To the Editor We thank Tkachenko et al1 for their work in highlighting important trends and questions regarding the iPledge system. We agree that the implementation of iPledge may reduce pregnancy-related adverse events, yet we do not believe that the burdensome nature of this system toward patients and physicians is sufficiently addressed. iPledge contains various excessive and contradictory requirements that impede patient care, one such example being the process of urine pregnancy test acquisition.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Pousti BT, Mollanazar NK. Contradictory iPledge Requirements Hinder Physician Practice and Patient Care. JAMA Dermatol. Published online January 02, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4026
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: