Different times, different people: Frances Kathleen Oldham Kelsey

Frances Oldham Kelsey

 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Frances Kelsey)
Frances Oldham Kelsey
Formal, black-and-white photo of Frances Oldham Kelsey, showing a middle-aged Caucasian woman with short dark hair
Born
Frances Kathleen Oldham

July 24, 1914

Died August 7, 2015 (aged 101)

Citizenship
  • Canada
  • United States (from 1950s)
Alma mater
Occupation Pharmacologist
Known for Preventing thalidomide from being marketed in the United States
Spouse
Fremont Ellis Kelsey

(m. 1943; died 1966)

Children 2
Medical career
Field Physician
Awards President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service (1962)

Frances Kathleen Oldham Kelsey CM (née Oldham; July 24, 1914 – August 7, 2015) was a Canadian-American[1] pharmacologist and physician. As a reviewer for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), she refused to authorize thalidomide for market because she had concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the drug’s safety.[2] Her concerns proved to be justified when it was shown that thalidomide caused serious birth defects. Kelsey’s career intersected with the passage of laws strengthening FDA oversight of pharmaceuticals. Kelsey was the second woman to receive the President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, awarded to her by John F. Kennedy in 1962.

Birth and education[edit]

Born in Cobble Hill, British Columbia,[3] Kelsey attended St. Margaret’s School from 1928 to 1931 in the provincial capital, graduating at age 15.[4] From 1930 to 1931, she attended Victoria College (now University of Victoria). She then enrolled at McGill University, where she received both a B.Sc. (1934) and an M.Sc. (1935) in pharmacology.[3] Encouraged by one of her professors, she “wrote to EMK Geiling, M.D., a noted researcher [who] was starting up a new pharmacology department at the University of Chicago, asking for a position doing graduate work”.[4] Geiling, unaware of spelling conventions with respect to Francis and Frances, presumed that Frances was a man and offered her the position, which she accepted, starting work in 1936.[5][6]

During Kelsey’s second year, Geiling was retained by the FDA to research unusual deaths related to elixir sulfanilamide, a sulfonamide medicine. Kelsey assisted on this research project, which showed that the 107 deaths were caused by the use of diethylene glycol as a solvent. The next year, the United States Congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.[4] That same year she completed her studies and received a Ph.D. in pharmacology at the University of Chicago.[4] Working with Geiling led to her interest in teratogens, drugs that cause congenital malformations (birth defects).[7]

Early career[edit]

Black-and-white photo of Kelsey standing beside a table laden with files; grasping eyeglasses and an open book, she looks to the camera and seems about to speak
Kelsey in the 1960s

Upon completing her Ph.D., Oldham joined the University of Chicago faculty. In 1942, like many other pharmacologists, Oldham was looking for a synthetic cure for malaria. As a result of these studies, Oldham learned that some drugs are able to pass through the placental barrier.[8] During her work, she also met fellow faculty member Fremont Ellis Kelsey, whom she married in 1943.[4]

While on the faculty at the University of Chicago, Kelsey was awarded her M.D. in 1950.[4] She supplemented her teaching with work as an editorial associate for the American Medical Association Journal for two years. Kelsey left the University of Chicago in 1954, decided to take a position teaching pharmacology at the University of South Dakota, and moved with her husband and two daughters to Vermillion, South Dakota, where she taught until 1957.[3]

She became a dual citizen of Canada and the United States in the 1950s in order to continue practicing medicine in the U.S., but retained strong ties to Canada where she continued to visit her siblings regularly until late in life.[2]

Work at the FDA and thalidomide[edit]

Black-and-white photo of a smiling Kelsey meeting with President John F. Kennedy; the medal for the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service hangs around Kelsey's neck
Kelsey received the President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service from President John F. Kennedy, 1962

In 1960, Kelsey was hired by the FDA in Washington, D.C. At that time, she “was one of only seven full-time and four young part-time physicians reviewing drugs”[4] for the FDA. One of her first assignments at the FDA was to review an application by Richardson-Merrell for the drug thalidomide (under the tradename Kevadon) as a tranquilizer and painkiller with specific indications to prescribe the drug to pregnant women for morning sickness. Although it had been previously approved in Canada and more than 20 European and African countries,[9] she withheld approval for the drug and requested further studies.[3] Despite pressure from thalidomide’s manufacturer Grünenthal, Kelsey persisted in requesting additional information to explain observations by Leslie Florence of neurological symptoms published in the British Medical Journal in December 1960.[4][10] She also requested data showing the drug was not harmful to the fetus.[10]

Kelsey’s insistence that the drug should be fully tested prior to approval was vindicated when the births of deformed infants in Europe were linked to thalidomide ingestion by their mothers during pregnancy.[11][12] Researchers discovered that the thalidomide crossed the placental barrier and caused serious birth defects.[8] She was hailed on the front page of The Washington Post as a heroine[13] for averting a similar tragedy in the U.S.[14] Morton Mintz, author of The Washington Post article, said “[Kelsey] prevented … the birth of hundreds or indeed thousands of armless and legless children.”[13] Kelsey insisted that her assistants, Oyama Jiro and Lee Geismar, as well as her FDA superiors who backed her strong stance, deserved credit as well. The narrative of Kelsey’s persistence was used to help pass rigorous drug approval regulation in 1962.[1]

After Mintz broke the story in July 1962, there was a substantial public outcry. The Kefauver Harris Amendment was passed unanimously by Congress in October 1962 to strengthen drug regulation.[11][12] Companies were required to demonstrate the efficacy of new drugs, report adverse reactions to the FDA, and request consent from patients participating in clinical studies.[15] The drug testing reforms required “stricter limits on the testing and distribution of new drugs”[8] to avoid similar problems. The amendments, for the first time, also recognized that “effectiveness [should be] required to be established prior to marketing.”[11][12]

As a result of her blocking American approval of thalidomide, Kelsey was awarded the President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service by John F. Kennedy on August 7, 1962,[16] becoming the second woman so honoured.[17] After receiving the award, Kelsey continued her work at the FDA. There, she played a key role in shaping and enforcing the 1962 amendments.[14] She also became responsible for directing the surveillance of drug testing at the FDA.[3]

Kelsey retired from the FDA in 2005, at age 90, after 45 years of service.[9] In 2010, the FDA named the Kelsey Award for her, to be awarded annually to an FDA employee for “Excellence and Courage in Protecting Public Health”.[18]

Later life and death[edit]

Informal colour photo of Kelsey in three-quarter profile
Kelsey (age 87) at the FDA reception commemorating her induction into the National Women’s Hall of Fame

Kelsey continued to work for the FDA while being recognised for her earlier work. She was still working at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in 1995 and was appointed deputy for scientific and medical affairs. In 1994, the Frances Kelsey Secondary School in Mill Bay, British Columbia, was named in her honour.[19]

In 2010, the FDA presented Kelsey with the first Drug Safety Excellence Award and named the annual award after her,[20] announcing that it would be given to one FDA staff member annually.[21] In announcing the awards, Center Director Steven K. Galson said: “I am very pleased to have established the Dr. Frances O. Kelsey Drug Safety Excellence Award and to recognize the first recipients for their outstanding accomplishments in this important aspect of drug regulation.”[22]

Kelsey turned 100 in July 2014,[23] and shortly thereafter, in the fall of 2014, she moved from Washington, D.C., to live with her daughter in London, Ontario.[24] In June 2015, when she was named to the Order of CanadaMercédes Benegbi, a thalidomide victim and the head of the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada, praised Kelsey for showing strength and courage by refusing to bend to pressure from drug company officials, and said “To us, she was always our heroine, even if what she did was in another country.”[24]

Kelsey died in London, Ontario, on August 7, 2015, at the age of 101,[25] less than 24 hours after Ontario’s Lieutenant-Governor, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, visited her home to present her with the insignia of Member of the Order of Canada for her role against thalidomide.[26]

Legacy and awards[edit]

2-colour recruitment flyer for the US Federal Civil Service; titled "Drug Detective", it shows a line-drawing of Kelsey next to a summary of her actions regarding thalidomide
The “Drug Detective”

See also[edit]

 

References[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b McFadden, Robert (August 7, 2015), “Frances Oldham Kelsey, F.D.A. Stickler Who Saved U.S. Babies From Thalidomide, Dies at 101”The New York Times.
  2. Jump up to:a b Peritz, Ingrid (November 24, 2014), “Canadian doctor averted disaster by keeping thalidomide out of the U.S.”The Globe and Mail, retrieved August 7, 2015.
  3. Jump up to:a b c d e “Frances Kelsey”Canada Heirloom Series, Heirloom Publishing Inc., 986, retrieved August 15, 2009.
  4. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Bren, Linda (March–April 2001), “Frances Oldham Kelsey: FDA Medical Reviewer Leaves Her Mark on History”FDA Consumer35 (2): 24–29, PMID 11444245, archived from the original on October 20, 2006, retrieved August 15, 2009.
  5. ^ “When Kelsey read Geiling’s letter offering her a research assistantship and scholarship in the PhD program at Chicago, she was delighted. But there was one slight problem — one that ‘tweaked her conscience a bit.’ The letter began ‘Dear Mr. Oldham,’ Oldham being her maiden name. Kelsey asked her professor at McGill if she should wire back and explain that Frances with an ‘e’ is female. ‘Don’t be ridiculous,’ he said. ‘Accept the job, sign your name, put ‘Miss’ in brackets afterwards, and go!'” Bren (2001).
  6. ^ Johnson, Steven (2021). Extra Life (1st ed.). Riverhead Books. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-525-53885-1.
  7. ^ Spiegel, Rachel, Research in the News: Thalidomide, archived from the original on August 22, 2007, retrieved August 15, 2009.
  8. Jump up to:a b c Simpson, Joanne Cavanaugh (September 2001), “Pregnant Pause”Johns Hopkins Magazine53 (4), retrieved April 30, 2006.
  9. Jump up to:a b c Rouhi, Maureen (June 20, 2005), “Top Pharmaceuticals: Thalidomide”Chemical & Engineering News83 (25), doi:10.1021/cen-v083n025.p122, retrieved April 30, 2006.
  10. Jump up to:a b Phillips, Stephen (March 9, 2020). “How a courageous physician-scientist saved the U.S. from a birth-defects catastrophe”UChicago Medicine. Retrieved May 6, 2020.
  11. Jump up to:a b c “The Story Of The Laws Behind The Labels”FDA Consumer, June 1981, archived from the original on August 16, 2009, retrieved August 15, 2009
  12. Jump up to:a b c “The Story Of The Laws Behind The Labels”FDA Consumer, June 1981, retrieved March 15, 2022.
  13. Jump up to:a b Mintz, Morton (July 15, 1962), “‘Heroine’ of FDA Keeps Bad Drug Off of Market”, The Washington Post, p. Front Page. See also Mintz’s comments from 2005 on Kelsey.
  14. Jump up to:a b Dr. Frances Kathleen Oldham Kelsey, National Library of Medicine, retrieved April 30, 2006.
  15. ^ Frances Oldham Kelsey, Chemical Heritage Foundation, archived from the original on July 12, 2016, retrieved March 23, 2014
  16. ^ Kennedy, John F. (1962), Remarks Upon Presenting the President’s Awards for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, retrieved May 1, 2006.
  17. Jump up to:a b Women of the Hall – Frances Kathleen Oldham Kelsey, Ph.D., M.D., National Women’s Hall of Fame, 2000, archived from the original on October 3, 2002, retrieved May 1, 2006.
  18. ^ Lyndsey Layton (September 13, 2010), “Physician to be honored for historic decision on thalidomide”The Washington Post.
  19. ^ FKSS History, Frances Kelsey Secondary School, archived from the original on October 19, 2012, retrieved December 26, 2014.
  20. ^ Harris, Gardiner (September 13, 2010), “The Public’s Quiet Savior From Harmful Medicines”The New York Times, retrieved January 4, 2011.
  21. ^ Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs – Remarks at the Award Ceremony for Dr. Frances Kelsey.
  22. ^ Barber, Jackie (November 10, 2005), “Center ceremony honors 107 individuals, 47 groups: Spring event inaugurates Frances Kelsey Drug Safety Award”News Along the Pike, archived from the original on June 15, 2007, retrieved August 15, 2009.
  23. ^ McElroy, Justin (July 24, 2014), Canadian scientist Frances Kelsey, who spurred FDA reforms, turns 100Global News, retrieved July 24, 2014.
  24. Jump up to:a b c Ingrid Peritz (July 1, 2015), “Doctor who opposed thalidomide in U.S. named to Order of Canada”The Globe and Mail, retrieved July 1, 2015.
  25. ^ Bernstein, Adam; Sullivan, Patricia (August 7, 2015), “Frances Oldham Kelsey, FDA scientist who kept thalidomide off U.S. market, dies at 101”The Washington Post, retrieved August 7, 2015.
  26. ^ Ingrid Peritz (August 7, 2015), “Canadian doctor who kept thalidomide out of U.S. dies”The Globe and Mail, retrieved August 7, 2015.
  27. ^ Gold Key Award Recipients, The University of Chicago The Medical & Biological Sciences Alumni Association, retrieved August 14, 2006.
  28. ^ Geraghty, Karen (July 2001), “Profile of a Role Model – Frances Oldham Kelsey, MD, PhD”Virtual Mentor – American Medical Association Journal of Ethics7 (7), archived from the original on September 29, 2007, retrieved August 15, 2009.
  29. ^ “Foremother and Health Policy Hero Awards Luncheon”. May 7, 2018.
  30. ^ “FDA honors one of its own”CNN blog. September 16, 2010. Archived from the original on September 30, 2017. Retrieved August 9, 2015.
  31. ^ “Honorary doctor of science degree from Vancouver Island University”Nanaimo News Bulletin, Black Press, Inc., June 6, 2012, archived from the original on June 6, 2014, retrieved June 27, 2012.

Further reading[edit]

Posted in Fifth Avenue Concierge Medicine, Health |

Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk

 

 

1991;27(2):131-5.

 doi: 10.1016/0277-5379(91)90469-t.

Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk

Affiliations 

Abstract

Bra cup size and handedness were studied as possible risk factors for breast cancer. Data for 3918 cases and 11,712 controls from 7 centres were used to examine the association of handedness with laterality of breast cancer; data for 2325 cases and 7008 controls from 4 centres were used to assess the relation of bra cup size to breast cancer risk. There was a suggestive (P about 0.10) association of handedness with breast cancer laterality: odds ratio of a left-handed (or ambidextrous) woman having a left-sided cancer 1.22 (95% CI 0.96-1.56). Handedness may affect the lateral occurrence of breast cancer, although this tumour is in general more common in the left breast, possibly because this breast is usually slightly larger. Premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users (P about 0.09), possibly because they are thinner and likely to have smaller breasts. Among bra users, larger cup size was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (P about 0.026), although the association was found only among postmenopausal women and was accounted for, in part, by obesity. These data suggest that bra cup size (and conceivably mammary gland size) may be a risk factor for breast cancer.

Posted in Fifth Avenue Concierge Medicine, Health |

Regular exercise and sleeping without bra were the protective factors

2009 Jul;29(7):1451-3.

[Risk factors of breast cancer in women in Guangdong and the countermeasures]

[Article in Chinese]
Affiliations 
  • PMID: 19620080

Abstract

Objective: To screen high-risk population of breast cancer by analyzing the risk factors of breast cancer in Guangdong Province.

Methods: A case-control study was performed to identify the risk factors of breast cancer between premenopausal women and postmenopausal women. Chi-square test and unconditional logistic regression were used to analyze the data.

Results: In premenopausal women, prophylactic, family history of breast cancer, bad mood, bad life incidence and work load were the risk factors, and breast hyperplasia history, breast tissue examination history, regular exercise and sleeping without bra were the protective factors. In postmenopausal women, family history of breast cancer was the risk factor, and breast hyperplasia history and mood adjustment were the protective factors.

Conclusion: The risk and protective factors of breast cancer differ between premenopausal and postmenopausal women, which highlights the importance of using different risk models to screen the high-risk populations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

 
Posted in Fifth Avenue Concierge Medicine, Health |

Lactation and a reduced risk of premenopausal breast cancer

 1994 Jan 13;330(2):81-7.

 doi: 10.1056/NEJM199401133300201.

Lactation and a reduced risk of premenopausal breast cancer

Affiliations 

Free article

Abstract

Background: The evidence of an association of lactation with a reduction in the risk of breast cancer among women has been limited and inconsistent. The effect of lactation appears to be confined to premenopausal women with a history of long lactation, but most studies of this relation have been limited in statistical power. We conducted a multicenter, population-based, case-control study with a sample large enough for us to describe more precisely the association between lactation and the risk of breast cancer.

Methods: Patients less than 75 years old who had breast cancer were identified from statewide tumor registries in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire. Controls were randomly selected from lists of licensed drivers if the case subjects were less than 65 years old, and from lists of Medicare beneficiaries if they were 65 through 74 years old. Information on lactation, reproductive history, and family and medical history was obtained by means of telephone interviews. After the exclusion of nulliparous women, 5878 case subjects and 8216 controls remained for analysis.

Results: After adjustment for parity, age at first delivery, and other risk factors for breast cancer, lactation was associated with a slight reduction in the risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women, as compared with the risk among women who were parous but had never lactated (relative risk, 0.78; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.91); the relative risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women who had lactated, as compared with those who had not, was 1.04 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.14). With an increasing cumulative duration of lactation, there was a decreasing risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women (P for trend < 0.001) but not among postmenopausal, parous women (P for trend = 0.51). A younger age at first lactation was significantly associated with a reduction in the risk of premenopausal breast cancer (P for trend = 0.003). As compared with parous women who did not lactate, the relative risk of breast cancer among women who first lactated at less than 20 years of age and breast-fed their infants for a total of six months was 0.54 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.82).

Conclusions: There is a reduction in the risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women who have lactated. No reduction in the risk of breast cancer occurred among postmenopausal women with a history of lactation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

Posted in Fifth Avenue Concierge Medicine, Health |

A tight necktie increases IOP in both normal subjects and glaucoma patients and could affect the diagnosis and management of glaucoma.

 2003 Aug; 87(8): 946–948.
PMCID: PMC1771792
PMID: 12881330

Effect of a tight necktie on intraocular pressure

C Teng,1 R Gurses-Ozden,2,5 J M Liebmann,3,4 C Tello,2,4,5 and R Ritch2,5
 

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the effect of a tight necktie on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement using Goldmann applanation tonometry.

Methods: 40 eyes of 20 normal subjects and 20 open angle glaucoma patients (all male) were enrolled. IOP was measured with an open shirt collar, 3 minutes after placing a tight necktie, and 3 minutes after loosening it. All measurements were made by the same examiner.

Results: Mean IOP in normal subjects increased by 2.6 (SD 3.9) mm Hg (p=0.008, paired t test; range −3 to +14 mm Hg) and in glaucoma patients by 1.0 (1.8) mm Hg (p=0.02, paired t test; range −2 to +4.5 mm Hg). In normal subjects, IOP in 12 eyes was increased by ⩾2 mm Hg and in seven eyes by ⩾4 mm Hg. In glaucoma patients, IOP in six eyes was increased by ⩾2 mm Hg and in two eyes by ⩾4 mm Hg.

Conclusion: A tight necktie increases IOP in both normal subjects and glaucoma patients and could affect the diagnosis and management of glaucoma.

Keywords: necktie, intraocular pressure

 

Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) remains the most important known risk factor for the development and progression of glaucomatous damage. Accurate measurement of IOP remains crucial in decisions regarding management. Many patients wear tight neckties throughout the day and continue wearing them during IOP measurements. We hypothesised that this may elevate IOP by increasing episcleral venous pressure. During routine examination, if a patient were to be wearing a tight necktie, the increased IOP could lead to an erroneous diagnosis of ocular hypertension or even glaucoma.

Moreover, if the patient consistently were to wear a tight necktie as a normal preference in daily life, this could lead to a sustained increase in IOP and could predispose to the development of glaucomatous optic neuropathy, thereby rendering a tight necktie a risk factor as well as a confounder of accurate IOP measurement. We evaluated the effect of tight neckties on IOP measurement by Goldmann applanation tonometry.

METHODS

Normal subjects and open angle glaucoma patients were enrolled in this prospective study. Informed consent was obtained from each subject using a consent form approved by the institutional review board for human research of the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary. All subjects were male, had best corrected visual acuity of 20/60 or better, and wore collared shirts. Subjects were excluded if they had current infection or inflammation in either eye, any abnormality preventing reliable applanation tonometry in either eye, strabismus, previous incisional glaucoma filtration surgery, or other non-glaucomatous disease affecting the visual field.

All normal subjects had IOP ⩽21 mm Hg by Goldmann applanation tonometry, normal optic disc appearance based upon clinical examination, and normal achromatic automated perimetry. Normal optic disc appearance was defined as vertical cup to disc asymmetry ⩽0.2, cup/disc ratio ⩽0.6, and an intact neuroretinal rim without peripapillary haemorrhages, notches, localised pallor, or nerve fibre layer defect. Achromatic automated perimetry indices showed a mean defect (MD) and corrected pattern standard deviation (CPSD) within 95% confidence limits and a glaucoma hemifield test result within normal limits. Glaucoma patients had glaucomatous optic nerve damage and associated repeatable achromatic visual field loss in the corresponding hemifield location. Glaucomatous optic neuropathy was defined as cup/disc asymmetry between the eyes of >0.2, rim thinning, notching, excavation, or nerve fibre layer defect.

Subjects were seated comfortably in an examination chair at all times. One drop of Fluorocaine (Medical Ophthalmics, Inc, Tarpon Springs, FL, USA; fluorescein sodium 0.25%, and oxybuprocaine (proparacaine) 0.5%) was instilled in each eye before tonometry. IOP was measured in primary gaze by the same masked examiner for each patient and recorded by an independent reader. Two consecutive IOP readings in each eye were taken with an open shirt collar. The necktie was tightened around the buttoned collar to the point of slight discomfort and IOP remeasured after 3 minutes. The tie and collar were then loosened and IOP remeasured 3 minutes later. If the subject had a tight collar when entering the office, he was told to loosen the collar for at least 5 minutes before commencement of the study. To prevent the examiner from knowing the pressure measurements, the tonometer was reset to 5 mm Hg after each IOP measurement.

Statistical analyses were performed using JMP software (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC, USA). The IOP measurements were subjected to paired t tests. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Twenty eyes of 20 normal subjects and 20 eyes of 20 open angle glaucoma patients were enrolled. Normal subjects were younger than the glaucoma patients (mean age 35.1 (SD 9.6) (range 21–57 years) v 62.2 (11.4) years (range 42–75 years), p<0.0001). Table 11 shows IOP before, during, and after necktie tightening. Mean IOP in normal subjects increased by 2.6 (3.9) mm Hg (p=0.008, paired t test) and in glaucoma patients by 1.0 (1.8) mm Hg (p=0.02) following tightening. After loosening the tie, mean IOP in normal subjects decreased by 3.3 (2.7) (p<0.0001) and in glaucoma patients by 1.3 (2.1) (p=0.02). There was no difference in IOP before necktie tightening and after loosening in both normal subjects and glaucoma patients (mean change +0.7 (2.1) mm Hg (p=0.16); and +0.25 (1.4) mm Hg (p=0.44), respectively). The increase in IOP after tightening was not related to age (r2=0.08, p=0.23 for normal subjects; r2=0.007, p=0.73 for glaucoma patients). There was no difference in IOP elevation between glaucoma patients and normal subjects during necktie tightening (p=0.38, t test), nor in IOP decrease after necktie loosening (p=0.26). In normal subjects, IOP of 12 eyes increased by ⩾2 mm Hg and in seven eyes by ⩾4 mm Hg. In glaucoma patients, IOP of six eyes increased by ⩾2 mm Hg and in two eyes by ⩾4 mm Hg. IOP changes by group, before, during and after necktie tightening, are shown in Table 22.

Table 1

Goldmann applanation tonometry mean IOP (SD) (range) measurements before, during necktie tightening, and after loosening the necktie

  Normal (n=20) Glaucoma (n=20)
Mean IOP before tightening (mm Hg) (range) 15.3 (2.6) (10 to 20) 16.9 (3.8) (12.5 to 25)
Mean IOP during tightening (mm Hg) (range) 17.9 (3.9) (12 to 26) 17.9 (4.9) (12 to 29)
Mean IOP after loosening (mm Hg) (range) 14.6 (2.1) (9.5 to 18) 16.6 (4.2) (11 to 27.5)
Mean IOP difference (before and during tightening) (mm Hg) (range) 2.6 (3.9) (−3 to +14) 1.0 (1.8) (−2 to +4.5)
p Value (paired t test) 0.008 0.02
Mean IOP difference (during tightening and after loosening) (mm Hg) (range) 3.3 (2.7) (−10 to +0.50) 1.3 (2.1) (−8.5 to +1)
p Value (paired t test) <0.0001 0.02
Mean IOP difference (before tightening and after loosening) (mm Hg) (range) 0.7 (2.1) (−4 to +4) 0.25 (1.4) (−4 to +2.5)
p Value (paired t test) 0.16 0.44

Table 2

IOP changes before, during necktie tightening, and after loosening the necktie

  Decreased Increased No change
Normal (n=20)
    Before tightening to during tightening (mean IOP change, mm Hg) 4 (20%) (1.6) 14 (70%) (4.1) 2 (10%)
    During tightening to after loosening (mean IOP change, mm Hg) 18 (90%) (3.7) 1 (5%) (0.5) 1 (5%)
    Before tightening to after loosening (mean IOP change, mm Hg) 11 (55%) (2.3) 7 (35%) (1.6) 2 (10)
Glaucoma (n=20)
    Before tightening to during tightening (mean IOP change, mm Hg) 6 (30%) (0.9) 12 (60%) (2.1) 2 (10%)
    During tightening to after loosening (mean IOP change, mm Hg) 12 (60%) (2.3) 4 (20%) (0.8) 4 (20%)
    Before tightening to after loosening (mean IOP change, mm Hg) 10 (50%) (1.3) 7 (35) (1.1) 3 (15%)

DISCUSSION

Accurate measurement of IOP is important for the detection and management of glaucoma. Numerous situations and factors that can lead to erroneous and inaccurate IOP readings include instrumental, anatomical, physiological, examiner induced and patient induced sources of error.

In an earlier study, inflation of a sphygmomanometer cuff around the neck to 40 mm Hg conferred a doubling of IOP. This demonstrated that an extremely tight constriction around the neck would cause an increase in IOP. In using a necktie instead of a blood pressure cuff, and having our patients subjectively determine their point of discomfort, we approximated a real life situation and demonstrated a common and often overlooked risk factor for increased IOP and a confounder for accurate IOP measurement. A tight necktie can be considered a risk factor in men who prefer to wear tight neckties, men with thick necks, and white collar professionals. In our study, although the mean IOP was not greatly increased after tightening the necktie, 70% of normal patients and 60% of glaucoma patients experienced an increase in IOP and there were clinically significant individual results both in normal subjects and glaucoma patients.

In addition, the tight necktie is a confounder of accurate IOP measurement. If the patient has a tight necktie while getting his IOP checked, this can lead to an inadvertent diagnosis of ocular hypertension or misinterpretation of a risk for disease progression by an inexperienced clinician. The pressure increase is indeed real, but would not have been present had the patient not had the constriction around his neck.

We hypothesise that the mechanism for the increased IOP is that the tight necktie constricts the jugular vein, thereby causing elevated venous pressure and thus elevated episcleral venous pressure, in turn elevating IOP. In this study, the 3 minute time intervals were chosen as an estimation of the time it takes to physiologically respond to the tightening and loosening. Therefore, whether or not autoregulation would have brought the pressure down if we had left the necktie on for a little longer or whether the data would differ if the time intervals were different remains to be determined. Moreover, a follow up study using Perkins applanation tonometer and Tonopen when the patients were resting comfortably would answer the question of whether the act of leaning forward with a tight necktie for Goldmann applanation tonometer further raises IOP.

There was no difference in IOP elevation between glaucoma patients and normal subjects during necktie tightening in this study. Whether the fact that the glaucoma patients were on various IOP lowering medications might have affected the results can be the subject of further investigation. Not all subjects experienced an increase in pressure after tightening, and some even had a decrease. This unexpected result might be attributable to anatomical variation and possibly a baroreceptor reflex. Normal deviation from the mean must also be taken into account.

In summary, a tight necktie may cause an increase in IOP in susceptible individuals and should be included among the confounders of accurate IOP measurement and considered as a risk factor for increased IOP.

 

Video reports

To view the video reports in full visit our website www.bjophthalmol.com and click on the link to video reports.

  • Retinal ganglion cell axon response to guidance molecules S F Oster, D W Sretavan
  • Marin-Amat syndrome A Jogiya, C Sandy
  • Excision of subcutaneous Dirofilariasis of the eyelid D Mallick, T P Ittyerah
  • Thixotropy: a novel explanation for the cause of lagophthalmos after peripheral facial nerve palsy. M Aramideh, J H T M Koelman, P P Devriese, F VanderWerf, J D Speelman
  • Surgical revision of leaking filtering blebs with an autologous conjunctival graft. K Taherian, A Azuara-Blanco
  • Dipetalonema reconditum in the human eye. T Huynh, J Thean, R Maini
  • Evaluation of leucocyte dynamics in mouse retinal circulation with scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. H Xu, A Manivannan, G Daniels, J Liversidge, P F Sharp, J V Forrester, I J Crane
  • An intraocular steroid delivery system for cataract surgery. D F Chang
  • Pearls for implanting the Staar toric IOL. D F Chang
  • Capsule staining and mature cataracts: a comparison of indocyanine green and trypan blue dyes. D F Chang

 

 

Acknowledgments

Supported in part by the Ira and Shirl Oppenheimer Research Fund of the New York Glaucoma Research Institute, New York, NY, and New York Eye and Ear Infirmary Department of Ophthalmology Research Fund, New York, NY, USA.

Presented in part at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, May 2002.

The authors have no financial interest in any device or technique described in this paper.

REFERENCES

1. Wilson MR, Martone JF. Epidemiology of chronic open-angle glaucoma. In: Ritch R, Shields MB, Krupin T, eds. The glaucomas. Vol 2. 2nd ed. St Louis: CV Mosby, 1996:351–67.
2. Whitacre MM, Stein R. Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 1993;38:1–30. [PubMed[]
3. Schottenstein EM. Intraocular pressure and tonometry. In: Ritch R, Shields MB, Krupin T, eds. The glaucomas. Vol 2. 2nd ed. St Louis: CV Mosby, 1996:407–28.
4. Mark HH. Corneal curvature in applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 1973;76:223–4. [PubMed[]
5. Doughty MJ. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review. Surv Ophthalmol 2000;44:367–408. [PubMed[]
6. Rafuse PE, Mills DW, Hooper PL, et al. Effects of Valsalva’s manoeuvre on intraocular pressure. Can J Ophthalmol 1994;29:73–6. [PubMed[]
7. Gandhi P, Gurses-Ozden R, Liebmann J, et al. Attempted eyelid closure affects intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol 2001;131:417–20. [PubMed[]
8. Jamal KN, Gurses-Ozden R, Liebmann JM, et al. Attempted eyelid closure affects intraocular pressure measurement in open-angle glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;134:186–9. [PubMed[]
9. Purcell JJ, Tillery W. Hair glaucoma (corresp). Arch Ophthalmol 1973;89:530. [PubMed[]
10. Ritch R, Reyes A. Moustache glaucoma (corresp). Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:1505. [PubMed[]
11. Bain WES, Maurice DM. Physiological variations in the intraocular pressure. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1959;79:249–60. [PubMed[]
12. Bigger JF. Glaucoma with elevated episcleral venous pressure. South Med J 1975;68:1444–8. [PubMed[]
Posted in Fifth Avenue Concierge Medicine, Health, News | Tagged |