerous studies have shown the efficacy of cervical length surveillance in the prevention and management of preterm birth. I kindly request that you reconsider the coverage for this essential service and refer to the following authoritative sources:

Berghella, V., & Saccone, G. (2019). Fetal fibronectin testing for reducing the risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(7). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004843.pub3

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2016). Practice Bulletin No. 171: Management of Preterm Labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 128(4), e155-e164. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001711

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), McIntosh, J., Feltovich, H., Berghella, V., & Manuck, T. (2016). The role of routine cervical length screening in selected high- and low-risk women for preterm birth prevention. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 215(3), B2-B7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.03.015

By denying coverage for cervical length surveillance, the insurance company is putting [Patient’s Name] at an increased risk for preterm birth and the numerous health complications that can accompany it, both for the mother and the infant. It is crucial to provide this service in order to improve health outcomes and reduce the risk of costly neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions and long-term medical issues.

I kindly request that you review this case with the provided references and reconsider the coverage for cervical length surveillance for [Patient’s Name]. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or clarification.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Title]

[Your Phone Number]

[Your Email Address]

The document took less than 15 seconds to generate, it is well written and concise, and can also be utilized as a template for future use. But as mentioned above, it is important to confirm all the information within the document. For example, references 1 and 3 in the ChatGPT-generated letter above include document objective identifiers that do not correctly correspond to the reference.

Other uses that the reader might consider: patient education, helping to answer a patient question utilizing appropriate grade-level language, dietary plans for a patient - the potential list is endless. Another key aspect of utilizing these types of programs is understanding how to effectively ask a question. This involves providing ample detail about the inquiry you wish to have answered by the program. With some practice and review of guidance on how to do this from the Internet, one can become highly proficient at crafting questions and generating relevant responses. But as mentioned above, it is important to keep in mind that all information generated by this program needs to be vetted prior to utilization.

This groundbreaking technology is not only here to stay but will continue to become increasingly pervasive. It is already being integrated into conventional search engines such as Google and Bing. Microsoft has ambitious plans to incorporate this innovation into its entire suite of Office products. Just imagine working on a document and seeking assistance for editing or rephrasing, effortlessly searching your inbox for all emails containing a specific phrase or topic, or even crafting a PowerPoint presentation for a lecture while receiving help with both content and formatting. These scenarios offer just a glimpse of how AI programs can significantly assist and enhance our workflow.

I also anticipate that our patients will increasingly adopt this type of technology to generate customized lists of questions tailored to their specific medical conditions, which they can then ask their health care providers. Often, our patients express uncertainty about the appropriate questions to ask during a particular visit. Now envision a scenario in which they can effortlessly obtain a comprehensive list of relevant questions, specifically designed for their office consultation. This would empower them to engage more actively in their health care and enhance communication with their clinical team.

I highly recommend that readers explore and experiment with these programs. By doing so, we can provide valuable assistance and guidance not only within our specific medical specialties but also for our patients. In this way, we can effectively harness the power of technology to improve patient care and optimize our office work flow, ultimately benefiting both our patients and our practices.

Dr. Chavez is professor, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at NYU Long Island School of Medicine and director of maternal and fetal medicine at NYU Langone Hospital–Long Island, both in Mineola, N.Y. He has no disclosures.