In Reply We thank Pousti and Mollanazar for their interest in our study and for furthering the discussion surrounding the burden and need for improvement of iPLEDGE’s stringent requirements. Our work1 aimed to describe fetal exposure to isotretinoin in the iPLEDGE era. We found that although the number of pregnancy-related adverse events has declined since the implementation of iPLEDGE in 2006, rates have remained steady since 2010. Patients continue to have adverse outcomes despite the imposition of iPLEDGE on all parties involved, underscoring the need for further objective evaluation of this system.1
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.
Tkachenko E, Singer S, Mostaghimi A. Contradictory iPledge Requirements Hinder Physician Practice and Patient Care—Reply. JAMA Dermatol. Published online January 02, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3651
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: