Commentary

I had been in practice only 6 or 7 years when I got the itch to do some writing. I had been exchanging letters with my father since I left for college. He was a professional writer but I had never done more than was required to get through school. What motivated me to sit down at the keyboard of his old hand-me-down portable typewriter was my frustration with grandmothers, as nearly every day I found myself struggling to counter some grandmother’s well-intentioned but somewhat off-the-mark childrearing advice.

supersizer/Getty Images

Occasionally this would be during a face-to-face encounter with a grandmother who had tagged along to the well-baby visit. More often, I was trying to arm a mother or father with the “facts” (at least as I understood them) that they could carry home and use to defend my position as the child care expert for the family.

These were not knock-down-drag-out disagreements but I always felt badly that I might be tarnishing a grandmother’s reputation. Grandfathers seemed to have learned it was best to keep silent on childrearing. I knew from my own family that most grandmothers had years of experience raising children that, if properly delivered, could make childrearing a more positive experience for new parents. My father, whose mother was widowed when he was an infant, was raised by his grandmother. However, too often I found that grandmotherly advice came packaged with just enough old wives’ tales and factually incorrect medical information to be dangerous.

The title of my opus would be “The Good Grandmother Handbook” and it would be an effort to update grandmothers with the latest information on childrearing from a recently trained and cocky board-certified pediatrician with only 6 years’ practice under his belt. The book would reassure grandmothers that, although some of the things they had done as parents are now frowned upon, most of what they did has stood the test of time and probably is worth sharing.

The final chapter of the book would be about grandparent etiquette. How to deal with the fact that there is another set of grandparents who have opinions and would like to have time with their grandchildren. When and how to give advice: Basically, only if asked or you feel your grandchild’s life is at stake. And, finally, how to deal with the disappointment of not being asked for advice and not being involved.

Not surprisingly that sophomoric and condescending effort never got further than the first draft. It reflected my early experiences in a minimally diverse and relatively affluent community. As my world view broadened, I realized that for many families it’s not a question of how to deal with a grandmother’s unsolicited advice. There are numerous grandparents who have been forced to become safe havens in which a family in distress can ride out the turbulent economic times and societal upheaval. In many cases, grandmothers are essential workers – not just occasional babysitters – but surrogate parents.

A Pediatrics article estimates that 2% of children in this country are being raised by their grandparents. And, it turns out that grandparents are doing a surprisingly good job. The researchers concluded that: “Despite caring for children with greater developmental problems and poorer temperament grandparent caregivers seem to cope with parenting about as well as parents.”

As pediatricians we must continue to reach out to grandmothers and grandfathers who are caring for some of our most challenged patients. They need our medical advice but even more they need our compassion and emotional support. Over the last 5 decades I’ve come to learn that, although there are some grandmothers who can be meddlesome dispensers of old wives’ tales, many are the backbone of families in need.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I had been in practice only 6 or 7 years when I got the itch to do some writing. I had been exchanging letters with my father since I left for college. He was a professional writer but I had never done more than was required to get through school. What motivated me to sit down at the keyboard of his old hand-me-down portable typewriter was my frustration with grandmothers, as nearly every day I found myself struggling to counter some grandmother’s well-intentioned but somewhat off-the-mark childrearing advice.

supersizer/Getty Images

Occasionally this would be during a face-to-face encounter with a grandmother who had tagged along to the well-baby visit. More often, I was trying to arm a mother or father with the “facts” (at least as I understood them) that they could carry home and use to defend my position as the child care expert for the family.

These were not knock-down-drag-out disagreements but I always felt badly that I might be tarnishing a grandmother’s reputation. Grandfathers seemed to have learned it was best to keep silent on childrearing. I knew from my own family that most grandmothers had years of experience raising children that, if properly delivered, could make childrearing a more positive experience for new parents. My father, whose mother was widowed when he was an infant, was raised by his grandmother. However, too often I found that grandmotherly advice came packaged with just enough old wives’ tales and factually incorrect medical information to be dangerous.

The title of my opus would be “The Good Grandmother Handbook” and it would be an effort to update grandmothers with the latest information on childrearing from a recently trained and cocky board-certified pediatrician with only 6 years’ practice under his belt. The book would reassure grandmothers that, although some of the things they had done as parents are now frowned upon, most of what they did has stood the test of time and probably is worth sharing.

The final chapter of the book would be about grandparent etiquette. How to deal with the fact that there is another set of grandparents who have opinions and would like to have time with their grandchildren. When and how to give advice: Basically, only if asked or you feel your grandchild’s life is at stake. And, finally, how to deal with the disappointment of not being asked for advice and not being involved.

Not surprisingly that sophomoric and condescending effort never got further than the first draft. It reflected my early experiences in a minimally diverse and relatively affluent community. As my world view broadened, I realized that for many families it’s not a question of how to deal with a grandmother’s unsolicited advice. There are numerous grandparents who have been forced to become safe havens in which a family in distress can ride out the turbulent economic times and societal upheaval. In many cases, grandmothers are essential workers – not just occasional babysitters – but surrogate parents.

A Pediatrics article estimates that 2% of children in this country are being raised by their grandparents. And, it turns out that grandparents are doing a surprisingly good job. The researchers concluded that: “Despite caring for children with greater developmental problems and poorer temperament grandparent caregivers seem to cope with parenting about as well as parents.”

As pediatricians we must continue to reach out to grandmothers and grandfathers who are caring for some of our most challenged patients. They need our medical advice but even more they need our compassion and emotional support. Over the last 5 decades I’ve come to learn that, although there are some grandmothers who can be meddlesome dispensers of old wives’ tales, many are the backbone of families in need.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I had been in practice only 6 or 7 years when I got the itch to do some writing. I had been exchanging letters with my father since I left for college. He was a professional writer but I had never done more than was required to get through school. What motivated me to sit down at the keyboard of his old hand-me-down portable typewriter was my frustration with grandmothers, as nearly every day I found myself struggling to counter some grandmother’s well-intentioned but somewhat off-the-mark childrearing advice.

supersizer/Getty Images

Occasionally this would be during a face-to-face encounter with a grandmother who had tagged along to the well-baby visit. More often, I was trying to arm a mother or father with the “facts” (at least as I understood them) that they could carry home and use to defend my position as the child care expert for the family.

These were not knock-down-drag-out disagreements but I always felt badly that I might be tarnishing a grandmother’s reputation. Grandfathers seemed to have learned it was best to keep silent on childrearing. I knew from my own family that most grandmothers had years of experience raising children that, if properly delivered, could make childrearing a more positive experience for new parents. My father, whose mother was widowed when he was an infant, was raised by his grandmother. However, too often I found that grandmotherly advice came packaged with just enough old wives’ tales and factually incorrect medical information to be dangerous.

The title of my opus would be “The Good Grandmother Handbook” and it would be an effort to update grandmothers with the latest information on childrearing from a recently trained and cocky board-certified pediatrician with only 6 years’ practice under his belt. The book would reassure grandmothers that, although some of the things they had done as parents are now frowned upon, most of what they did has stood the test of time and probably is worth sharing.

The final chapter of the book would be about grandparent etiquette. How to deal with the fact that there is another set of grandparents who have opinions and would like to have time with their grandchildren. When and how to give advice: Basically, only if asked or you feel your grandchild’s life is at stake. And, finally, how to deal with the disappointment of not being asked for advice and not being involved.

Not surprisingly that sophomoric and condescending effort never got further than the first draft. It reflected my early experiences in a minimally diverse and relatively affluent community. As my world view broadened, I realized that for many families it’s not a question of how to deal with a grandmother’s unsolicited advice. There are numerous grandparents who have been forced to become safe havens in which a family in distress can ride out the turbulent economic times and societal upheaval. In many cases, grandmothers are essential workers – not just occasional babysitters – but surrogate parents.

A Pediatrics article estimates that 2% of children in this country are being raised by their grandparents. And, it turns out that grandparents are doing a surprisingly good job. The researchers concluded that: “Despite caring for children with greater developmental problems and poorer temperament grandparent caregivers seem to cope with parenting about as well as parents.”

As pediatricians we must continue to reach out to grandmothers and grandfathers who are caring for some of our most challenged patients. They need our medical advice but even more they need our compassion and emotional support. Over the last 5 decades I’ve come to learn that, although there are some grandmothers who can be meddlesome dispensers of old wives’ tales, many are the backbone of families in need.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

Spending on medications is expected to grow from $344 billion in 2018 to $420 billion in 2023, largely driven by the introduction of new branded drugs.¹ These costs place substantial financial burden on patients, with nearly 30% of patients not taking their prescriptions as directed because of costs. Although many new medications have transformed how we care for patients, others may not offer meaningful benefit over existing less-costly alternatives that are supported by declining effect sizes of conventional placebo-controlled trials.² Most medications are approved based on placebo-controlled trial data that does not include an arm comparing the new drug to standard of care, leaving clinicians and patients unable to make meaningful comparisons when deciding on the most appropriate or cost-effective treatment. We consider ways in which clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators could compel more meaningful trials from industry.

Although we often look to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure rigorous and appropriate testing of new medications, the primary mission of the FDA is to ensure efficacy and safety. As a result, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval in the United States have little incentive to go beyond providing the minimal level of evidence required: placebo-controlled randomized trials. Although these trials provide important data on whether a treatment works and its associated risks, they do not provide data on comparative effectiveness. When relevant inexpensive medications are already on the market for the same indication, these placebo-controlled trials provide inadequate evidence to guide clinical decision-making. This issue is particularly relevant in dermatology given how easily topical medications can be combined or reformulated to pursue additional market exclusivity. The addition of an active comparator arm represents an important opportunity to improve the value of these studies.

In the pivotal trials of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for the treatment of acne, the experimental group was not only compared to vehicle but also the active comparator arms of clindamycin alone and benzoyl peroxide alone. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 47.9% with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, 41.6% with the active comparator arm of benzoyl peroxide alone, 40.4% with the active comparator arm of clindamycin alone, and 26.2% for vehicle.³ With these data in mind, clinicians and patients can decide whether the additional benefit of this new product over benzoyl peroxide alone is worth the increased cost.

In contrast, the trials of dapsone gel 7.5% for the treatment of acne did not include an active comparator. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 48.9% for dapsone gel and 43.2% for vehicle.⁴ Given these data, it is possible that dapsone gel may be no more effective, or possibly less effective, than alternatives such as benzoyl peroxide or other topical antibiotics. Nevertheless, dapsone annual sales were more than $200 million in 2016,⁵ suggesting that effectively marketed new products can achieve high sales even without convincing evidence of their value compared to standard of care. Although dapsone may be a useful treatment, we cannot effectively make patient-centered clinical decisions given the lack of an active comparator trial design.

This issue is not limited to acne. Phase 3 trials of halobetasol propionate foam 0.05% for psoriasis and crisaborole for atopic dermatitis also did not include an active comparator arm.^6,7 Given that topical steroids—and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis—are mainstays of treatment for each condition, it is difficult to determine whether these new treatments offer meaningful advantages over existing options and how to incorporate them into our management strategies.

Unfortunately, expensive new medications that are adopted without convincing evidence of their benefit above standard of care can put patients at risk for financial toxicity, either directly through higher out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through higher premiums. Given the impact of rising medication costs on clinicians, patients, and payers, we propose several approaches these stakeholders could adopt to encourage the use of active comparator trial designs.

Clinicians and patients can encourage these trials by remaining skeptical of new treatments that were only compared to vehicle or placebo. Because new medications often are more expensive, clinicians and patients could avoid using these treatments without evidence of either increased efficacy or improved safety and tolerability. In addition, health care institutions should consider reducing pharmaceutical representatives’ access to clinicians to encourage treatment decisions based on the published literature and comparative effectiveness data rather than marketing.

Payers, such as Medicare, also could play a role by requiring active comparator trials for coverage of new medications, particularly when there are already other effective treatments available or other medications in the same class. Payers also could give preferred coverage tier or step therapy status to medications that demonstrate value over existing options.

Although regulatory approaches to increase use of active comparator designs may be more politically challenging to introduce, these options would be more administratively robust. The FDA or a novel regulatory body could require that new treatments demonstrate value in addition to safety and efficacy. This approach would be similar to the role of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom or the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Such a group also could provide independent adjudication to ensure appropriate selection of a relevant active comparator. Another approach would be to give extended market exclusivity to medications that are approved based on trials including an additional active comparator arm, an approach used by the European Medicines Agency.

Any approach that encourages increased use of active comparator trials is not without potential downsides. It will be important to avoid unintended consequences of reduced research for rare diseases with smaller markets that may not be able to support the increased cost of these trials. As a result, it would be reasonable to forgo active comparator designs for mediations indicated for rare and orphan diseases or for medications with novel mechanisms of action.

Another argument against including an active comparator arm is that it may stifle innovation by driving up the cost of conducting trials; however, if a product is so marginally innovative that it cannot demonstrate superior safety or efficacy to an existing product, such a new treatment may not be worth the increased cost. In addition, patients provide a notable contribution by participating in these trials, and it is important to ensure that their efforts result in the highest-quality data possible. Furthermore, given the adverse physical and psychosocial impact of a wide variety of dermatologic diseases, the inclusion of an active comparator arm reduces the likelihood that patients will receive placebo, which will make these trials more ethical when effective treatments are available.⁸ By raising the bar, we can encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue novel approaches that are more likely to have a revolutionary impact rather than minor modifications or formulations that offer little to no benefit at substantially increased cost.

Although some recent clinical trials in dermatology have included active comparators, many new medications continue to be introduced without any evidence of how they compare to existing standards of care. Until clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators demand that pharmaceutical companies conduct the necessary trials to not only demonstrate whether a treatment is effective and safe but also how it provides value, there will be continued introduction of marginal innovations rather than revolutionary treatments that improve patients’ lives. The next time a new medication is approved, as clinicians, patients, and payers, we must ask ourselves, is this treatment worth it?

Spending on medications is expected to grow from $344 billion in 2018 to $420 billion in 2023, largely driven by the introduction of new branded drugs.¹ These costs place substantial financial burden on patients, with nearly 30% of patients not taking their prescriptions as directed because of costs. Although many new medications have transformed how we care for patients, others may not offer meaningful benefit over existing less-costly alternatives that are supported by declining effect sizes of conventional placebo-controlled trials.² Most medications are approved based on placebo-controlled trial data that does not include an arm comparing the new drug to standard of care, leaving clinicians and patients unable to make meaningful comparisons when deciding on the most appropriate or cost-effective treatment. We consider ways in which clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators could compel more meaningful trials from industry.

Although we often look to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure rigorous and appropriate testing of new medications, the primary mission of the FDA is to ensure efficacy and safety. As a result, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval in the United States have little incentive to go beyond providing the minimal level of evidence required: placebo-controlled randomized trials. Although these trials provide important data on whether a treatment works and its associated risks, they do not provide data on comparative effectiveness. When relevant inexpensive medications are already on the market for the same indication, these placebo-controlled trials provide inadequate evidence to guide clinical decision-making. This issue is particularly relevant in dermatology given how easily topical medications can be combined or reformulated to pursue additional market exclusivity. The addition of an active comparator arm represents an important opportunity to improve the value of these studies.

In the pivotal trials of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for the treatment of acne, the experimental group was not only compared to vehicle but also the active comparator arms of clindamycin alone and benzoyl peroxide alone. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 47.9% with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, 41.6% with the active comparator arm of benzoyl peroxide alone, 40.4% with the active comparator arm of clindamycin alone, and 26.2% for vehicle.³ With these data in mind, clinicians and patients can decide whether the additional benefit of this new product over benzoyl peroxide alone is worth the increased cost.

In contrast, the trials of dapsone gel 7.5% for the treatment of acne did not include an active comparator. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 48.9% for dapsone gel and 43.2% for vehicle.⁴ Given these data, it is possible that dapsone gel may be no more effective, or possibly less effective, than alternatives such as benzoyl peroxide or other topical antibiotics. Nevertheless, dapsone annual sales were more than $200 million in 2016,⁵ suggesting that effectively marketed new products can achieve high sales even without convincing evidence of their value compared to standard of care. Although dapsone may be a useful treatment, we cannot effectively make patient-centered clinical decisions given the lack of an active comparator trial design.

This issue is not limited to acne. Phase 3 trials of halobetasol propionate foam 0.05% for psoriasis and crisaborole for atopic dermatitis also did not include an active comparator arm.^6,7 Given that topical steroids—and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis—are mainstays of treatment for each condition, it is difficult to determine whether these new treatments offer meaningful advantages over existing options and how to incorporate them into our management strategies.

Unfortunately, expensive new medications that are adopted without convincing evidence of their benefit above standard of care can put patients at risk for financial toxicity, either directly through higher out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through higher premiums. Given the impact of rising medication costs on clinicians, patients, and payers, we propose several approaches these stakeholders could adopt to encourage the use of active comparator trial designs.

Clinicians and patients can encourage these trials by remaining skeptical of new treatments that were only compared to vehicle or placebo. Because new medications often are more expensive, clinicians and patients could avoid using these treatments without evidence of either increased efficacy or improved safety and tolerability. In addition, health care institutions should consider reducing pharmaceutical representatives’ access to clinicians to encourage treatment decisions based on the published literature and comparative effectiveness data rather than marketing.

Payers, such as Medicare, also could play a role by requiring active comparator trials for coverage of new medications, particularly when there are already other effective treatments available or other medications in the same class. Payers also could give preferred coverage tier or step therapy status to medications that demonstrate value over existing options.

Although regulatory approaches to increase use of active comparator designs may be more politically challenging to introduce, these options would be more administratively robust. The FDA or a novel regulatory body could require that new treatments demonstrate value in addition to safety and efficacy. This approach would be similar to the role of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom or the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Such a group also could provide independent adjudication to ensure appropriate selection of a relevant active comparator. Another approach would be to give extended market exclusivity to medications that are approved based on trials including an additional active comparator arm, an approach used by the European Medicines Agency.

Any approach that encourages increased use of active comparator trials is not without potential downsides. It will be important to avoid unintended consequences of reduced research for rare diseases with smaller markets that may not be able to support the increased cost of these trials. As a result, it would be reasonable to forgo active comparator designs for mediations indicated for rare and orphan diseases or for medications with novel mechanisms of action.

Another argument against including an active comparator arm is that it may stifle innovation by driving up the cost of conducting trials; however, if a product is so marginally innovative that it cannot demonstrate superior safety or efficacy to an existing product, such a new treatment may not be worth the increased cost. In addition, patients provide a notable contribution by participating in these trials, and it is important to ensure that their efforts result in the highest-quality data possible. Furthermore, given the adverse physical and psychosocial impact of a wide variety of dermatologic diseases, the inclusion of an active comparator arm reduces the likelihood that patients will receive placebo, which will make these trials more ethical when effective treatments are available.⁸ By raising the bar, we can encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue novel approaches that are more likely to have a revolutionary impact rather than minor modifications or formulations that offer little to no benefit at substantially increased cost.

Although some recent clinical trials in dermatology have included active comparators, many new medications continue to be introduced without any evidence of how they compare to existing standards of care. Until clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators demand that pharmaceutical companies conduct the necessary trials to not only demonstrate whether a treatment is effective and safe but also how it provides value, there will be continued introduction of marginal innovations rather than revolutionary treatments that improve patients’ lives. The next time a new medication is approved, as clinicians, patients, and payers, we must ask ourselves, is this treatment worth it?

Spending on medications is expected to grow from $344 billion in 2018 to $420 billion in 2023, largely driven by the introduction of new branded drugs.¹ These costs place substantial financial burden on patients, with nearly 30% of patients not taking their prescriptions as directed because of costs. Although many new medications have transformed how we care for patients, others may not offer meaningful benefit over existing less-costly alternatives that are supported by declining effect sizes of conventional placebo-controlled trials.² Most medications are approved based on placebo-controlled trial data that does not include an arm comparing the new drug to standard of care, leaving clinicians and patients unable to make meaningful comparisons when deciding on the most appropriate or cost-effective treatment. We consider ways in which clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators could compel more meaningful trials from industry.

Although we often look to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure rigorous and appropriate testing of new medications, the primary mission of the FDA is to ensure efficacy and safety. As a result, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval in the United States have little incentive to go beyond providing the minimal level of evidence required: placebo-controlled randomized trials. Although these trials provide important data on whether a treatment works and its associated risks, they do not provide data on comparative effectiveness. When relevant inexpensive medications are already on the market for the same indication, these placebo-controlled trials provide inadequate evidence to guide clinical decision-making. This issue is particularly relevant in dermatology given how easily topical medications can be combined or reformulated to pursue additional market exclusivity. The addition of an active comparator arm represents an important opportunity to improve the value of these studies.

In the pivotal trials of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for the treatment of acne, the experimental group was not only compared to vehicle but also the active comparator arms of clindamycin alone and benzoyl peroxide alone. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 47.9% with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, 41.6% with the active comparator arm of benzoyl peroxide alone, 40.4% with the active comparator arm of clindamycin alone, and 26.2% for vehicle.³ With these data in mind, clinicians and patients can decide whether the additional benefit of this new product over benzoyl peroxide alone is worth the increased cost.

In contrast, the trials of dapsone gel 7.5% for the treatment of acne did not include an active comparator. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 48.9% for dapsone gel and 43.2% for vehicle.⁴ Given these data, it is possible that dapsone gel may be no more effective, or possibly less effective, than alternatives such as benzoyl peroxide or other topical antibiotics. Nevertheless, dapsone annual sales were more than $200 million in 2016,⁵ suggesting that effectively marketed new products can achieve high sales even without convincing evidence of their value compared to standard of care. Although dapsone may be a useful treatment, we cannot effectively make patient-centered clinical decisions given the lack of an active comparator trial design.

This issue is not limited to acne. Phase 3 trials of halobetasol propionate foam 0.05% for psoriasis and crisaborole for atopic dermatitis also did not include an active comparator arm.^6,7 Given that topical steroids—and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis—are mainstays of treatment for each condition, it is difficult to determine whether these new treatments offer meaningful advantages over existing options and how to incorporate them into our management strategies.

Unfortunately, expensive new medications that are adopted without convincing evidence of their benefit above standard of care can put patients at risk for financial toxicity, either directly through higher out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through higher premiums. Given the impact of rising medication costs on clinicians, patients, and payers, we propose several approaches these stakeholders could adopt to encourage the use of active comparator trial designs.

Clinicians and patients can encourage these trials by remaining skeptical of new treatments that were only compared to vehicle or placebo. Because new medications often are more expensive, clinicians and patients could avoid using these treatments without evidence of either increased efficacy or improved safety and tolerability. In addition, health care institutions should consider reducing pharmaceutical representatives’ access to clinicians to encourage treatment decisions based on the published literature and comparative effectiveness data rather than marketing.

Payers, such as Medicare, also could play a role by requiring active comparator trials for coverage of new medications, particularly when there are already other effective treatments available or other medications in the same class. Payers also could give preferred coverage tier or step therapy status to medications that demonstrate value over existing options.

Although regulatory approaches to increase use of active comparator designs may be more politically challenging to introduce, these options would be more administratively robust. The FDA or a novel regulatory body could require that new treatments demonstrate value in addition to safety and efficacy. This approach would be similar to the role of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom or the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Such a group also could provide independent adjudication to ensure appropriate selection of a relevant active comparator. Another approach would be to give extended market exclusivity to medications that are approved based on trials including an additional active comparator arm, an approach used by the European Medicines Agency.

Any approach that encourages increased use of active comparator trials is not without potential downsides. It will be important to avoid unintended consequences of reduced research for rare diseases with smaller markets that may not be able to support the increased cost of these trials. As a result, it would be reasonable to forgo active comparator designs for mediations indicated for rare and orphan diseases or for medications with novel mechanisms of action.

Another argument against including an active comparator arm is that it may stifle innovation by driving up the cost of conducting trials; however, if a product is so marginally innovative that it cannot demonstrate superior safety or efficacy to an existing product, such a new treatment may not be worth the increased cost. In addition, patients provide a notable contribution by participating in these trials, and it is important to ensure that their efforts result in the highest-quality data possible. Furthermore, given the adverse physical and psychosocial impact of a wide variety of dermatologic diseases, the inclusion of an active comparator arm reduces the likelihood that patients will receive placebo, which will make these trials more ethical when effective treatments are available.⁸ By raising the bar, we can encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue novel approaches that are more likely to have a revolutionary impact rather than minor modifications or formulations that offer little to no benefit at substantially increased cost.

Although some recent clinical trials in dermatology have included active comparators, many new medications continue to be introduced without any evidence of how they compare to existing standards of care. Until clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators demand that pharmaceutical companies conduct the necessary trials to not only demonstrate whether a treatment is effective and safe but also how it provides value, there will be continued introduction of marginal innovations rather than revolutionary treatments that improve patients’ lives. The next time a new medication is approved, as clinicians, patients, and payers, we must ask ourselves, is this treatment worth it?

Let me tell you about Tim Ferriss. A few years ago, I started reading his best-selling book, The 4-Hour Body. Ferris detailed how he made himself into a one-man experiment – he’d make changes to his diet, checked his weight and his labs, maybe he even had metabolic studies done.

Courtesy Taylor Prinsen

He’d take these measures after soaking in hot baths, then ice baths, and while I admired his discipline, he did lose me during the chapter where he was using steroids. In the end, he advised a dairy-free, low-carbohydrate diet of green vegetables, beans or lentils, and protein for four meals a day, 6 days a week, with free-for-all eating on the 7th day. Then, there was a weight-lifting routine with kettle bells and ice packs to be placed on your shoulders for a set amount of time each day.

I may not remember the program’s details, but something about Ferris fascinated me. He brands himself as being a “human guinea pig,” about “lifestyle design,” and whatever that is, I like it. Perhaps I am attracted to the idea that we might control the trajectories of our generally uncontrollable lives.

Tim Ferriss graduated from Princeton, he’s written five best-selling books and has a popular podcast, he’s been a TED speaker, and he’s been on Fortune’s “40 under 40” list – and there’s so much more. Ferriss is brilliant, innovative, handsome, charismatic, prolific, extraordinarily athletic. I may have forgotten to mention that he was the National Chinese Kickboxing Champion and was a semifinalist in the World Champion Tango competition in Buenos Aires. He’s adventuresome and fearless, and if that isn’t enough, he speaks five languages. In the genetic dice roll, Mr. Ferriss did well, and he’s a driven and energetic hard worker who is open to new experiences.

I subscribe to the Tim Ferriss podcast – as of this writing, there are 466 episodes, with an incredible lineup of interviews with famous and successful guests. I also subscribe to his “5-Bullet Friday” email list where he mentions the interesting things he is reading, watching, learning about, or eating, and the products he is trying – single-ply toilet paper gets a thumbs down – then ends with a thought-provoking quote. This gentleman spends a tremendous amount of time searching and striving, working on himself and his own emotional growth and self-improvement, and yet he still has time for incredible explorations and experiences.

A search for psychic peace

Honestly, were it not for a few little details, I would like to be Tim Ferriss. Who wouldn’t? But what stops me from actually wanting to be Ferriss is that early on while listening to him, I realized that his drive has been fueled by intense psychic pain. He talks openly about being very close to suicide in college, about a tormenting mood disorder, demons to tame, and productivity as an antidote to a fear of failure, not always as a joy for life. There are moments that I have felt so sad for this remarkable stranger. Tim Ferriss is a searcher and what I believe he searches for most is his own psychic peace.

In a forum for psychiatrists, I wish I could write that Ferriss has found solace with our Food and Drug Administration–approved pharmaceuticals and with psychotherapy, but that’s not what he says. What Ferriss has found helpful, however, is psychedelics, and a wide variety of psychological and philosophical teachings ranging from meditation to Stoicism. And most notably, Ferriss has been an advocate for using hallucinogens as a legal medical intervention. Ferriss was one of four philanthropists who donated a total of $17 million to fund the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. He’s helped to move this field forward and to improve its credibility.

On Sept. 14, 2020, Tim Ferriss released a podcast he recorded with his dance partner and close friend, Debbie Millman, and when he recorded it, he was not certain he would release it. None of his usual sponsors endorsed during the podcast. He starts Episode #464 with, “For me, this is the most important podcast episode I’ve ever published. In it, I describe the most life-shaping, certainly the most difficult, and certainly the most transformative journey of my 43 years on this planet. I’ve never shared it before.”

I applaud Mr. Ferriss for going through with posting the podcast, a confessional about how he was repeatedly sexually molested over a 2-year period as a young child by a babysitter’s son. He worried about how this would affect his family, if they would be left feeling guilty or devastated. He says, “Please note that I expect to be completely overwhelmed emotionally and otherwise when this is published and please understand if I’m not able to reply to any outreach.”

Ferriss and Millman had a long discussion about their sexual abuse as children. Millman was abused by her stepfather at the age of 9, and she talks about confronting him many years later. Ferriss has not confronted his perpetrator, though he has contemplated doing so.

Sexual violence and violation at any age leaves people scarred. In a recent letter to the New York Times in response to President Trump’s words of support to Ghislaine Maxwell, the woman who helped Jeffrey Epstein find his victims, Baltimore psychiatrist Robin Weiss wrote, “Thirty-eight years ago, when I was 32, I was raped. I was married, I was a doctor – you might say I was in pretty stable shape. Yet the shame and guilt I felt were overwhelming. Why didn’t I fight harder? How did I let this happen? I knew better, yet it took me years to overcome those irrational feelings.” These feelings of shame, guilt, self-doubt, and self-blame are nearly universal in survivors of sexual trauma. In children, they can be even worse, as children often don’t have an understanding that what is being done to them is wrong. They lack the language and the maturity to process the events, and ongoing abuse may be accompanied by threats to life of the child or their family members if they tell others, as was the case with Millman. She chose to process her abuse and the consequent difficulties she had by seeking psychiatric care. She took antidepressants and has been in psychoanalysis, both of which she has found to be helpful. Her treatment has tamed her demons, it is ongoing decades later and those demons have not vanished.
 

Abuse comes back in ‘a tidal wave’

Not surprisingly, Ferriss struggled with whether to make these events public. While so much of his story feels familiar to those of us who help patients process their trauma, it’s not completely typical. Ferriss remembered these episodes of sexual abuse “in high resolution,” while using ayahuasca, a hallucinogen, about 5 years ago. He describes suppressing and discounting these memories until he attended a 10-day silent retreat where he used psilocybin. I found it interesting that Ferriss fasted for 5 days before attending the retreat “to increase the depth of the experience.” He goes on to say, “Around day 6 of this silent retreat, all of this abuse came back to me like a tidal wave and it was replaying as if I was wearing a virtual reality headset. I was immersed, I wasn’t an observer, it was as though I was being traumatized and retraumatized 24/7.” He describes an excruciating and horrifying experience and he referred to it as a “psychotic break.”

Ferriss goes on to talk about how bringing these memories to light has affected him, how it’s explained many of his behaviors and ways of relating in a way that has helped him organize and understand his life.

“It was at the tail end of the retreat that I realized that these 17 seemingly inexplicable behaviors of mine – these vicious cycles or triggers that I had been treating like separate problems to be solved, were all downstream of this trauma. Oh, now that you click that puzzle piece into place, these really strange behaviors – this self-loathing, this rage that was seemingly so exaggerated and disproportionate – leading to the near-suicide I had in college – all these things fell into places making sense.” It gave him a sense of relief but was simultaneously overwhelming.

Both Ferriss and Millman talk about books and treatments that have been helpful to them. Their knowledge of trauma treatments and resources is impressive and can be found at: Tim Ferriss – My Healing Journey After Childhood Abuse (Includes Extensive Resource List). Their wish is to share their suffering as a way to help others, impart hope, and better connect.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatry Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Let me tell you about Tim Ferriss. A few years ago, I started reading his best-selling book, The 4-Hour Body. Ferris detailed how he made himself into a one-man experiment – he’d make changes to his diet, checked his weight and his labs, maybe he even had metabolic studies done.

Courtesy Taylor Prinsen

He’d take these measures after soaking in hot baths, then ice baths, and while I admired his discipline, he did lose me during the chapter where he was using steroids. In the end, he advised a dairy-free, low-carbohydrate diet of green vegetables, beans or lentils, and protein for four meals a day, 6 days a week, with free-for-all eating on the 7th day. Then, there was a weight-lifting routine with kettle bells and ice packs to be placed on your shoulders for a set amount of time each day.

I may not remember the program’s details, but something about Ferris fascinated me. He brands himself as being a “human guinea pig,” about “lifestyle design,” and whatever that is, I like it. Perhaps I am attracted to the idea that we might control the trajectories of our generally uncontrollable lives.

Tim Ferriss graduated from Princeton, he’s written five best-selling books and has a popular podcast, he’s been a TED speaker, and he’s been on Fortune’s “40 under 40” list – and there’s so much more. Ferriss is brilliant, innovative, handsome, charismatic, prolific, extraordinarily athletic. I may have forgotten to mention that he was the National Chinese Kickboxing Champion and was a semifinalist in the World Champion Tango competition in Buenos Aires. He’s adventuresome and fearless, and if that isn’t enough, he speaks five languages. In the genetic dice roll, Mr. Ferriss did well, and he’s a driven and energetic hard worker who is open to new experiences.

I subscribe to the Tim Ferriss podcast – as of this writing, there are 466 episodes, with an incredible lineup of interviews with famous and successful guests. I also subscribe to his “5-Bullet Friday” email list where he mentions the interesting things he is reading, watching, learning about, or eating, and the products he is trying – single-ply toilet paper gets a thumbs down – then ends with a thought-provoking quote. This gentleman spends a tremendous amount of time searching and striving, working on himself and his own emotional growth and self-improvement, and yet he still has time for incredible explorations and experiences.

A search for psychic peace

Honestly, were it not for a few little details, I would like to be Tim Ferriss. Who wouldn’t? But what stops me from actually wanting to be Ferriss is that early on while listening to him, I realized that his drive has been fueled by intense psychic pain. He talks openly about being very close to suicide in college, about a tormenting mood disorder, demons to tame, and productivity as an antidote to a fear of failure, not always as a joy for life. There are moments that I have felt so sad for this remarkable stranger. Tim Ferriss is a searcher and what I believe he searches for most is his own psychic peace.

In a forum for psychiatrists, I wish I could write that Ferriss has found solace with our Food and Drug Administration–approved pharmaceuticals and with psychotherapy, but that’s not what he says. What Ferriss has found helpful, however, is psychedelics, and a wide variety of psychological and philosophical teachings ranging from meditation to Stoicism. And most notably, Ferriss has been an advocate for using hallucinogens as a legal medical intervention. Ferriss was one of four philanthropists who donated a total of $17 million to fund the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. He’s helped to move this field forward and to improve its credibility.

On Sept. 14, 2020, Tim Ferriss released a podcast he recorded with his dance partner and close friend, Debbie Millman, and when he recorded it, he was not certain he would release it. None of his usual sponsors endorsed during the podcast. He starts Episode #464 with, “For me, this is the most important podcast episode I’ve ever published. In it, I describe the most life-shaping, certainly the most difficult, and certainly the most transformative journey of my 43 years on this planet. I’ve never shared it before.”

I applaud Mr. Ferriss for going through with posting the podcast, a confessional about how he was repeatedly sexually molested over a 2-year period as a young child by a babysitter’s son. He worried about how this would affect his family, if they would be left feeling guilty or devastated. He says, “Please note that I expect to be completely overwhelmed emotionally and otherwise when this is published and please understand if I’m not able to reply to any outreach.”

Ferriss and Millman had a long discussion about their sexual abuse as children. Millman was abused by her stepfather at the age of 9, and she talks about confronting him many years later. Ferriss has not confronted his perpetrator, though he has contemplated doing so.

Sexual violence and violation at any age leaves people scarred. In a recent letter to the New York Times in response to President Trump’s words of support to Ghislaine Maxwell, the woman who helped Jeffrey Epstein find his victims, Baltimore psychiatrist Robin Weiss wrote, “Thirty-eight years ago, when I was 32, I was raped. I was married, I was a doctor – you might say I was in pretty stable shape. Yet the shame and guilt I felt were overwhelming. Why didn’t I fight harder? How did I let this happen? I knew better, yet it took me years to overcome those irrational feelings.” These feelings of shame, guilt, self-doubt, and self-blame are nearly universal in survivors of sexual trauma. In children, they can be even worse, as children often don’t have an understanding that what is being done to them is wrong. They lack the language and the maturity to process the events, and ongoing abuse may be accompanied by threats to life of the child or their family members if they tell others, as was the case with Millman. She chose to process her abuse and the consequent difficulties she had by seeking psychiatric care. She took antidepressants and has been in psychoanalysis, both of which she has found to be helpful. Her treatment has tamed her demons, it is ongoing decades later and those demons have not vanished.
 

Abuse comes back in ‘a tidal wave’

Not surprisingly, Ferriss struggled with whether to make these events public. While so much of his story feels familiar to those of us who help patients process their trauma, it’s not completely typical. Ferriss remembered these episodes of sexual abuse “in high resolution,” while using ayahuasca, a hallucinogen, about 5 years ago. He describes suppressing and discounting these memories until he attended a 10-day silent retreat where he used psilocybin. I found it interesting that Ferriss fasted for 5 days before attending the retreat “to increase the depth of the experience.” He goes on to say, “Around day 6 of this silent retreat, all of this abuse came back to me like a tidal wave and it was replaying as if I was wearing a virtual reality headset. I was immersed, I wasn’t an observer, it was as though I was being traumatized and retraumatized 24/7.” He describes an excruciating and horrifying experience and he referred to it as a “psychotic break.”

Ferriss goes on to talk about how bringing these memories to light has affected him, how it’s explained many of his behaviors and ways of relating in a way that has helped him organize and understand his life.

“It was at the tail end of the retreat that I realized that these 17 seemingly inexplicable behaviors of mine – these vicious cycles or triggers that I had been treating like separate problems to be solved, were all downstream of this trauma. Oh, now that you click that puzzle piece into place, these really strange behaviors – this self-loathing, this rage that was seemingly so exaggerated and disproportionate – leading to the near-suicide I had in college – all these things fell into places making sense.” It gave him a sense of relief but was simultaneously overwhelming.

Both Ferriss and Millman talk about books and treatments that have been helpful to them. Their knowledge of trauma treatments and resources is impressive and can be found at: Tim Ferriss – My Healing Journey After Childhood Abuse (Includes Extensive Resource List). Their wish is to share their suffering as a way to help others, impart hope, and better connect.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatry Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Let me tell you about Tim Ferriss. A few years ago, I started reading his best-selling book, The 4-Hour Body. Ferris detailed how he made himself into a one-man experiment – he’d make changes to his diet, checked his weight and his labs, maybe he even had metabolic studies done.

Courtesy Taylor Prinsen

He’d take these measures after soaking in hot baths, then ice baths, and while I admired his discipline, he did lose me during the chapter where he was using steroids. In the end, he advised a dairy-free, low-carbohydrate diet of green vegetables, beans or lentils, and protein for four meals a day, 6 days a week, with free-for-all eating on the 7th day. Then, there was a weight-lifting routine with kettle bells and ice packs to be placed on your shoulders for a set amount of time each day.

I may not remember the program’s details, but something about Ferris fascinated me. He brands himself as being a “human guinea pig,” about “lifestyle design,” and whatever that is, I like it. Perhaps I am attracted to the idea that we might control the trajectories of our generally uncontrollable lives.

Tim Ferriss graduated from Princeton, he’s written five best-selling books and has a popular podcast, he’s been a TED speaker, and he’s been on Fortune’s “40 under 40” list – and there’s so much more. Ferriss is brilliant, innovative, handsome, charismatic, prolific, extraordinarily athletic. I may have forgotten to mention that he was the National Chinese Kickboxing Champion and was a semifinalist in the World Champion Tango competition in Buenos Aires. He’s adventuresome and fearless, and if that isn’t enough, he speaks five languages. In the genetic dice roll, Mr. Ferriss did well, and he’s a driven and energetic hard worker who is open to new experiences.

I subscribe to the Tim Ferriss podcast – as of this writing, there are 466 episodes, with an incredible lineup of interviews with famous and successful guests. I also subscribe to his “5-Bullet Friday” email list where he mentions the interesting things he is reading, watching, learning about, or eating, and the products he is trying – single-ply toilet paper gets a thumbs down – then ends with a thought-provoking quote. This gentleman spends a tremendous amount of time searching and striving, working on himself and his own emotional growth and self-improvement, and yet he still has time for incredible explorations and experiences.

A search for psychic peace

Honestly, were it not for a few little details, I would like to be Tim Ferriss. Who wouldn’t? But what stops me from actually wanting to be Ferriss is that early on while listening to him, I realized that his drive has been fueled by intense psychic pain. He talks openly about being very close to suicide in college, about a tormenting mood disorder, demons to tame, and productivity as an antidote to a fear of failure, not always as a joy for life. There are moments that I have felt so sad for this remarkable stranger. Tim Ferriss is a searcher and what I believe he searches for most is his own psychic peace.

In a forum for psychiatrists, I wish I could write that Ferriss has found solace with our Food and Drug Administration–approved pharmaceuticals and with psychotherapy, but that’s not what he says. What Ferriss has found helpful, however, is psychedelics, and a wide variety of psychological and philosophical teachings ranging from meditation to Stoicism. And most notably, Ferriss has been an advocate for using hallucinogens as a legal medical intervention. Ferriss was one of four philanthropists who donated a total of $17 million to fund the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. He’s helped to move this field forward and to improve its credibility.

On Sept. 14, 2020, Tim Ferriss released a podcast he recorded with his dance partner and close friend, Debbie Millman, and when he recorded it, he was not certain he would release it. None of his usual sponsors endorsed during the podcast. He starts Episode #464 with, “For me, this is the most important podcast episode I’ve ever published. In it, I describe the most life-shaping, certainly the most difficult, and certainly the most transformative journey of my 43 years on this planet. I’ve never shared it before.”

I applaud Mr. Ferriss for going through with posting the podcast, a confessional about how he was repeatedly sexually molested over a 2-year period as a young child by a babysitter’s son. He worried about how this would affect his family, if they would be left feeling guilty or devastated. He says, “Please note that I expect to be completely overwhelmed emotionally and otherwise when this is published and please understand if I’m not able to reply to any outreach.”

Ferriss and Millman had a long discussion about their sexual abuse as children. Millman was abused by her stepfather at the age of 9, and she talks about confronting him many years later. Ferriss has not confronted his perpetrator, though he has contemplated doing so.

Sexual violence and violation at any age leaves people scarred. In a recent letter to the New York Times in response to President Trump’s words of support to Ghislaine Maxwell, the woman who helped Jeffrey Epstein find his victims, Baltimore psychiatrist Robin Weiss wrote, “Thirty-eight years ago, when I was 32, I was raped. I was married, I was a doctor – you might say I was in pretty stable shape. Yet the shame and guilt I felt were overwhelming. Why didn’t I fight harder? How did I let this happen? I knew better, yet it took me years to overcome those irrational feelings.” These feelings of shame, guilt, self-doubt, and self-blame are nearly universal in survivors of sexual trauma. In children, they can be even worse, as children often don’t have an understanding that what is being done to them is wrong. They lack the language and the maturity to process the events, and ongoing abuse may be accompanied by threats to life of the child or their family members if they tell others, as was the case with Millman. She chose to process her abuse and the consequent difficulties she had by seeking psychiatric care. She took antidepressants and has been in psychoanalysis, both of which she has found to be helpful. Her treatment has tamed her demons, it is ongoing decades later and those demons have not vanished.
 

Abuse comes back in ‘a tidal wave’

Not surprisingly, Ferriss struggled with whether to make these events public. While so much of his story feels familiar to those of us who help patients process their trauma, it’s not completely typical. Ferriss remembered these episodes of sexual abuse “in high resolution,” while using ayahuasca, a hallucinogen, about 5 years ago. He describes suppressing and discounting these memories until he attended a 10-day silent retreat where he used psilocybin. I found it interesting that Ferriss fasted for 5 days before attending the retreat “to increase the depth of the experience.” He goes on to say, “Around day 6 of this silent retreat, all of this abuse came back to me like a tidal wave and it was replaying as if I was wearing a virtual reality headset. I was immersed, I wasn’t an observer, it was as though I was being traumatized and retraumatized 24/7.” He describes an excruciating and horrifying experience and he referred to it as a “psychotic break.”

Ferriss goes on to talk about how bringing these memories to light has affected him, how it’s explained many of his behaviors and ways of relating in a way that has helped him organize and understand his life.

“It was at the tail end of the retreat that I realized that these 17 seemingly inexplicable behaviors of mine – these vicious cycles or triggers that I had been treating like separate problems to be solved, were all downstream of this trauma. Oh, now that you click that puzzle piece into place, these really strange behaviors – this self-loathing, this rage that was seemingly so exaggerated and disproportionate – leading to the near-suicide I had in college – all these things fell into places making sense.” It gave him a sense of relief but was simultaneously overwhelming.

Both Ferriss and Millman talk about books and treatments that have been helpful to them. Their knowledge of trauma treatments and resources is impressive and can be found at: Tim Ferriss – My Healing Journey After Childhood Abuse (Includes Extensive Resource List). Their wish is to share their suffering as a way to help others, impart hope, and better connect.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatry Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Application of oil to the hair and scalp – purported to promote increased shine, health, and growth, and decrease graying of the hair – is used in many different cultures worldwide, including in India and among people of the African diaspora. Hair oiling typically entails combing the hair, followed by applying oil from the roots to the ends about once a week prior to shampooing. Hair oiling daily or every other day, often with a hair braid, is also practiced, using coconut oil or other oils. Oil is found in various hair products and has been popular in the United States, particularly as hot oil treatments in the 1980s.

Oils are used as part of Abhyanga massage, either by an Ayurvedic practitioner or as self-massage, as part of ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine practice. The type of oil used is determined by the practitioner depending on the individual’s needs; cold-pressed sesame oil or coconut oil is often used as the base oil. Abhyanga is often performed with oil on the entire body as an act of self-care, which includes massage of the hair and scalp. The oil and herbs that are often added to the oil, as well as the scalp massage itself, are explained by practitioners as having therapeutic effects on the hair, including exfoliation of a dry scalp and on overall well-being. Outside of Ayurvedic medicine, hair oiling is also sometimes performed in India as part of routine hair care and can be a bonding experience among parents, grandparents, and children.

Amla oil, which is derived from Indian gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica L.) and is often used in India on the hair, contains Vitamin C and has been shown to have activity against dermatophytes. In a study conducted in India, amla oil was found to have the most activity against Microsporum canis, M. gypseum, and Trichophyton rubrum, followed by cantharidine and coconut oil, while T. mentagrophytes was most susceptible to coconut oil, followed by amla and cantharidine oil.¹ A study conducted in mice in Thailand found that 5-alpha-reductase was reduced with the dried form of the herb Phyllanthus emblica L, as well as with some other traditional Thai herbs used as hair treatments.²

Castor oil has been utilized in many cultures to promote hair growth. Ricinoleic acid, an unsaturated omega-9 fatty acid and hydroxy acid, is the major component of seed oil obtained from mature castor plants. It has anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects, and in one study,³ was found to inhibit prostaglandin D2, which has been implicated in the pathogenesis of androgenetic alopecia.⁴ Jamaican black castor oil is darker in color and has a more alkaline pH compared with traditional castor oil (both contain ricinoleic acid). To produce Jamaican black castor oil, the seed is roasted, ground to a thick paste, boiled in a pot of hot water, then the oil is skimmed off of the top into individual bottles, whereas regular castor oil is cold pressed. The alkalinity of Jamaican black castor oil may play a role in opening up the hair cuticle, which may be beneficial, but application also needs to be followed by a routine that includes closing the cuticle to avoid increasing hair fragility; such a routine could include, for example, leave-in conditioner or rinsing conditioner with colder water.

Castor oil is sometimes used on its own or in combination with other oils, and it is also an ingredient in some hair care products. However, publicly available peer-reviewed research articles demonstrating the effects of castor oil when applied directly to the hair and scalp for hair growth are needed.

Different types of hair oils are used in African American hair care products and, worldwide, by people of the African diaspora as part of regular hair care and hair styling. Common oils include jojoba, coconut, castor, argan, olive, sunflower, and almond oils. Very curly hair often dries out more easily, especially in drier climates; and sebum build-up on the scalp does not occur as quickly, so hair typically does not need to be shampooed frequently. As such, over-shampooing also often dries the hair out faster, especially if hair has been chemically processed. Thus, oils help to coat and protect the hair, and smooth the cuticle. Oils themselves do not moisturize, but can seal moisture into the hair or act as humectants and draw moisture in. Rather than applying on dry hair, oils, when used as daily care as opposed to before shampooing, are often applied on clean hair after shampooing and after a leave-in conditioner has been applied to help seal in moisture for the most benefit. For treatment of scalp conditions, depending on the type of hair care practice performed at home, oils may be preferred over potentially drying solutions and foams if available, for optimum hair care.

Hair oiling is a long-standing practice which, when used correctly, can be beneficial for hair management and health. There are, however, caveats to hair oiling, which include being careful not to excessively brush or comb hair that has a lot of oil in it because the hair is slick, which can cause hair to fall out during combing. Some oils have elevated levels of lauric acid (coconut oil has 50%), which has a high affinity for hair proteins.⁵ While this can support hair strength, care should be taken not to overuse some oils or other products known as “protein packs,” which should be used as directed. Since hair is protein, excess protein build-up coating the hair can block needed moisture, making the hair more knotted and brittle, potentially resulting in more breakage with brushing or other hair care practices.

Some oil-containing hair products also contain artificial fragrances and/or dyes, which in some individuals, may promote an immunogenic effect, such as contact dermatitis. Certain oils, particularly olive oil, can promote an environment favorable to yeast growth, especially Malassezia species, implicated in seborrheic dermatitis. Practices that involve excessive application of oil to the scalp can also result in build up if not shampooed regularly. Sulfonated castor oil (also known as Turkey Red oil) has been reported to cause contact dermatitis.⁶
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

Application of oil to the hair and scalp – purported to promote increased shine, health, and growth, and decrease graying of the hair – is used in many different cultures worldwide, including in India and among people of the African diaspora. Hair oiling typically entails combing the hair, followed by applying oil from the roots to the ends about once a week prior to shampooing. Hair oiling daily or every other day, often with a hair braid, is also practiced, using coconut oil or other oils. Oil is found in various hair products and has been popular in the United States, particularly as hot oil treatments in the 1980s.

Oils are used as part of Abhyanga massage, either by an Ayurvedic practitioner or as self-massage, as part of ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine practice. The type of oil used is determined by the practitioner depending on the individual’s needs; cold-pressed sesame oil or coconut oil is often used as the base oil. Abhyanga is often performed with oil on the entire body as an act of self-care, which includes massage of the hair and scalp. The oil and herbs that are often added to the oil, as well as the scalp massage itself, are explained by practitioners as having therapeutic effects on the hair, including exfoliation of a dry scalp and on overall well-being. Outside of Ayurvedic medicine, hair oiling is also sometimes performed in India as part of routine hair care and can be a bonding experience among parents, grandparents, and children.

Amla oil, which is derived from Indian gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica L.) and is often used in India on the hair, contains Vitamin C and has been shown to have activity against dermatophytes. In a study conducted in India, amla oil was found to have the most activity against Microsporum canis, M. gypseum, and Trichophyton rubrum, followed by cantharidine and coconut oil, while T. mentagrophytes was most susceptible to coconut oil, followed by amla and cantharidine oil.¹ A study conducted in mice in Thailand found that 5-alpha-reductase was reduced with the dried form of the herb Phyllanthus emblica L, as well as with some other traditional Thai herbs used as hair treatments.²

Castor oil has been utilized in many cultures to promote hair growth. Ricinoleic acid, an unsaturated omega-9 fatty acid and hydroxy acid, is the major component of seed oil obtained from mature castor plants. It has anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects, and in one study,³ was found to inhibit prostaglandin D2, which has been implicated in the pathogenesis of androgenetic alopecia.⁴ Jamaican black castor oil is darker in color and has a more alkaline pH compared with traditional castor oil (both contain ricinoleic acid). To produce Jamaican black castor oil, the seed is roasted, ground to a thick paste, boiled in a pot of hot water, then the oil is skimmed off of the top into individual bottles, whereas regular castor oil is cold pressed. The alkalinity of Jamaican black castor oil may play a role in opening up the hair cuticle, which may be beneficial, but application also needs to be followed by a routine that includes closing the cuticle to avoid increasing hair fragility; such a routine could include, for example, leave-in conditioner or rinsing conditioner with colder water.

Castor oil is sometimes used on its own or in combination with other oils, and it is also an ingredient in some hair care products. However, publicly available peer-reviewed research articles demonstrating the effects of castor oil when applied directly to the hair and scalp for hair growth are needed.

Different types of hair oils are used in African American hair care products and, worldwide, by people of the African diaspora as part of regular hair care and hair styling. Common oils include jojoba, coconut, castor, argan, olive, sunflower, and almond oils. Very curly hair often dries out more easily, especially in drier climates; and sebum build-up on the scalp does not occur as quickly, so hair typically does not need to be shampooed frequently. As such, over-shampooing also often dries the hair out faster, especially if hair has been chemically processed. Thus, oils help to coat and protect the hair, and smooth the cuticle. Oils themselves do not moisturize, but can seal moisture into the hair or act as humectants and draw moisture in. Rather than applying on dry hair, oils, when used as daily care as opposed to before shampooing, are often applied on clean hair after shampooing and after a leave-in conditioner has been applied to help seal in moisture for the most benefit. For treatment of scalp conditions, depending on the type of hair care practice performed at home, oils may be preferred over potentially drying solutions and foams if available, for optimum hair care.

Hair oiling is a long-standing practice which, when used correctly, can be beneficial for hair management and health. There are, however, caveats to hair oiling, which include being careful not to excessively brush or comb hair that has a lot of oil in it because the hair is slick, which can cause hair to fall out during combing. Some oils have elevated levels of lauric acid (coconut oil has 50%), which has a high affinity for hair proteins.⁵ While this can support hair strength, care should be taken not to overuse some oils or other products known as “protein packs,” which should be used as directed. Since hair is protein, excess protein build-up coating the hair can block needed moisture, making the hair more knotted and brittle, potentially resulting in more breakage with brushing or other hair care practices.

Some oil-containing hair products also contain artificial fragrances and/or dyes, which in some individuals, may promote an immunogenic effect, such as contact dermatitis. Certain oils, particularly olive oil, can promote an environment favorable to yeast growth, especially Malassezia species, implicated in seborrheic dermatitis. Practices that involve excessive application of oil to the scalp can also result in build up if not shampooed regularly. Sulfonated castor oil (also known as Turkey Red oil) has been reported to cause contact dermatitis.⁶
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

Application of oil to the hair and scalp – purported to promote increased shine, health, and growth, and decrease graying of the hair – is used in many different cultures worldwide, including in India and among people of the African diaspora. Hair oiling typically entails combing the hair, followed by applying oil from the roots to the ends about once a week prior to shampooing. Hair oiling daily or every other day, often with a hair braid, is also practiced, using coconut oil or other oils. Oil is found in various hair products and has been popular in the United States, particularly as hot oil treatments in the 1980s.

Oils are used as part of Abhyanga massage, either by an Ayurvedic practitioner or as self-massage, as part of ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine practice. The type of oil used is determined by the practitioner depending on the individual’s needs; cold-pressed sesame oil or coconut oil is often used as the base oil. Abhyanga is often performed with oil on the entire body as an act of self-care, which includes massage of the hair and scalp. The oil and herbs that are often added to the oil, as well as the scalp massage itself, are explained by practitioners as having therapeutic effects on the hair, including exfoliation of a dry scalp and on overall well-being. Outside of Ayurvedic medicine, hair oiling is also sometimes performed in India as part of routine hair care and can be a bonding experience among parents, grandparents, and children.

Amla oil, which is derived from Indian gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica L.) and is often used in India on the hair, contains Vitamin C and has been shown to have activity against dermatophytes. In a study conducted in India, amla oil was found to have the most activity against Microsporum canis, M. gypseum, and Trichophyton rubrum, followed by cantharidine and coconut oil, while T. mentagrophytes was most susceptible to coconut oil, followed by amla and cantharidine oil.¹ A study conducted in mice in Thailand found that 5-alpha-reductase was reduced with the dried form of the herb Phyllanthus emblica L, as well as with some other traditional Thai herbs used as hair treatments.²

Castor oil has been utilized in many cultures to promote hair growth. Ricinoleic acid, an unsaturated omega-9 fatty acid and hydroxy acid, is the major component of seed oil obtained from mature castor plants. It has anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects, and in one study,³ was found to inhibit prostaglandin D2, which has been implicated in the pathogenesis of androgenetic alopecia.⁴ Jamaican black castor oil is darker in color and has a more alkaline pH compared with traditional castor oil (both contain ricinoleic acid). To produce Jamaican black castor oil, the seed is roasted, ground to a thick paste, boiled in a pot of hot water, then the oil is skimmed off of the top into individual bottles, whereas regular castor oil is cold pressed. The alkalinity of Jamaican black castor oil may play a role in opening up the hair cuticle, which may be beneficial, but application also needs to be followed by a routine that includes closing the cuticle to avoid increasing hair fragility; such a routine could include, for example, leave-in conditioner or rinsing conditioner with colder water.

Castor oil is sometimes used on its own or in combination with other oils, and it is also an ingredient in some hair care products. However, publicly available peer-reviewed research articles demonstrating the effects of castor oil when applied directly to the hair and scalp for hair growth are needed.

Different types of hair oils are used in African American hair care products and, worldwide, by people of the African diaspora as part of regular hair care and hair styling. Common oils include jojoba, coconut, castor, argan, olive, sunflower, and almond oils. Very curly hair often dries out more easily, especially in drier climates; and sebum build-up on the scalp does not occur as quickly, so hair typically does not need to be shampooed frequently. As such, over-shampooing also often dries the hair out faster, especially if hair has been chemically processed. Thus, oils help to coat and protect the hair, and smooth the cuticle. Oils themselves do not moisturize, but can seal moisture into the hair or act as humectants and draw moisture in. Rather than applying on dry hair, oils, when used as daily care as opposed to before shampooing, are often applied on clean hair after shampooing and after a leave-in conditioner has been applied to help seal in moisture for the most benefit. For treatment of scalp conditions, depending on the type of hair care practice performed at home, oils may be preferred over potentially drying solutions and foams if available, for optimum hair care.

Hair oiling is a long-standing practice which, when used correctly, can be beneficial for hair management and health. There are, however, caveats to hair oiling, which include being careful not to excessively brush or comb hair that has a lot of oil in it because the hair is slick, which can cause hair to fall out during combing. Some oils have elevated levels of lauric acid (coconut oil has 50%), which has a high affinity for hair proteins.⁵ While this can support hair strength, care should be taken not to overuse some oils or other products known as “protein packs,” which should be used as directed. Since hair is protein, excess protein build-up coating the hair can block needed moisture, making the hair more knotted and brittle, potentially resulting in more breakage with brushing or other hair care practices.

Some oil-containing hair products also contain artificial fragrances and/or dyes, which in some individuals, may promote an immunogenic effect, such as contact dermatitis. Certain oils, particularly olive oil, can promote an environment favorable to yeast growth, especially Malassezia species, implicated in seborrheic dermatitis. Practices that involve excessive application of oil to the scalp can also result in build up if not shampooed regularly. Sulfonated castor oil (also known as Turkey Red oil) has been reported to cause contact dermatitis.⁶
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

In this historical portrait, I am focusing mainly on dermatologists who have developed a skin care line, and I am loosely following a chronological order. Thanks to all the readers of Part 1 (The interesting history of dermatologist-developed skin care), who gave me interesting feedback on my Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. There was so much interest that I will write Part 3 next month. Feel free to DM me your ideas on LinkedIn.

The history of dermatologist-developed skin care continues as more dermatologists become interested in developing a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice. A report in July 2020 showed that physician-dispensed skin care is the largest growing segment of the skin care business with a projected compound annual growth rate of 9.9% from 2020 to 2027. I have not seen national sales numbers since this July report, but we have noticed a large increase in online sales for the doctors using my Skin Type Solutions System. This is most likely because, in a national crisis, the self-care and beauty business segments often see growth. So as you can see, dermatologist-dispensed skin care is becoming a major player in national skin care sales. Let’s get back to the story of how this came to be the case.

Peter Elias, MD. Dr. Elias is professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1996, Dr. Elias published a landmark paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrating that a 1:1:1 ratio of ceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol is required to repair a damaged skin barrier. He filed multiple patents for using these lipids in moisturizers as early as 1992. His lipid research has stood the test of time, and this paper is still frequently cited. Dr. Elias has authored over 500 peer reviewed articles on the skin barrier, has edited or coauthored three books on skin barrier science, and developed EpiCeram, a product that utilizes ceramide, the fatty acid linoleic acid, and cholesterol. EpiCeram is the only barrier repair moisturizer approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by prescription only.

Kathy Fields, MD, and Katie Rodan, MD. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan met at Stanford (Calif.) University. In the 1980s, these entrepreneurial dermatologists realized that patients did not understand the role of preventing acne rather than just treating it. As dermatologists, they knew that a consistent daily routine to prevent acne was much more effective than waiting for an outbreak and spot-treating lesions. They took an already available OTC medication – benzoyl peroxide – and educated consumers through infomercials that they needed to stay ahead of acne instead of waiting for a breakout. Using infomercials to sell skin care, selling skin care kits, and educating patients about the need to prevent acne rather than spot treat it was very unusual at the time. As we all know, reeducating your patients is a huge challenge. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan changed consumers thinking in a genius way that continues to resonate today by choosing a brand name to make their point: Proactiv. Their simple 3-step acne kit encouraged patients to be proactive about their acne and encouraged compliance. (Patients love exact skin care steps as demonstrated again by the success of the skin care line from plastic surgeon Suzan Obagi, MD, which became available around 1988).

Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan first offered Proactiv to Neutrogena, which turned it down. This early disappointment did not deter them and ended up benefiting them because this gave them the idea to do infomercials. Guthy Renker agreed to market and distribute the product, and the first Proactiv infomercial appeared on TV in 1995. It quickly became popular and is still one of the best selling skin care lines of all time. It’s important to note that the “overnight success” of Proactiv took at least a decade of effort.

Heather Woolery Lloyd, MD. Dr. Woolery Lloyd got her medical degree at the University of Miami where she also completed her dermatology residency. Her interest in skin of color led to her appointment as director of Ethnic Skin Care at the University of Miami, the country’s first cosmetic ethnic skin care department at a major university. She spent years lecturing around the world on skin of color issues and performing clinical trials before she developed the “Specific Beauty” skin care line for melanin rich skin types. Specific Beauty was acquired by Guthy Renker and is available online. It is the most popular dermatologist developed skin care line for skin of color.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other dermatologists threw their hats into the ring and came out with skin care lines – some successful and some not. Unfortunately, many skin care lines at that time were based on “pseudoscience” and exaggerated claims, which fueled the fire of those who felt dermatologists should steer clear of these entrepreneurial pursuits. A debate about the ethics of doctors retailing skin care began, and the controversy led to this 2010 statement by the American Medical Association: “In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.”

Many dermatologists dropped out of the AMA as a result because they felt the organization was no longer representing dermatologist’s interests. After all, we know skin care science better than anyone, and many dermatologists were insulted by the suggestion that we would place our personal financial gain over the best interests of our patients.

This is a perfect example of how the actions of a few unscrupulous dermatologists can affect the entire specialty. I like to focus on the ethical entrepreneurial dermatologists who made great contributions to the skin care industry based on science, efficacy, and patient education and encourage the ethical among us to provide this science-based information to our patients to protect them from pseudoscience-based opportunists. It is obvious that I believe that dermatologists have a responsibility to provide medical advice on skin care to their patients. If not us, who will do it as ethically as we will? But I plead with those of you out there who are promoting foolish stem cell–containing creams and other impossible technologies to remember that you are hurting the credibility of our entire dermatology profession.

In my next column, I will discuss dermatologists who have played a significant role behind the scenes in the development of the skin care industry.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.  

References

Castanedo-Tardan MP, Baumann L. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2009;27(4):355-8.

Gormley DE. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Jul;135(7):765-6.

Miller RC. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Mar;135(3):255-6.

Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(12):925-7.
 

In this historical portrait, I am focusing mainly on dermatologists who have developed a skin care line, and I am loosely following a chronological order. Thanks to all the readers of Part 1 (The interesting history of dermatologist-developed skin care), who gave me interesting feedback on my Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. There was so much interest that I will write Part 3 next month. Feel free to DM me your ideas on LinkedIn.

The history of dermatologist-developed skin care continues as more dermatologists become interested in developing a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice. A report in July 2020 showed that physician-dispensed skin care is the largest growing segment of the skin care business with a projected compound annual growth rate of 9.9% from 2020 to 2027. I have not seen national sales numbers since this July report, but we have noticed a large increase in online sales for the doctors using my Skin Type Solutions System. This is most likely because, in a national crisis, the self-care and beauty business segments often see growth. So as you can see, dermatologist-dispensed skin care is becoming a major player in national skin care sales. Let’s get back to the story of how this came to be the case.

Peter Elias, MD. Dr. Elias is professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1996, Dr. Elias published a landmark paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrating that a 1:1:1 ratio of ceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol is required to repair a damaged skin barrier. He filed multiple patents for using these lipids in moisturizers as early as 1992. His lipid research has stood the test of time, and this paper is still frequently cited. Dr. Elias has authored over 500 peer reviewed articles on the skin barrier, has edited or coauthored three books on skin barrier science, and developed EpiCeram, a product that utilizes ceramide, the fatty acid linoleic acid, and cholesterol. EpiCeram is the only barrier repair moisturizer approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by prescription only.

Kathy Fields, MD, and Katie Rodan, MD. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan met at Stanford (Calif.) University. In the 1980s, these entrepreneurial dermatologists realized that patients did not understand the role of preventing acne rather than just treating it. As dermatologists, they knew that a consistent daily routine to prevent acne was much more effective than waiting for an outbreak and spot-treating lesions. They took an already available OTC medication – benzoyl peroxide – and educated consumers through infomercials that they needed to stay ahead of acne instead of waiting for a breakout. Using infomercials to sell skin care, selling skin care kits, and educating patients about the need to prevent acne rather than spot treat it was very unusual at the time. As we all know, reeducating your patients is a huge challenge. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan changed consumers thinking in a genius way that continues to resonate today by choosing a brand name to make their point: Proactiv. Their simple 3-step acne kit encouraged patients to be proactive about their acne and encouraged compliance. (Patients love exact skin care steps as demonstrated again by the success of the skin care line from plastic surgeon Suzan Obagi, MD, which became available around 1988).

Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan first offered Proactiv to Neutrogena, which turned it down. This early disappointment did not deter them and ended up benefiting them because this gave them the idea to do infomercials. Guthy Renker agreed to market and distribute the product, and the first Proactiv infomercial appeared on TV in 1995. It quickly became popular and is still one of the best selling skin care lines of all time. It’s important to note that the “overnight success” of Proactiv took at least a decade of effort.

Heather Woolery Lloyd, MD. Dr. Woolery Lloyd got her medical degree at the University of Miami where she also completed her dermatology residency. Her interest in skin of color led to her appointment as director of Ethnic Skin Care at the University of Miami, the country’s first cosmetic ethnic skin care department at a major university. She spent years lecturing around the world on skin of color issues and performing clinical trials before she developed the “Specific Beauty” skin care line for melanin rich skin types. Specific Beauty was acquired by Guthy Renker and is available online. It is the most popular dermatologist developed skin care line for skin of color.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other dermatologists threw their hats into the ring and came out with skin care lines – some successful and some not. Unfortunately, many skin care lines at that time were based on “pseudoscience” and exaggerated claims, which fueled the fire of those who felt dermatologists should steer clear of these entrepreneurial pursuits. A debate about the ethics of doctors retailing skin care began, and the controversy led to this 2010 statement by the American Medical Association: “In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.”

Many dermatologists dropped out of the AMA as a result because they felt the organization was no longer representing dermatologist’s interests. After all, we know skin care science better than anyone, and many dermatologists were insulted by the suggestion that we would place our personal financial gain over the best interests of our patients.

This is a perfect example of how the actions of a few unscrupulous dermatologists can affect the entire specialty. I like to focus on the ethical entrepreneurial dermatologists who made great contributions to the skin care industry based on science, efficacy, and patient education and encourage the ethical among us to provide this science-based information to our patients to protect them from pseudoscience-based opportunists. It is obvious that I believe that dermatologists have a responsibility to provide medical advice on skin care to their patients. If not us, who will do it as ethically as we will? But I plead with those of you out there who are promoting foolish stem cell–containing creams and other impossible technologies to remember that you are hurting the credibility of our entire dermatology profession.

In my next column, I will discuss dermatologists who have played a significant role behind the scenes in the development of the skin care industry.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.  

References

Castanedo-Tardan MP, Baumann L. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2009;27(4):355-8.

Gormley DE. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Jul;135(7):765-6.

Miller RC. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Mar;135(3):255-6.

Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(12):925-7.
 

In this historical portrait, I am focusing mainly on dermatologists who have developed a skin care line, and I am loosely following a chronological order. Thanks to all the readers of Part 1 (The interesting history of dermatologist-developed skin care), who gave me interesting feedback on my Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. There was so much interest that I will write Part 3 next month. Feel free to DM me your ideas on LinkedIn.

The history of dermatologist-developed skin care continues as more dermatologists become interested in developing a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice. A report in July 2020 showed that physician-dispensed skin care is the largest growing segment of the skin care business with a projected compound annual growth rate of 9.9% from 2020 to 2027. I have not seen national sales numbers since this July report, but we have noticed a large increase in online sales for the doctors using my Skin Type Solutions System. This is most likely because, in a national crisis, the self-care and beauty business segments often see growth. So as you can see, dermatologist-dispensed skin care is becoming a major player in national skin care sales. Let’s get back to the story of how this came to be the case.

Peter Elias, MD. Dr. Elias is professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1996, Dr. Elias published a landmark paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrating that a 1:1:1 ratio of ceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol is required to repair a damaged skin barrier. He filed multiple patents for using these lipids in moisturizers as early as 1992. His lipid research has stood the test of time, and this paper is still frequently cited. Dr. Elias has authored over 500 peer reviewed articles on the skin barrier, has edited or coauthored three books on skin barrier science, and developed EpiCeram, a product that utilizes ceramide, the fatty acid linoleic acid, and cholesterol. EpiCeram is the only barrier repair moisturizer approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by prescription only.

Kathy Fields, MD, and Katie Rodan, MD. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan met at Stanford (Calif.) University. In the 1980s, these entrepreneurial dermatologists realized that patients did not understand the role of preventing acne rather than just treating it. As dermatologists, they knew that a consistent daily routine to prevent acne was much more effective than waiting for an outbreak and spot-treating lesions. They took an already available OTC medication – benzoyl peroxide – and educated consumers through infomercials that they needed to stay ahead of acne instead of waiting for a breakout. Using infomercials to sell skin care, selling skin care kits, and educating patients about the need to prevent acne rather than spot treat it was very unusual at the time. As we all know, reeducating your patients is a huge challenge. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan changed consumers thinking in a genius way that continues to resonate today by choosing a brand name to make their point: Proactiv. Their simple 3-step acne kit encouraged patients to be proactive about their acne and encouraged compliance. (Patients love exact skin care steps as demonstrated again by the success of the skin care line from plastic surgeon Suzan Obagi, MD, which became available around 1988).

Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan first offered Proactiv to Neutrogena, which turned it down. This early disappointment did not deter them and ended up benefiting them because this gave them the idea to do infomercials. Guthy Renker agreed to market and distribute the product, and the first Proactiv infomercial appeared on TV in 1995. It quickly became popular and is still one of the best selling skin care lines of all time. It’s important to note that the “overnight success” of Proactiv took at least a decade of effort.

Heather Woolery Lloyd, MD. Dr. Woolery Lloyd got her medical degree at the University of Miami where she also completed her dermatology residency. Her interest in skin of color led to her appointment as director of Ethnic Skin Care at the University of Miami, the country’s first cosmetic ethnic skin care department at a major university. She spent years lecturing around the world on skin of color issues and performing clinical trials before she developed the “Specific Beauty” skin care line for melanin rich skin types. Specific Beauty was acquired by Guthy Renker and is available online. It is the most popular dermatologist developed skin care line for skin of color.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other dermatologists threw their hats into the ring and came out with skin care lines – some successful and some not. Unfortunately, many skin care lines at that time were based on “pseudoscience” and exaggerated claims, which fueled the fire of those who felt dermatologists should steer clear of these entrepreneurial pursuits. A debate about the ethics of doctors retailing skin care began, and the controversy led to this 2010 statement by the American Medical Association: “In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.”

Many dermatologists dropped out of the AMA as a result because they felt the organization was no longer representing dermatologist’s interests. After all, we know skin care science better than anyone, and many dermatologists were insulted by the suggestion that we would place our personal financial gain over the best interests of our patients.

This is a perfect example of how the actions of a few unscrupulous dermatologists can affect the entire specialty. I like to focus on the ethical entrepreneurial dermatologists who made great contributions to the skin care industry based on science, efficacy, and patient education and encourage the ethical among us to provide this science-based information to our patients to protect them from pseudoscience-based opportunists. It is obvious that I believe that dermatologists have a responsibility to provide medical advice on skin care to their patients. If not us, who will do it as ethically as we will? But I plead with those of you out there who are promoting foolish stem cell–containing creams and other impossible technologies to remember that you are hurting the credibility of our entire dermatology profession.

In my next column, I will discuss dermatologists who have played a significant role behind the scenes in the development of the skin care industry.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.  

References

Castanedo-Tardan MP, Baumann L. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2009;27(4):355-8.

Gormley DE. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Jul;135(7):765-6.

Miller RC. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Mar;135(3):255-6.

Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(12):925-7.
 

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.