[Skip to Navigation]
Views 341
Citations 0
Comment & Response
January 2, 2020

Contradictory iPledge Requirements Hinder Physician Practice and Patient Care—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester
  • 2Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 3Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 4Associate Editor, JAMA Dermatology
JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(2):222-223. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3651

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

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

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.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words