Original Research

To the Editor:

With health care constituting one of the larger segments of the US economy, medical practice is increasingly subject to business considerations.¹ Patients, providers, and organizations are all required to make decisions that reflect choices beyond clinical needs alone. Given the impact of market forces, clinicians often are asked to navigate operational and business decisions. Accordingly, education about the policy and systems that shape care delivery can improve quality and help patients.²

The ability to understand the ecosystem of health care is of utmost importance for medical providers and can be achieved through resident education. Teaching fundamental business concepts enables residents to deliver care that is responsive to the constraints and opportunities encountered by patients and organizations, which ultimately will better prepare them to serve as advocates in alignment with their principal duties as physicians.

Despite the recognizable relationship between business and medicine, training has not yet been standardized to include topics in business education, and clinicians in dermatology are remarkably positioned to benefit because of the variety of practice settings and services they can provide. In dermatology, the diversity of services provided gives rise to complex coding and use of modifiers. Proper utilization of coding and billing is critical to create accurate documentation and receive appropriate reimbursement.³ Furthermore, clinicians in dermatology have to contend with the influence of insurance at many points of care, such as with coverage of pharmaceuticals. Formularies often have wide variability in coverage and are changing as new drugs come to market in the dermatologic space.⁴

The landscape of practice structure also has undergone change with increasing consolidation and mergers. The acquisition of practices by private equity firms has induced changes in practice infrastructure. The impact of changing organizational and managerial influences continues to be a topic of debate, with disparate opinions on how these developments shape standards of physician satisfaction and patient care.⁵

The convergence of these factors points to an important question that is gaining popularity: How will young dermatologists work within the context of all these parameters to best advocate and care for their patients? These questions are garnering more attention and were recently investigated through a survey of participants in a pilot program to evaluate the importance of business education in dermatology residency.

A survey of residency program directors was created by Patrinley and Dewan,⁶ which found that business education during residency was important and additional training should be implemented. Despite the perceived importance of business education, only half of the programs represented by survey respondents offered any structured educational opportunities, revealing a discrepancy between believed importance and practical implementation of business training, which suggests the need to develop a standardized, dermatology-specific curriculum that could be accessed by all residents in training.⁶

We performed a search of the medical literature to identify models of business education in residency programs. Only a few programs were identified, in which courses were predominantly instructed to trainees in primary care–based fields. According to course graduates, the programs were beneficial.^7,8 Programs that had descriptive information about curriculum structure and content were chosen for further investigation and included internal medicine programs at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons (New York, New York). UCSF implemented a Program in Residency Investigation Methods and Epidemiology (PRIME program) to deliver seven 90-minute sessions dedicated to introducing residents to medical economics. Sessions were constructed with the intent of being interactive seminars that took on a variety of forms, including reading-based discussions, case-based analysis, and simulation-based learning.⁷ Columbia University developed a pilot program of week-long didactic sessions that were delivered to third-year internal medicine residents. These seminars featured discussions on health policy and economics, health insurance, technology and cost assessment, legal medicine, public health, community-oriented primary care, and local health department initiatives.⁸ We drew on both courses to build a lecture series focused on the business of dermatology that was delivered to dermatology residents at UMass Chan Medical School (Worcester, Massachusetts). Topic selection also was informed by qualitative input collected via email from recent graduates of the UMass dermatology residency program, focusing on the following areas: the US medical economy and health care costs; billing, coding, and claims processing; quality, relative value units (RVUs), reimbursement, and the merit-based incentive payment system; coverage of pharmaceuticals and teledermatology; and management. Residents were not required to prepare for any of the sessions; they were provided with handouts and slideshow presentations for reference to review at their convenience if desired. Five seminars were virtually conducted by an MD/MBA candidate at the institution (E.H.). They were recorded over the course of an academic year at 1- to 2-month intervals. Each 45-minute session was conducted in a lecture-discussion format and included case examples to help illustrate key principles and stimulate conversation. For example, the lecture on reimbursement incorporated a fee schedule calculation for a shave biopsy, using RVU and geographic pricing cost index (GCPI) multipliers. This demonstrated the variation in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement in relation to (1) constituents of the RVU calculation (ie, work, practice expense, and malpractice) and (2) practice in a particular location (ie, the GCPI). Following this example, a conversation ensued among participants regarding the factors that drive valuation, with particular interest in variation based on urban vs suburban locations across the United States. Participants also found it of interest to examine the percentage of the valuation dedicated to each constituent and how features such as lesion size informed the final assessment of the charge. Another stylistic choice in developing the model was to include prompts for further consideration prior to transitioning topics in the lectures. For example: when examining the burden of skin disease, the audience was prompted to consider: “What is driving cost escalations, and how will services of the clinical domain meet these evolving needs?” At another point in the introductory lecture, residents were asked: “How do different types of insurance plans impact the management of patients with dermatologic concerns?” These questions were intended to transition residents to the next topic of discussion and highlight take-home points of consideration for medical practice. The project was reviewed by the UMass institutional review board and met criteria for exemption.

Residents who participated in at least 1 lecture (N=10) were surveyed after attendance; there were 7 responses (70% response rate). Residents were asked to rate a series of statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and to provide commentary via an online form. Respondents indicated that the course was enjoyable (average score, 4.00), provided an appropriate level of detail (average score, 4.00), would be beneficial to integrate into a dermatology residency curriculum (average score, 3.86), and informed how they would practice as a clinician (average score, 3.86)(Figure). The respondents agreed that the course met the main goals of this initiative: it helped them develop knowledge about the interface between business and dermatology (4.14) and exposed residents to topics they had not learned about previously (4.71).

Although the course generally was well received, areas for improvement were identified from respondents’ comments, relating to audience engagement and refining the level of detail in the lectures. Recommendations included “less technical jargon and more focus on ‘big picture’ concepts, given audience’s low baseline knowledge”; “more case examples in each module”; and “more diagrams or interactive activities (polls, quizzes, break-out rooms) because the lectures were a bit dense.” This input was taken into consideration when revising the lectures for future use; they were reconstructed to have more case-based examples and prompts to encourage participation.

Resident commentary also demonstrated appreciation for education in this subject material. Statements such as “this is an important topic for future dermatologists” and “thank you so much for taking the time to implement this course” reflected the perceived value of this material during critical academic time. Another resident remarked: “This was great, thanks for putting it together.”

Given the positive experience of the residents and successful implementation of the series, this course was made available to all dermatology trainees on a network server with accompanying written documents. It is planned to be offered on a 3-year cycle in the future and will be updated to reflect inevitable changes in health care.

Although the relationship between business and medicine is increasingly important, teaching business principles has not become standardized or required in medical training. Despite the perception that this content is of value, implementation of programming has lagged behind that recognition, likely due to challenges in designing the curriculum and diffusing content into an already-saturated schedule. A model course that can be replicated in other residency programs would be valuable. We introduced a dermatology-specific lecture series to help prepare trainees for dermatology practice in a variety of clinical settings and train them with the language of business and operations that will equip them to respond to the needs of their patients, their practice, and the medical environment. Findings of this pilot study may not be generalizable to all dermatology residency programs because the sample size was small; the study was conducted at a single institution; and the content was delivered entirely online.

To the Editor:

With health care constituting one of the larger segments of the US economy, medical practice is increasingly subject to business considerations.¹ Patients, providers, and organizations are all required to make decisions that reflect choices beyond clinical needs alone. Given the impact of market forces, clinicians often are asked to navigate operational and business decisions. Accordingly, education about the policy and systems that shape care delivery can improve quality and help patients.²

The ability to understand the ecosystem of health care is of utmost importance for medical providers and can be achieved through resident education. Teaching fundamental business concepts enables residents to deliver care that is responsive to the constraints and opportunities encountered by patients and organizations, which ultimately will better prepare them to serve as advocates in alignment with their principal duties as physicians.

Despite the recognizable relationship between business and medicine, training has not yet been standardized to include topics in business education, and clinicians in dermatology are remarkably positioned to benefit because of the variety of practice settings and services they can provide. In dermatology, the diversity of services provided gives rise to complex coding and use of modifiers. Proper utilization of coding and billing is critical to create accurate documentation and receive appropriate reimbursement.³ Furthermore, clinicians in dermatology have to contend with the influence of insurance at many points of care, such as with coverage of pharmaceuticals. Formularies often have wide variability in coverage and are changing as new drugs come to market in the dermatologic space.⁴

The landscape of practice structure also has undergone change with increasing consolidation and mergers. The acquisition of practices by private equity firms has induced changes in practice infrastructure. The impact of changing organizational and managerial influences continues to be a topic of debate, with disparate opinions on how these developments shape standards of physician satisfaction and patient care.⁵

The convergence of these factors points to an important question that is gaining popularity: How will young dermatologists work within the context of all these parameters to best advocate and care for their patients? These questions are garnering more attention and were recently investigated through a survey of participants in a pilot program to evaluate the importance of business education in dermatology residency.

A survey of residency program directors was created by Patrinley and Dewan,⁶ which found that business education during residency was important and additional training should be implemented. Despite the perceived importance of business education, only half of the programs represented by survey respondents offered any structured educational opportunities, revealing a discrepancy between believed importance and practical implementation of business training, which suggests the need to develop a standardized, dermatology-specific curriculum that could be accessed by all residents in training.⁶

We performed a search of the medical literature to identify models of business education in residency programs. Only a few programs were identified, in which courses were predominantly instructed to trainees in primary care–based fields. According to course graduates, the programs were beneficial.^7,8 Programs that had descriptive information about curriculum structure and content were chosen for further investigation and included internal medicine programs at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons (New York, New York). UCSF implemented a Program in Residency Investigation Methods and Epidemiology (PRIME program) to deliver seven 90-minute sessions dedicated to introducing residents to medical economics. Sessions were constructed with the intent of being interactive seminars that took on a variety of forms, including reading-based discussions, case-based analysis, and simulation-based learning.⁷ Columbia University developed a pilot program of week-long didactic sessions that were delivered to third-year internal medicine residents. These seminars featured discussions on health policy and economics, health insurance, technology and cost assessment, legal medicine, public health, community-oriented primary care, and local health department initiatives.⁸ We drew on both courses to build a lecture series focused on the business of dermatology that was delivered to dermatology residents at UMass Chan Medical School (Worcester, Massachusetts). Topic selection also was informed by qualitative input collected via email from recent graduates of the UMass dermatology residency program, focusing on the following areas: the US medical economy and health care costs; billing, coding, and claims processing; quality, relative value units (RVUs), reimbursement, and the merit-based incentive payment system; coverage of pharmaceuticals and teledermatology; and management. Residents were not required to prepare for any of the sessions; they were provided with handouts and slideshow presentations for reference to review at their convenience if desired. Five seminars were virtually conducted by an MD/MBA candidate at the institution (E.H.). They were recorded over the course of an academic year at 1- to 2-month intervals. Each 45-minute session was conducted in a lecture-discussion format and included case examples to help illustrate key principles and stimulate conversation. For example, the lecture on reimbursement incorporated a fee schedule calculation for a shave biopsy, using RVU and geographic pricing cost index (GCPI) multipliers. This demonstrated the variation in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement in relation to (1) constituents of the RVU calculation (ie, work, practice expense, and malpractice) and (2) practice in a particular location (ie, the GCPI). Following this example, a conversation ensued among participants regarding the factors that drive valuation, with particular interest in variation based on urban vs suburban locations across the United States. Participants also found it of interest to examine the percentage of the valuation dedicated to each constituent and how features such as lesion size informed the final assessment of the charge. Another stylistic choice in developing the model was to include prompts for further consideration prior to transitioning topics in the lectures. For example: when examining the burden of skin disease, the audience was prompted to consider: “What is driving cost escalations, and how will services of the clinical domain meet these evolving needs?” At another point in the introductory lecture, residents were asked: “How do different types of insurance plans impact the management of patients with dermatologic concerns?” These questions were intended to transition residents to the next topic of discussion and highlight take-home points of consideration for medical practice. The project was reviewed by the UMass institutional review board and met criteria for exemption.

Residents who participated in at least 1 lecture (N=10) were surveyed after attendance; there were 7 responses (70% response rate). Residents were asked to rate a series of statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and to provide commentary via an online form. Respondents indicated that the course was enjoyable (average score, 4.00), provided an appropriate level of detail (average score, 4.00), would be beneficial to integrate into a dermatology residency curriculum (average score, 3.86), and informed how they would practice as a clinician (average score, 3.86)(Figure). The respondents agreed that the course met the main goals of this initiative: it helped them develop knowledge about the interface between business and dermatology (4.14) and exposed residents to topics they had not learned about previously (4.71).

Although the course generally was well received, areas for improvement were identified from respondents’ comments, relating to audience engagement and refining the level of detail in the lectures. Recommendations included “less technical jargon and more focus on ‘big picture’ concepts, given audience’s low baseline knowledge”; “more case examples in each module”; and “more diagrams or interactive activities (polls, quizzes, break-out rooms) because the lectures were a bit dense.” This input was taken into consideration when revising the lectures for future use; they were reconstructed to have more case-based examples and prompts to encourage participation.

Resident commentary also demonstrated appreciation for education in this subject material. Statements such as “this is an important topic for future dermatologists” and “thank you so much for taking the time to implement this course” reflected the perceived value of this material during critical academic time. Another resident remarked: “This was great, thanks for putting it together.”

Given the positive experience of the residents and successful implementation of the series, this course was made available to all dermatology trainees on a network server with accompanying written documents. It is planned to be offered on a 3-year cycle in the future and will be updated to reflect inevitable changes in health care.

Although the relationship between business and medicine is increasingly important, teaching business principles has not become standardized or required in medical training. Despite the perception that this content is of value, implementation of programming has lagged behind that recognition, likely due to challenges in designing the curriculum and diffusing content into an already-saturated schedule. A model course that can be replicated in other residency programs would be valuable. We introduced a dermatology-specific lecture series to help prepare trainees for dermatology practice in a variety of clinical settings and train them with the language of business and operations that will equip them to respond to the needs of their patients, their practice, and the medical environment. Findings of this pilot study may not be generalizable to all dermatology residency programs because the sample size was small; the study was conducted at a single institution; and the content was delivered entirely online.

To the Editor:

With health care constituting one of the larger segments of the US economy, medical practice is increasingly subject to business considerations.¹ Patients, providers, and organizations are all required to make decisions that reflect choices beyond clinical needs alone. Given the impact of market forces, clinicians often are asked to navigate operational and business decisions. Accordingly, education about the policy and systems that shape care delivery can improve quality and help patients.²

The ability to understand the ecosystem of health care is of utmost importance for medical providers and can be achieved through resident education. Teaching fundamental business concepts enables residents to deliver care that is responsive to the constraints and opportunities encountered by patients and organizations, which ultimately will better prepare them to serve as advocates in alignment with their principal duties as physicians.

Despite the recognizable relationship between business and medicine, training has not yet been standardized to include topics in business education, and clinicians in dermatology are remarkably positioned to benefit because of the variety of practice settings and services they can provide. In dermatology, the diversity of services provided gives rise to complex coding and use of modifiers. Proper utilization of coding and billing is critical to create accurate documentation and receive appropriate reimbursement.³ Furthermore, clinicians in dermatology have to contend with the influence of insurance at many points of care, such as with coverage of pharmaceuticals. Formularies often have wide variability in coverage and are changing as new drugs come to market in the dermatologic space.⁴

The landscape of practice structure also has undergone change with increasing consolidation and mergers. The acquisition of practices by private equity firms has induced changes in practice infrastructure. The impact of changing organizational and managerial influences continues to be a topic of debate, with disparate opinions on how these developments shape standards of physician satisfaction and patient care.⁵

The convergence of these factors points to an important question that is gaining popularity: How will young dermatologists work within the context of all these parameters to best advocate and care for their patients? These questions are garnering more attention and were recently investigated through a survey of participants in a pilot program to evaluate the importance of business education in dermatology residency.

A survey of residency program directors was created by Patrinley and Dewan,⁶ which found that business education during residency was important and additional training should be implemented. Despite the perceived importance of business education, only half of the programs represented by survey respondents offered any structured educational opportunities, revealing a discrepancy between believed importance and practical implementation of business training, which suggests the need to develop a standardized, dermatology-specific curriculum that could be accessed by all residents in training.⁶

We performed a search of the medical literature to identify models of business education in residency programs. Only a few programs were identified, in which courses were predominantly instructed to trainees in primary care–based fields. According to course graduates, the programs were beneficial.^7,8 Programs that had descriptive information about curriculum structure and content were chosen for further investigation and included internal medicine programs at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons (New York, New York). UCSF implemented a Program in Residency Investigation Methods and Epidemiology (PRIME program) to deliver seven 90-minute sessions dedicated to introducing residents to medical economics. Sessions were constructed with the intent of being interactive seminars that took on a variety of forms, including reading-based discussions, case-based analysis, and simulation-based learning.⁷ Columbia University developed a pilot program of week-long didactic sessions that were delivered to third-year internal medicine residents. These seminars featured discussions on health policy and economics, health insurance, technology and cost assessment, legal medicine, public health, community-oriented primary care, and local health department initiatives.⁸ We drew on both courses to build a lecture series focused on the business of dermatology that was delivered to dermatology residents at UMass Chan Medical School (Worcester, Massachusetts). Topic selection also was informed by qualitative input collected via email from recent graduates of the UMass dermatology residency program, focusing on the following areas: the US medical economy and health care costs; billing, coding, and claims processing; quality, relative value units (RVUs), reimbursement, and the merit-based incentive payment system; coverage of pharmaceuticals and teledermatology; and management. Residents were not required to prepare for any of the sessions; they were provided with handouts and slideshow presentations for reference to review at their convenience if desired. Five seminars were virtually conducted by an MD/MBA candidate at the institution (E.H.). They were recorded over the course of an academic year at 1- to 2-month intervals. Each 45-minute session was conducted in a lecture-discussion format and included case examples to help illustrate key principles and stimulate conversation. For example, the lecture on reimbursement incorporated a fee schedule calculation for a shave biopsy, using RVU and geographic pricing cost index (GCPI) multipliers. This demonstrated the variation in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement in relation to (1) constituents of the RVU calculation (ie, work, practice expense, and malpractice) and (2) practice in a particular location (ie, the GCPI). Following this example, a conversation ensued among participants regarding the factors that drive valuation, with particular interest in variation based on urban vs suburban locations across the United States. Participants also found it of interest to examine the percentage of the valuation dedicated to each constituent and how features such as lesion size informed the final assessment of the charge. Another stylistic choice in developing the model was to include prompts for further consideration prior to transitioning topics in the lectures. For example: when examining the burden of skin disease, the audience was prompted to consider: “What is driving cost escalations, and how will services of the clinical domain meet these evolving needs?” At another point in the introductory lecture, residents were asked: “How do different types of insurance plans impact the management of patients with dermatologic concerns?” These questions were intended to transition residents to the next topic of discussion and highlight take-home points of consideration for medical practice. The project was reviewed by the UMass institutional review board and met criteria for exemption.

Residents who participated in at least 1 lecture (N=10) were surveyed after attendance; there were 7 responses (70% response rate). Residents were asked to rate a series of statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and to provide commentary via an online form. Respondents indicated that the course was enjoyable (average score, 4.00), provided an appropriate level of detail (average score, 4.00), would be beneficial to integrate into a dermatology residency curriculum (average score, 3.86), and informed how they would practice as a clinician (average score, 3.86)(Figure). The respondents agreed that the course met the main goals of this initiative: it helped them develop knowledge about the interface between business and dermatology (4.14) and exposed residents to topics they had not learned about previously (4.71).

Although the course generally was well received, areas for improvement were identified from respondents’ comments, relating to audience engagement and refining the level of detail in the lectures. Recommendations included “less technical jargon and more focus on ‘big picture’ concepts, given audience’s low baseline knowledge”; “more case examples in each module”; and “more diagrams or interactive activities (polls, quizzes, break-out rooms) because the lectures were a bit dense.” This input was taken into consideration when revising the lectures for future use; they were reconstructed to have more case-based examples and prompts to encourage participation.

Resident commentary also demonstrated appreciation for education in this subject material. Statements such as “this is an important topic for future dermatologists” and “thank you so much for taking the time to implement this course” reflected the perceived value of this material during critical academic time. Another resident remarked: “This was great, thanks for putting it together.”

Given the positive experience of the residents and successful implementation of the series, this course was made available to all dermatology trainees on a network server with accompanying written documents. It is planned to be offered on a 3-year cycle in the future and will be updated to reflect inevitable changes in health care.

Although the relationship between business and medicine is increasingly important, teaching business principles has not become standardized or required in medical training. Despite the perception that this content is of value, implementation of programming has lagged behind that recognition, likely due to challenges in designing the curriculum and diffusing content into an already-saturated schedule. A model course that can be replicated in other residency programs would be valuable. We introduced a dermatology-specific lecture series to help prepare trainees for dermatology practice in a variety of clinical settings and train them with the language of business and operations that will equip them to respond to the needs of their patients, their practice, and the medical environment. Findings of this pilot study may not be generalizable to all dermatology residency programs because the sample size was small; the study was conducted at a single institution; and the content was delivered entirely online.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

To the Editor:

Citation number and Hirsch index (h-index) have long been employed as metrics of productivity for academic scholarship. The h-index is defined as the highest number of publications (the maximum h value) of an author who has published at least h papers, each cited by other authors at least h times.¹ In a bibliometric analysis of the most frequently cited authors in dermatology from 1974 to 2019 (N=378,276), females comprised 12% of first and 11% of senior authors of the most cited publications, and 6 of the most cited authors in dermatology were women.² In another study analyzing the most prolific dermatologic authors based on h-index, 0% from 1980 to 1989 and 19% from 2010 to 2019 were female (N=393,488).³ Because citation number and h-index favor longer-practicing dermatologists, we examined dermatology author productivity and gender trends by recent publication rates.

The Scopus database was searched for dermatology publications by using the field category “dermatology”from January 1, 2017, to October 7, 2022. Nondermatologists and authors with the same initials were excluded. Authors were ranked by number of publications, including original articles, case reports, letters, and reviews. Sex, degree, and years of experience were determined via a Google search of the author’s name. The h-index; number of citations; and percentages of first, middle, and last authorship were recorded.

Of the top 50 published dermatologists, 30% were female (n=15) and 56% (n=28) held both MD and PhD degrees (Table). The mean years of experience was 26.27 years (range, 6–44 years), with a mean of 29.23 years in females and 25.87 years in males. The mean h-index was 27.96 (range, 8–88), with 24.87 for females and 29.29 for males. The mean number of citations was 4032.64 (range, 235–36,908), with 2891.13 for females and 4521.86 for males. Thirty-one authors were most frequently middle authors, 18 were senior authors, and 1 was a first author. On average (SD), authors were senior or first author in 47.97% (20.08%) of their publications (range, 6.32%–94.93%).

Our study shows that females were more highly represented as top dermatology authors (30%) as measured by publication numbers from 2017 to 2022 than in studies measuring citation rate from 1974 to 2019 (12%)² or h-index from 2010 to 2019 (19%).³ Similarly, in a study of dermatology authorship from 2009 to 2019, on average, females represented 51.06% first and 38.18% last authors.⁴

The proportion of females in the dermatology workforce has increased, with 3964 of 10,385 (38.2%) active dermatologists in 2007⁵ being female vs 6372 of 12,505 (51.0%) in 2019.⁶ The lower proportion of practicing female dermatologists in earlier years likely accounts for the lower percentage of females in dermatology citations and h-index top lists during that time, given that citation and h-index metrics are biased to dermatologists with longer careers.

Although our data are encouraging, females still accounted for less than one-third of the top 50 authors by publication numbers. Gender inequalities persist, with only one-third of a total of 1292 National Institutes of Health dermatology grants and one-fourth of Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants being awarded to females in the years 2009 to 2014.⁷ Therefore, formal and informal mentorship, protected time for research, resources for childcare, and opportunities for funding will be critical in supporting female dermatologists to both publish highly impactful research and obtain research grants.

Limitations of our study include the omission of authors with identical initials and the inability to account for name changes. Furthermore, Scopus does not include all articles published by each author. Finally, publication number reflects quantity but may not reflect quality.

By quantitating dermatology author publication numbers, we found better representation of female authors compared with studies measuring citation number and h-index. With higher proportions of female dermatology trainees and efforts to increase mentorship and research support for female dermatologists, we expect improved equality in top lists of dermatology citations and h-index values.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory disease that is characterized by tender inflamed nodules of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, disproportionately affects postpubertal females as well as Black/African American individuals. The nodules can rupture, form sinus tracts, and scar. ¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polycystic ovary syndrome, depression, suicide, and substance use disorders. Because of the symptom burden and associated conditions, HS can be a painful and distressing disease that substantially impairs the quality of life for individuals with this condition. ²

Pain is a commonly reported symptom in HS that often goes untreated. Furthermore, HS-related pain is complex due to the involvement of different pain types that require various treatment modalities.³ According to Savage et al,⁴ recognizing whether HS-related pain is acute, chronic, neuropathic, or nociceptive is vital in establishing a framework for an effective pain management scheme. Currently, such established multimodal pain management strategies in dermatology do not exist. In 2021, dermatology-specific pain management strategies proposed the use of a multimodal regimen to address the multifaceted nature of HS-related pain.⁴ However, these strategies failed to recognize the systemic racial and ethnic biases in the US health care system that undermine pain management care for minority groups.^5,6 One approach to combatting racial disparities in pain management is determining average pain levels across racial groups.⁷ This study sought to compare HS-related pain scores by racial groups. Furthermore, we assessed differences in perception of patients’ respective pain management regimens by race. We hypothesized that the average HS-related pain intensities and pain management would differ between self-reported racial groups.

Methods  

This cross-sectional study took place over 5 months (August through December 2021). A survey was emailed to 2198 adult patients with HS in the University of Alabama Health System. The survey consisted of demographic and general questions about a patient’s HS. Pain scores were captured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), a measurement tool for pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10. ⁸ Age at diagnosis, gender, education level, household income, total body areas affected by HS, disease severity (categorized as mild, moderate, and severe), comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco use, and HS and HS-related pain medication regimens also were collected. Additionally, participants were asked about their level of agreement with the following statements: “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors” and “My pain related to HS is under control.” The level of agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All data included in the analysis were self-reported. The study received institutional review board approval for the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were used to assess statistical differences in patient characteristics of Black/African American participants compared to other participants, including White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants. Thirteen participants were excluded from the final analysis: 2 participants were missing data, and 11 biracial participants were excluded due to overlapping White and Black/African American races that may have confounded the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and χ² and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, were used to test for statistically significant differences. Continuous variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, and a t test was used for statistically significant differences.

Logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race and pain after adjusting for confounding variables such as obesity, current tobacco use, self-reported HS severity, and the presence of comorbidities. A total of 204 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 70 (34.3%) had a pain score of 8 or higher, which indicates very severe pain intensity levels on the NRS,⁸ and were selected as a cut point based on the distribution of responses. For this cross-sectional cohort, our approach was to compare characteristics of those classified with a top score of 8 or higher (n=70) vs a top score of 0 to 7 (n=134)(cases vs noncases). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC) at an α=.05 significance level; logistic regression was performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM). For the logistic regression, we grouped patient race into 2 categories: Black/African American and Other, which included White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants.

Crude and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Covariate inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression was based on a priori hypothesis/knowledge and was meant to estimate the independent effect of race after adjustment for income, HS severity, and history of prescription pain medication use. Other variables, including tobacco use, obesity, mood disorders, and current HS treatments, were all individually tested in the multivariate analysis and did not significantly impact the odds ratio for high pain. Statistical adjustment slightly decreased (19%) the magnitude between crude and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for the association between Black/African American race and high pain score.

Results  

Survey Demographics —The final analysis included 204 survey respondents. Most respondents were Black/African American (58.82%), and nearly all were female (89.71%)(Table 1). The mean age (SD) of respondents was 37.37 (11.29) years (range, 19-70 years). Many respondents reported having completed some college (36.27%) or receiving a bachelor’s degree (19.12%). Of patients who were not Black/African American, 10.71% had higher than a master’s degree, whereas no Black/African American patients held a degree higher than a master’s ( P = .0052). Additionally, more Black/African American respondents (35.83%) reported an annual household income level of less than $25,000 compared with respondents who were not Black/African American (19.05%, P = .0001). Most respondents rated the severity of their HS as moderate or severe (46.57% and 41.67%, respectively), and there was no significant difference in reported severity of HS between racial groups ( P = .5395).

Pain Scores—As documented in the Methods, respondents were asked to rate their HS-related pain intensity from 0 to 10 using the NRS. The average pain score (SD)—the level of pain intensity over the prior month—was 6.39 (2.56)(range, 0–10). The mean pain score (SD) at the time of the survey was 3.61 (2.98)(range, 0–10)(Table 1). These data revealed that Black/African American patients had a significantly higher average pain score (SD) than patients with HS who were not Black/African American (7.08 [2.49] and 5.40 [2.35], respectively; P<.0001). After adjustment with multivariable logistical regression, Black/African American patients had 4-fold increased odds for very severe levels of pain (score of ≥8) compared with patients who were not Black/African American.

Pain Management—Although pain scores were higher for Black/African American patients with HS, there was no significant difference in the perception of pain control between racial groups (P=.0761). Additionally, we found low income (adjusted prevalence odds ratio [POR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.91), a history of prescription pain medication use (adjusted POR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.51), and HS severity (adjusted POR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.11-17.36) all to be independent risk factors contributing to higher pain scores in patients with HS (Table 2). Lastly, we noted current or reported history of pain medication use was significantly correlated with higher pain scores (P=.0280 and P=.0213, respectively).

Satisfaction With Pain Management—The level of satisfaction with physician management of HS-related pain was significantly different between Black/African American patients and those who were not Black/African American (P=.0129). Of those who identified as Black/African American, 26.7% (n=32) strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors,” whereas only 15.5% (n=13) of patients who were not Black/African American strongly disagreed. 

Comment

There is no cure for HS, and a large focus of treatment is pain management. Because racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain will affect those with HS, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pain and pain management among HS patients. We found that Black/African American patients with HS have higher average pain scores than those who are not Black/African American and were 4 times more likely to experience very severe pain. Prior studies have established that patients with HS often report higher pain levels than patients with other chronic inflammatory skin conditions, ^7,8 and our study identified racial disparities in HS-related pain management.

Measuring pain is challenging because of its multidimensional and subjective nature, making it essential to consider underlying causes and patients’ emotional responses to pain.⁹ By adjusting for confounding factors that may influence pain, such as mood disorders, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication use, we were able to gain better insight into fundamental differences in average pain intensity levels among racial groups and assess what factors may be contributing to a patient’s pain perception. Our study determined that lower income levels, higher HS disease severity, and a history of prescription pain medication use were all independent risk factors for high pain. Of note, obesity, tobacco use, and mood disorders such as anxiety and depression did not significantly differ between racial groups or increase the odds of high pain between racial groups identified.

With low income being an independent risk factor for high pain, we must consider the social determinants of health and how they may influence the pain experience in HS. We speculate that low income may be associated with other social determinants of health for the patients assessed in this study, such as lack of social and community support or limited health care access that contribute to worse health outcomes.^10,11 In addition, low income contributes to limited access to medical care or treatments¹²; without access to effective HS management, lower-income patients may be at risk for higher disease severity and thus higher pain levels. However, economic stability is only a part of the whole picture; therefore, assessing the other social determinants of health in patients with HS may lead to better health outcomes and quality of life.

Another identified risk factor for high pain was a reported history of prescription pain medication use. This finding suggests that patients with moderate to severe pain likely have required stronger analgesic medications in the past. We further speculate that high pain levels in patients who have received prescription pain medications indicate either undertreatment, mistreatment, or recalcitrant pain. More research is needed to assess the relationship between HS-related pain intensity, analgesic medications, and providers who manage HS-related pain.

We also found that Black/African American patients with HS had a significantly higher dissatisfaction with their physician’s management of their pain, which could be attributable to several factors, including biological differences in medication metabolism (in which the patient has medication-resistant HS), undertreatment of pain, and/or poor doctor-patient relations. These reasons coincide with other diseases where health disparities are found.^13-15 Recognizing these factors will be key to dismantling the disparities in HS that are noted within this study. The limitations of this work include the cross-sectional study design and its inability to evaluate causal factors of high pain levels across racial groups, the NRS lack of insight on pain chronicity or pain experience,⁷ the lack of provider or institution perspectives, and self-reported data. Additionally, only patients with email access were included, which may have excluded vulnerable populations with more pain associated with their HS.

Our findings highlight an area for further investigation to assess why these racial differences exist in HS-related pain. The results also emphasize the need for research evaluating whether systemic or health care provider biases contribute to racial differences in HS-related pain management.

Acknowledgment — Dr. Weir was supported by the Predoctoral Clinical/Translational Research Program (TL1), a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), through the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS).  

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory disease that is characterized by tender inflamed nodules of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, disproportionately affects postpubertal females as well as Black/African American individuals. The nodules can rupture, form sinus tracts, and scar. ¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polycystic ovary syndrome, depression, suicide, and substance use disorders. Because of the symptom burden and associated conditions, HS can be a painful and distressing disease that substantially impairs the quality of life for individuals with this condition. ²

Pain is a commonly reported symptom in HS that often goes untreated. Furthermore, HS-related pain is complex due to the involvement of different pain types that require various treatment modalities.³ According to Savage et al,⁴ recognizing whether HS-related pain is acute, chronic, neuropathic, or nociceptive is vital in establishing a framework for an effective pain management scheme. Currently, such established multimodal pain management strategies in dermatology do not exist. In 2021, dermatology-specific pain management strategies proposed the use of a multimodal regimen to address the multifaceted nature of HS-related pain.⁴ However, these strategies failed to recognize the systemic racial and ethnic biases in the US health care system that undermine pain management care for minority groups.^5,6 One approach to combatting racial disparities in pain management is determining average pain levels across racial groups.⁷ This study sought to compare HS-related pain scores by racial groups. Furthermore, we assessed differences in perception of patients’ respective pain management regimens by race. We hypothesized that the average HS-related pain intensities and pain management would differ between self-reported racial groups.

Methods  

This cross-sectional study took place over 5 months (August through December 2021). A survey was emailed to 2198 adult patients with HS in the University of Alabama Health System. The survey consisted of demographic and general questions about a patient’s HS. Pain scores were captured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), a measurement tool for pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10. ⁸ Age at diagnosis, gender, education level, household income, total body areas affected by HS, disease severity (categorized as mild, moderate, and severe), comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco use, and HS and HS-related pain medication regimens also were collected. Additionally, participants were asked about their level of agreement with the following statements: “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors” and “My pain related to HS is under control.” The level of agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All data included in the analysis were self-reported. The study received institutional review board approval for the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were used to assess statistical differences in patient characteristics of Black/African American participants compared to other participants, including White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants. Thirteen participants were excluded from the final analysis: 2 participants were missing data, and 11 biracial participants were excluded due to overlapping White and Black/African American races that may have confounded the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and χ² and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, were used to test for statistically significant differences. Continuous variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, and a t test was used for statistically significant differences.

Logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race and pain after adjusting for confounding variables such as obesity, current tobacco use, self-reported HS severity, and the presence of comorbidities. A total of 204 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 70 (34.3%) had a pain score of 8 or higher, which indicates very severe pain intensity levels on the NRS,⁸ and were selected as a cut point based on the distribution of responses. For this cross-sectional cohort, our approach was to compare characteristics of those classified with a top score of 8 or higher (n=70) vs a top score of 0 to 7 (n=134)(cases vs noncases). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC) at an α=.05 significance level; logistic regression was performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM). For the logistic regression, we grouped patient race into 2 categories: Black/African American and Other, which included White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants.

Crude and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Covariate inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression was based on a priori hypothesis/knowledge and was meant to estimate the independent effect of race after adjustment for income, HS severity, and history of prescription pain medication use. Other variables, including tobacco use, obesity, mood disorders, and current HS treatments, were all individually tested in the multivariate analysis and did not significantly impact the odds ratio for high pain. Statistical adjustment slightly decreased (19%) the magnitude between crude and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for the association between Black/African American race and high pain score.

Results  

Survey Demographics —The final analysis included 204 survey respondents. Most respondents were Black/African American (58.82%), and nearly all were female (89.71%)(Table 1). The mean age (SD) of respondents was 37.37 (11.29) years (range, 19-70 years). Many respondents reported having completed some college (36.27%) or receiving a bachelor’s degree (19.12%). Of patients who were not Black/African American, 10.71% had higher than a master’s degree, whereas no Black/African American patients held a degree higher than a master’s ( P = .0052). Additionally, more Black/African American respondents (35.83%) reported an annual household income level of less than $25,000 compared with respondents who were not Black/African American (19.05%, P = .0001). Most respondents rated the severity of their HS as moderate or severe (46.57% and 41.67%, respectively), and there was no significant difference in reported severity of HS between racial groups ( P = .5395).

Pain Scores—As documented in the Methods, respondents were asked to rate their HS-related pain intensity from 0 to 10 using the NRS. The average pain score (SD)—the level of pain intensity over the prior month—was 6.39 (2.56)(range, 0–10). The mean pain score (SD) at the time of the survey was 3.61 (2.98)(range, 0–10)(Table 1). These data revealed that Black/African American patients had a significantly higher average pain score (SD) than patients with HS who were not Black/African American (7.08 [2.49] and 5.40 [2.35], respectively; P<.0001). After adjustment with multivariable logistical regression, Black/African American patients had 4-fold increased odds for very severe levels of pain (score of ≥8) compared with patients who were not Black/African American.

Pain Management—Although pain scores were higher for Black/African American patients with HS, there was no significant difference in the perception of pain control between racial groups (P=.0761). Additionally, we found low income (adjusted prevalence odds ratio [POR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.91), a history of prescription pain medication use (adjusted POR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.51), and HS severity (adjusted POR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.11-17.36) all to be independent risk factors contributing to higher pain scores in patients with HS (Table 2). Lastly, we noted current or reported history of pain medication use was significantly correlated with higher pain scores (P=.0280 and P=.0213, respectively).

Satisfaction With Pain Management—The level of satisfaction with physician management of HS-related pain was significantly different between Black/African American patients and those who were not Black/African American (P=.0129). Of those who identified as Black/African American, 26.7% (n=32) strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors,” whereas only 15.5% (n=13) of patients who were not Black/African American strongly disagreed. 

Comment

There is no cure for HS, and a large focus of treatment is pain management. Because racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain will affect those with HS, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pain and pain management among HS patients. We found that Black/African American patients with HS have higher average pain scores than those who are not Black/African American and were 4 times more likely to experience very severe pain. Prior studies have established that patients with HS often report higher pain levels than patients with other chronic inflammatory skin conditions, ^7,8 and our study identified racial disparities in HS-related pain management.

Measuring pain is challenging because of its multidimensional and subjective nature, making it essential to consider underlying causes and patients’ emotional responses to pain.⁹ By adjusting for confounding factors that may influence pain, such as mood disorders, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication use, we were able to gain better insight into fundamental differences in average pain intensity levels among racial groups and assess what factors may be contributing to a patient’s pain perception. Our study determined that lower income levels, higher HS disease severity, and a history of prescription pain medication use were all independent risk factors for high pain. Of note, obesity, tobacco use, and mood disorders such as anxiety and depression did not significantly differ between racial groups or increase the odds of high pain between racial groups identified.

With low income being an independent risk factor for high pain, we must consider the social determinants of health and how they may influence the pain experience in HS. We speculate that low income may be associated with other social determinants of health for the patients assessed in this study, such as lack of social and community support or limited health care access that contribute to worse health outcomes.^10,11 In addition, low income contributes to limited access to medical care or treatments¹²; without access to effective HS management, lower-income patients may be at risk for higher disease severity and thus higher pain levels. However, economic stability is only a part of the whole picture; therefore, assessing the other social determinants of health in patients with HS may lead to better health outcomes and quality of life.

Another identified risk factor for high pain was a reported history of prescription pain medication use. This finding suggests that patients with moderate to severe pain likely have required stronger analgesic medications in the past. We further speculate that high pain levels in patients who have received prescription pain medications indicate either undertreatment, mistreatment, or recalcitrant pain. More research is needed to assess the relationship between HS-related pain intensity, analgesic medications, and providers who manage HS-related pain.

We also found that Black/African American patients with HS had a significantly higher dissatisfaction with their physician’s management of their pain, which could be attributable to several factors, including biological differences in medication metabolism (in which the patient has medication-resistant HS), undertreatment of pain, and/or poor doctor-patient relations. These reasons coincide with other diseases where health disparities are found.^13-15 Recognizing these factors will be key to dismantling the disparities in HS that are noted within this study. The limitations of this work include the cross-sectional study design and its inability to evaluate causal factors of high pain levels across racial groups, the NRS lack of insight on pain chronicity or pain experience,⁷ the lack of provider or institution perspectives, and self-reported data. Additionally, only patients with email access were included, which may have excluded vulnerable populations with more pain associated with their HS.

Our findings highlight an area for further investigation to assess why these racial differences exist in HS-related pain. The results also emphasize the need for research evaluating whether systemic or health care provider biases contribute to racial differences in HS-related pain management.

Acknowledgment — Dr. Weir was supported by the Predoctoral Clinical/Translational Research Program (TL1), a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), through the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS).  

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory disease that is characterized by tender inflamed nodules of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, disproportionately affects postpubertal females as well as Black/African American individuals. The nodules can rupture, form sinus tracts, and scar. ¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polycystic ovary syndrome, depression, suicide, and substance use disorders. Because of the symptom burden and associated conditions, HS can be a painful and distressing disease that substantially impairs the quality of life for individuals with this condition. ²

Pain is a commonly reported symptom in HS that often goes untreated. Furthermore, HS-related pain is complex due to the involvement of different pain types that require various treatment modalities.³ According to Savage et al,⁴ recognizing whether HS-related pain is acute, chronic, neuropathic, or nociceptive is vital in establishing a framework for an effective pain management scheme. Currently, such established multimodal pain management strategies in dermatology do not exist. In 2021, dermatology-specific pain management strategies proposed the use of a multimodal regimen to address the multifaceted nature of HS-related pain.⁴ However, these strategies failed to recognize the systemic racial and ethnic biases in the US health care system that undermine pain management care for minority groups.^5,6 One approach to combatting racial disparities in pain management is determining average pain levels across racial groups.⁷ This study sought to compare HS-related pain scores by racial groups. Furthermore, we assessed differences in perception of patients’ respective pain management regimens by race. We hypothesized that the average HS-related pain intensities and pain management would differ between self-reported racial groups.

Methods  

This cross-sectional study took place over 5 months (August through December 2021). A survey was emailed to 2198 adult patients with HS in the University of Alabama Health System. The survey consisted of demographic and general questions about a patient’s HS. Pain scores were captured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), a measurement tool for pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10. ⁸ Age at diagnosis, gender, education level, household income, total body areas affected by HS, disease severity (categorized as mild, moderate, and severe), comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco use, and HS and HS-related pain medication regimens also were collected. Additionally, participants were asked about their level of agreement with the following statements: “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors” and “My pain related to HS is under control.” The level of agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All data included in the analysis were self-reported. The study received institutional review board approval for the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were used to assess statistical differences in patient characteristics of Black/African American participants compared to other participants, including White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants. Thirteen participants were excluded from the final analysis: 2 participants were missing data, and 11 biracial participants were excluded due to overlapping White and Black/African American races that may have confounded the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and χ² and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, were used to test for statistically significant differences. Continuous variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, and a t test was used for statistically significant differences.

Logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race and pain after adjusting for confounding variables such as obesity, current tobacco use, self-reported HS severity, and the presence of comorbidities. A total of 204 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 70 (34.3%) had a pain score of 8 or higher, which indicates very severe pain intensity levels on the NRS,⁸ and were selected as a cut point based on the distribution of responses. For this cross-sectional cohort, our approach was to compare characteristics of those classified with a top score of 8 or higher (n=70) vs a top score of 0 to 7 (n=134)(cases vs noncases). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC) at an α=.05 significance level; logistic regression was performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM). For the logistic regression, we grouped patient race into 2 categories: Black/African American and Other, which included White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants.

Crude and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Covariate inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression was based on a priori hypothesis/knowledge and was meant to estimate the independent effect of race after adjustment for income, HS severity, and history of prescription pain medication use. Other variables, including tobacco use, obesity, mood disorders, and current HS treatments, were all individually tested in the multivariate analysis and did not significantly impact the odds ratio for high pain. Statistical adjustment slightly decreased (19%) the magnitude between crude and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for the association between Black/African American race and high pain score.

Results  

Survey Demographics —The final analysis included 204 survey respondents. Most respondents were Black/African American (58.82%), and nearly all were female (89.71%)(Table 1). The mean age (SD) of respondents was 37.37 (11.29) years (range, 19-70 years). Many respondents reported having completed some college (36.27%) or receiving a bachelor’s degree (19.12%). Of patients who were not Black/African American, 10.71% had higher than a master’s degree, whereas no Black/African American patients held a degree higher than a master’s ( P = .0052). Additionally, more Black/African American respondents (35.83%) reported an annual household income level of less than $25,000 compared with respondents who were not Black/African American (19.05%, P = .0001). Most respondents rated the severity of their HS as moderate or severe (46.57% and 41.67%, respectively), and there was no significant difference in reported severity of HS between racial groups ( P = .5395).

Pain Scores—As documented in the Methods, respondents were asked to rate their HS-related pain intensity from 0 to 10 using the NRS. The average pain score (SD)—the level of pain intensity over the prior month—was 6.39 (2.56)(range, 0–10). The mean pain score (SD) at the time of the survey was 3.61 (2.98)(range, 0–10)(Table 1). These data revealed that Black/African American patients had a significantly higher average pain score (SD) than patients with HS who were not Black/African American (7.08 [2.49] and 5.40 [2.35], respectively; P<.0001). After adjustment with multivariable logistical regression, Black/African American patients had 4-fold increased odds for very severe levels of pain (score of ≥8) compared with patients who were not Black/African American.

Pain Management—Although pain scores were higher for Black/African American patients with HS, there was no significant difference in the perception of pain control between racial groups (P=.0761). Additionally, we found low income (adjusted prevalence odds ratio [POR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.91), a history of prescription pain medication use (adjusted POR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.51), and HS severity (adjusted POR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.11-17.36) all to be independent risk factors contributing to higher pain scores in patients with HS (Table 2). Lastly, we noted current or reported history of pain medication use was significantly correlated with higher pain scores (P=.0280 and P=.0213, respectively).

Satisfaction With Pain Management—The level of satisfaction with physician management of HS-related pain was significantly different between Black/African American patients and those who were not Black/African American (P=.0129). Of those who identified as Black/African American, 26.7% (n=32) strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors,” whereas only 15.5% (n=13) of patients who were not Black/African American strongly disagreed. 

Comment

There is no cure for HS, and a large focus of treatment is pain management. Because racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain will affect those with HS, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pain and pain management among HS patients. We found that Black/African American patients with HS have higher average pain scores than those who are not Black/African American and were 4 times more likely to experience very severe pain. Prior studies have established that patients with HS often report higher pain levels than patients with other chronic inflammatory skin conditions, ^7,8 and our study identified racial disparities in HS-related pain management.

Measuring pain is challenging because of its multidimensional and subjective nature, making it essential to consider underlying causes and patients’ emotional responses to pain.⁹ By adjusting for confounding factors that may influence pain, such as mood disorders, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication use, we were able to gain better insight into fundamental differences in average pain intensity levels among racial groups and assess what factors may be contributing to a patient’s pain perception. Our study determined that lower income levels, higher HS disease severity, and a history of prescription pain medication use were all independent risk factors for high pain. Of note, obesity, tobacco use, and mood disorders such as anxiety and depression did not significantly differ between racial groups or increase the odds of high pain between racial groups identified.

With low income being an independent risk factor for high pain, we must consider the social determinants of health and how they may influence the pain experience in HS. We speculate that low income may be associated with other social determinants of health for the patients assessed in this study, such as lack of social and community support or limited health care access that contribute to worse health outcomes.^10,11 In addition, low income contributes to limited access to medical care or treatments¹²; without access to effective HS management, lower-income patients may be at risk for higher disease severity and thus higher pain levels. However, economic stability is only a part of the whole picture; therefore, assessing the other social determinants of health in patients with HS may lead to better health outcomes and quality of life.

Another identified risk factor for high pain was a reported history of prescription pain medication use. This finding suggests that patients with moderate to severe pain likely have required stronger analgesic medications in the past. We further speculate that high pain levels in patients who have received prescription pain medications indicate either undertreatment, mistreatment, or recalcitrant pain. More research is needed to assess the relationship between HS-related pain intensity, analgesic medications, and providers who manage HS-related pain.

We also found that Black/African American patients with HS had a significantly higher dissatisfaction with their physician’s management of their pain, which could be attributable to several factors, including biological differences in medication metabolism (in which the patient has medication-resistant HS), undertreatment of pain, and/or poor doctor-patient relations. These reasons coincide with other diseases where health disparities are found.^13-15 Recognizing these factors will be key to dismantling the disparities in HS that are noted within this study. The limitations of this work include the cross-sectional study design and its inability to evaluate causal factors of high pain levels across racial groups, the NRS lack of insight on pain chronicity or pain experience,⁷ the lack of provider or institution perspectives, and self-reported data. Additionally, only patients with email access were included, which may have excluded vulnerable populations with more pain associated with their HS.

Our findings highlight an area for further investigation to assess why these racial differences exist in HS-related pain. The results also emphasize the need for research evaluating whether systemic or health care provider biases contribute to racial differences in HS-related pain management.

Acknowledgment — Dr. Weir was supported by the Predoctoral Clinical/Translational Research Program (TL1), a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), through the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS).  

To the Editor:

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated dermatologic condition that is associated with various comorbidities, including obesity.¹ The underlying pathophysiology of psoriasis has been extensively studied, and recent research has discussed the role of obesity in IL-17 secretion.² The relationship between being overweight/obese and having psoriasis has been documented in the literature.^1,2 However, this association in a recent population is lacking. We sought to investigate the association between psoriasis and obesity utilizing a representative US population of adults—the 2009-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data,³ which contains the most recent psoriasis data.

We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 2009-2014 NHANES database. Three 2-year cycles of NHANES data were combined to create our 2009 to 2014 dataset. In the Table, numerous variables including age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, education, diabetes status, tobacco use, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and being called overweight by a health care provider were analyzed using χ² or t test analyses to evaluate for differences among those with and without psoriasis. Diabetes status was assessed by the question “Other than during pregnancy, have you ever been told by a doctor or health professional that you have diabetes or sugar diabetes?” Tobacco use was assessed by the question “Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?” Psoriasis status was assessed by a self-reported response to the question “Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health care professional that you had psoriasis?” Three different outcome variables were used to determine if patients were overweight or obese: BMI, waist circumference, and response to the question “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?” Obesity was defined as having a BMI of 30 or higher or waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females.⁴ Being overweight was defined as having a BMI of 25 to 29.99 or response of Yes to “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?”

Initially, there were 17,547 participants 20 years and older from 2009 to 2014, but 1654 participants were excluded because of missing data for obesity or psoriasis; therefore, 15,893 patients were included in our analysis. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to examine the association between psoriasis and being overweight/obese (eTable). Additionally, the models were adjusted based on age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, diabetes status, and tobacco use. All data processing and analysis were performed in Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC). P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

The Table shows characteristics of US adults with and without psoriasis in NHANES 2009-2014. We found that the variables of interest evaluating body weight that were significantly different on analysis between patients with and without psoriasis included waist circumference—patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher waist circumference (P=.009)—and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (P<.0001), which supports the findings by Love et al,⁵ who reported abdominal obesity was the most common feature of metabolic syndrome exhibited among patients with psoriasis.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis (eTable) revealed that there was a significant association between psoriasis and BMI of 25 to 29.99 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.76; P=.04) and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (AOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.52; P<.001). After adjusting for confounding variables, there was no significant association between psoriasis and a BMI of 30 or higher (AOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.73-1.38; P=.99) or a waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females (AOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.86-1.53; P=.3).

Our findings suggest that a few variables indicative of being overweight or obese are associated with psoriasis. This relationship most likely is due to increased adipokine, including resistin, levels in overweight individuals, resulting in a proinflammatory state.⁶ It has been suggested that BMI alone is not a definitive marker for measuring fat storage levels in individuals. People can have a normal or slightly elevated BMI but possess excessive adiposity, resulting in chronic inflammation.⁶ Therefore, our findings of a significant association between psoriasis and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight might be a stronger measurement for possessing excessive fat, as this is likely due to clinical judgment rather than BMI measurement.

Moreover, it should be noted that the potential reason for the lack of association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis in our analysis may be a result of BMI serving as a poor measurement for adiposity. Additionally, Armstrong and colleagues⁷ discussed that the association between BMI and psoriasis was stronger for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Our study consisted of NHANES data for self-reported psoriasis diagnoses without a psoriasis severity index, making it difficult to extrapolate which individuals had mild or moderate to severe psoriasis, which may have contributed to our finding of no association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis.

The self-reported nature of the survey questions and lack of questions regarding psoriasis severity serve as limitations to the study. Both obesity and psoriasis can have various systemic consequences, such as cardiovascular disease, due to the development of an inflammatory state.⁸ Future studies may explore other body measurements that indicate being overweight or obese and the potential synergistic relationship of obesity and psoriasis severity, optimizing the development of effective treatment plans.

To the Editor:

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated dermatologic condition that is associated with various comorbidities, including obesity.¹ The underlying pathophysiology of psoriasis has been extensively studied, and recent research has discussed the role of obesity in IL-17 secretion.² The relationship between being overweight/obese and having psoriasis has been documented in the literature.^1,2 However, this association in a recent population is lacking. We sought to investigate the association between psoriasis and obesity utilizing a representative US population of adults—the 2009-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data,³ which contains the most recent psoriasis data.

We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 2009-2014 NHANES database. Three 2-year cycles of NHANES data were combined to create our 2009 to 2014 dataset. In the Table, numerous variables including age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, education, diabetes status, tobacco use, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and being called overweight by a health care provider were analyzed using χ² or t test analyses to evaluate for differences among those with and without psoriasis. Diabetes status was assessed by the question “Other than during pregnancy, have you ever been told by a doctor or health professional that you have diabetes or sugar diabetes?” Tobacco use was assessed by the question “Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?” Psoriasis status was assessed by a self-reported response to the question “Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health care professional that you had psoriasis?” Three different outcome variables were used to determine if patients were overweight or obese: BMI, waist circumference, and response to the question “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?” Obesity was defined as having a BMI of 30 or higher or waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females.⁴ Being overweight was defined as having a BMI of 25 to 29.99 or response of Yes to “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?”

Initially, there were 17,547 participants 20 years and older from 2009 to 2014, but 1654 participants were excluded because of missing data for obesity or psoriasis; therefore, 15,893 patients were included in our analysis. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to examine the association between psoriasis and being overweight/obese (eTable). Additionally, the models were adjusted based on age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, diabetes status, and tobacco use. All data processing and analysis were performed in Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC). P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

The Table shows characteristics of US adults with and without psoriasis in NHANES 2009-2014. We found that the variables of interest evaluating body weight that were significantly different on analysis between patients with and without psoriasis included waist circumference—patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher waist circumference (P=.009)—and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (P<.0001), which supports the findings by Love et al,⁵ who reported abdominal obesity was the most common feature of metabolic syndrome exhibited among patients with psoriasis.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis (eTable) revealed that there was a significant association between psoriasis and BMI of 25 to 29.99 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.76; P=.04) and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (AOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.52; P<.001). After adjusting for confounding variables, there was no significant association between psoriasis and a BMI of 30 or higher (AOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.73-1.38; P=.99) or a waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females (AOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.86-1.53; P=.3).

Our findings suggest that a few variables indicative of being overweight or obese are associated with psoriasis. This relationship most likely is due to increased adipokine, including resistin, levels in overweight individuals, resulting in a proinflammatory state.⁶ It has been suggested that BMI alone is not a definitive marker for measuring fat storage levels in individuals. People can have a normal or slightly elevated BMI but possess excessive adiposity, resulting in chronic inflammation.⁶ Therefore, our findings of a significant association between psoriasis and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight might be a stronger measurement for possessing excessive fat, as this is likely due to clinical judgment rather than BMI measurement.

Moreover, it should be noted that the potential reason for the lack of association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis in our analysis may be a result of BMI serving as a poor measurement for adiposity. Additionally, Armstrong and colleagues⁷ discussed that the association between BMI and psoriasis was stronger for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Our study consisted of NHANES data for self-reported psoriasis diagnoses without a psoriasis severity index, making it difficult to extrapolate which individuals had mild or moderate to severe psoriasis, which may have contributed to our finding of no association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis.

The self-reported nature of the survey questions and lack of questions regarding psoriasis severity serve as limitations to the study. Both obesity and psoriasis can have various systemic consequences, such as cardiovascular disease, due to the development of an inflammatory state.⁸ Future studies may explore other body measurements that indicate being overweight or obese and the potential synergistic relationship of obesity and psoriasis severity, optimizing the development of effective treatment plans.

To the Editor:

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated dermatologic condition that is associated with various comorbidities, including obesity.¹ The underlying pathophysiology of psoriasis has been extensively studied, and recent research has discussed the role of obesity in IL-17 secretion.² The relationship between being overweight/obese and having psoriasis has been documented in the literature.^1,2 However, this association in a recent population is lacking. We sought to investigate the association between psoriasis and obesity utilizing a representative US population of adults—the 2009-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data,³ which contains the most recent psoriasis data.

We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 2009-2014 NHANES database. Three 2-year cycles of NHANES data were combined to create our 2009 to 2014 dataset. In the Table, numerous variables including age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, education, diabetes status, tobacco use, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and being called overweight by a health care provider were analyzed using χ² or t test analyses to evaluate for differences among those with and without psoriasis. Diabetes status was assessed by the question “Other than during pregnancy, have you ever been told by a doctor or health professional that you have diabetes or sugar diabetes?” Tobacco use was assessed by the question “Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?” Psoriasis status was assessed by a self-reported response to the question “Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health care professional that you had psoriasis?” Three different outcome variables were used to determine if patients were overweight or obese: BMI, waist circumference, and response to the question “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?” Obesity was defined as having a BMI of 30 or higher or waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females.⁴ Being overweight was defined as having a BMI of 25 to 29.99 or response of Yes to “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you were overweight?”

Initially, there were 17,547 participants 20 years and older from 2009 to 2014, but 1654 participants were excluded because of missing data for obesity or psoriasis; therefore, 15,893 patients were included in our analysis. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to examine the association between psoriasis and being overweight/obese (eTable). Additionally, the models were adjusted based on age, sex, household income, race/ethnicity, diabetes status, and tobacco use. All data processing and analysis were performed in Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC). P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

The Table shows characteristics of US adults with and without psoriasis in NHANES 2009-2014. We found that the variables of interest evaluating body weight that were significantly different on analysis between patients with and without psoriasis included waist circumference—patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher waist circumference (P=.009)—and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (P<.0001), which supports the findings by Love et al,⁵ who reported abdominal obesity was the most common feature of metabolic syndrome exhibited among patients with psoriasis.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis (eTable) revealed that there was a significant association between psoriasis and BMI of 25 to 29.99 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.76; P=.04) and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight (AOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.52; P<.001). After adjusting for confounding variables, there was no significant association between psoriasis and a BMI of 30 or higher (AOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.73-1.38; P=.99) or a waist circumference of 102 cm or more in males and 88 cm or more in females (AOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.86-1.53; P=.3).

Our findings suggest that a few variables indicative of being overweight or obese are associated with psoriasis. This relationship most likely is due to increased adipokine, including resistin, levels in overweight individuals, resulting in a proinflammatory state.⁶ It has been suggested that BMI alone is not a definitive marker for measuring fat storage levels in individuals. People can have a normal or slightly elevated BMI but possess excessive adiposity, resulting in chronic inflammation.⁶ Therefore, our findings of a significant association between psoriasis and being told by a health care provider that they are overweight might be a stronger measurement for possessing excessive fat, as this is likely due to clinical judgment rather than BMI measurement.

Moreover, it should be noted that the potential reason for the lack of association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis in our analysis may be a result of BMI serving as a poor measurement for adiposity. Additionally, Armstrong and colleagues⁷ discussed that the association between BMI and psoriasis was stronger for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Our study consisted of NHANES data for self-reported psoriasis diagnoses without a psoriasis severity index, making it difficult to extrapolate which individuals had mild or moderate to severe psoriasis, which may have contributed to our finding of no association between BMI of 30 or higher and psoriasis.

The self-reported nature of the survey questions and lack of questions regarding psoriasis severity serve as limitations to the study. Both obesity and psoriasis can have various systemic consequences, such as cardiovascular disease, due to the development of an inflammatory state.⁸ Future studies may explore other body measurements that indicate being overweight or obese and the potential synergistic relationship of obesity and psoriasis severity, optimizing the development of effective treatment plans.

Isotretinoin is used in the treatment of nodulocystic and severe papulopustular acne. During the treatment period, laboratory monitoring is recommended to identify the risk for complications such as hepatotoxicity, teratogenicity, rhabdomyolysis, hyperlipidemia, and pancreatitis.¹ There is a lack of consensus of the frequency of follow-up of laboratory parameters during isotretinoin treatment. This study evaluated the changes in laboratory parameters used in daily practice for patients with acne who were treated with isotretinoin to determine the optimum test repetition frequency.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of data from patients who received oral isotretinoin therapy for acne between January 2021 and July 2022 via the electronic medical records at Konya Numune Hospital and Konya Private Medova Hospital (both in Konya, Turkey). Patients who received an oral isotretinoin total cumulative dose greater than 120 mg/kg were included in the study. Patient demographic data; cumulative isotretinoin doses; and alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), creatinine kinase (CK), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and triglyceride (TG) levels during treatment were recorded. Baseline laboratory levels of those parameters were compared with levels of the same parameters from the second and fourth months of treatment. Comparisons for all parameters were made between the second- and fourth-month levels. Reference ranges are shown in Table 1. Abnormalities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 grading system.² This study was approved by the Karatay University (Konya, Turkey) ethical committee.

Statistical Analysis—The descriptive statistics of the measurements were presented as means, standard deviations, or medians (first and third quartiles). With respect to the normal distribution, the consistency of the measurements was evaluated with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and small deviations from the normal distribution were observed. Changes in laboratory measurements were evaluated with simple repeated-measures analysis of variance, and changes that differed significantly were determined by a Holm-Sidak post hoc test. Relationships between total cumulative doses and laboratory measurements at second visits were evaluated by the Pearson correlation analysis. The statistical significance level was P<.05. SPSS Statistics 23 (IBM) was used in the calculations.

Results

Consecutive Data at Baseline and Follow-up—A total of 415 patients with a mean age (SD) of 21.49 (7.25) years (range, 12–53 years) were included in our study. The mean total cumulative dose (SD) of the patients was 7267.27 (1878.4) mg. The consecutive data of the means of the laboratory parameters are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. There was no significant change in the ALT levels between baseline and the fourth month as well as between the second- and fourth-month assessments (both P=.311). When comparing the differences among AST, GGT, and LDL-C measurements, the levels increased significantly between baseline and the second month and between baseline and the fourth month (all P<.001). There was no significant difference in CK levels at all assessments (all P=.304). When the differences between TG measurements were compared, the changes between baseline and the second month (P<.001), baseline and the fourth month (P<.001), and the second and fourth months (P=.013) were significant (Figure 1).

Abnormal Laboratory Measurements—The distribution of abnormal laboratory measurements during treatment is shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. Grade 3 or higher elevations of liver transaminases (ALT, AST) and GGT were observed in fewer than 2% of patients during treatment compared with baseline (grade 3 elevations of ALT and AST together in 2 patients; grade 4 AST elevation in 1 patient; grade 3 elevations of ALT, AST, and GGT combined in 1 patient; isolated grade 3 GGT elevation in 1 patient). All of the patients who developed grade 3 liver transaminases and isolated grade 3 GGT elevation had improved values when these were rechecked within 2 weeks.

In the patient who developed hepatotoxicity in the second month, the ALT level rose from a baseline of 19 U/L to 169 U/L, the AST level from a baseline of 19 U/L to 61 U/L, and the GGT level from a baseline of 24 U/L to 124 U/L. The patient was asymptomatic. Liver function test levels returned to reference range 4 weeks after discontinuation of therapy. Hepatotoxicity did not recur after treatment was re-administered.

The patient who developed grade 4 AST elevation (364 U/L) experienced fatigue and myalgia. He had done vigorous exercise up to 2 days before the test and also had a grade 4 CK elevation (12,310 U/L). He was thought to have isotretinoin-related rhabdomyolysis. His treatment was discontinued, and he was advised to hydrate and rest. Treatment was re-started after 2 weeks. With frequent laboratory monitoring and avoidance of vigorous physical activity, the patient completed the remaining course of isotretinoin without any laboratory abnormalities or symptoms.

Creatinine kinase abnormalities in the second and fourth months compared with baseline were not statistically significant. The patients with grade 3 or higher CK elevations, except for the case with rhabdomyolysis, had no clinical signs or other characteristic laboratory findings of rhabdomyolysis.

Hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL) occurred most frequently, with a maximum of 280 mg/dL in 1 patient (in the fourth month) and less than 250 mg/dL in all other patients. Hypercholesterolemia occurred in 183 (44.1%) patients in the second month and in 166 (40.0%) patients in the fourth month. However, baseline abnormalities also were frequent (86 [20.7%]), and hypercholesterolemia persisted in the second and fourth months in all of these patients.

It was observed that the patients with TG abnormalities increased continuously in the second (99 [23.9%]) and fourth (113 [27.2%]) months compared with baseline (49 [11.8%]). Grade 3 TG elevations were observed in 2.2% of patients (n=9; 5 patients in the second month, 4 patients in the fourth month) during treatment compared with baseline, and all patients had grade 1 or 2 hypertriglyceridemia at baseline. Of the patients with grade 3 TG elevation, 3 patients in the second month and 2 patients in the fourth month were obese at baseline. No grade 4 TG elevations were observed. Complications related to hyperlipidemia, such as pancreatitis, were observed in 1 patient. No patient terminated treatment because of lipid abnormalities. The treatment of our patients with major hypercholesterolemia and/or grade 3 hypertriglyceridemia was interrupted. The hyperlipidemia of these patients was controlled by a low-fat diet and a short-term dose reduction.

Relationship Between Total Cumulative Dose and Laboratory Parameters—The relationships between the total cumulative dose and changes up to the fourth month are presented in Table 3. As the total dose increased, the changes in TG and LDL-C levels significantly increased in the fourth month (both P=.001). However, the degree of these relationships was weak. No significant correlation was found between the periodic changes of other laboratory parameters and the total dose.

Comment

The parameters followed in our study show that TG levels tend to increase continuously from baseline during isotretinoin treatment, while ALT, AST, GGT, and LDL-C levels increase in the second month and decrease at 4 months. Although this same trend occurs with CK levels, the change was not statistically significant. The most common laboratory abnormality in our study was hyperlipidemia. Levels of LDL-C and TG were both found to be statistically elevated in the second and fourth months of treatment compared with baseline. Parthasarathy et al³ reported that obesity had an important role in the increase of lipid levels in patients using isotretinoin at baseline. In our study, 5 of 9 patients (55.6%) with grade 3 TG elevation were obese, which supports the theory that obesity plays an important role in the increase in lipid levels. Up-to-date laboratory follow-up of lipids suggests that there is no need to follow up serum lipids after the second month of treatment. Patients with risk factors for hyperlipidemia, such as abdominal obesity and familial hyperlipidemia, do not require further follow-up if there is no increase in serum lipids in the first month of treatment.¹ The presence of grade 1 or 2 hypertriglyceridemia at baseline in all our patients with grade 3 TG elevation may suggest that periodic laboratory follow-up during isotretinoin treatment is necessary to detect patients with grade 3 and higher TG levels.

The lack of knowledge of other risk factors (eg, familial hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance) for hyperlipidemia in all patients at baseline may be a limitation of our study. Although hypercholesterolemia persisted in the follow-up of our patients with initial LDL-C abnormalities, hypercholesterolemia over 250 mg/dL was very rare (1 patient). Possible complications associated with serum lipid abnormalities are pancreatitis and metabolic syndrome.⁴ In our study, none of the patients with lipid abnormalities had any relevant clinical sequelae. The dose-dependent elevation of the changes in LDL-C and TG (Table 3) may be important to predict the significant elevation of lipids and the associated complications in patients with a high total cumulative dose target that may require a long treatment duration. However, considering the short follow-up periods in our patients, the absence of clinical sequelae may be misleading. There are differences in recommendations between the US and European guidelines for isotretinoin dosage. Although the US guidelines recommend a total cumulative dose target, the European guidelines recommend low-dose isotretinoin daily for at least 6 months instead of a cumulative dose.^5,6 The relationship between change in lipids and total cumulative dose in our study may not be similar in patients treated with the dosing regimen recommended by the European guidelines, as our patients received a total cumulative dose instead of a daily low-dose isotretinoin regimen, unlike the European guidelines.⁵

Most liver transaminase abnormalities were detected in the second month. Abnormalities in GGT were seen in the second month and remained elevated at the next follow-up. However, clinically important grade 3 transaminase and GGT elevations were rare. It has been reported that GGT levels are more specific than transaminases in measuring hepatotoxicity.⁷ The fact that our patient with hepatotoxicity had a grade 3 GGT elevation in addition to grade 3 transaminase elevations supports that GGT elevation is more specific than transaminase levels in measuring hepatotoxicity. When these parameters were rechecked in our patients with grade 3 transaminase elevations, except in the case of hepatotoxicity, transaminase elevations did not recur, and GGT elevations did not accompany elevated transaminases, which suggested that transaminases may be elevated due to an extrahepatic origin (eg, hemolysis, exercise).

Rhabdomyolysis secondary to isotretinoin is rare in the literature of acne studies. In addition to clinical findings such as myalgia and fatigue, increased CK and abnormal liver enzymes, specifically AST, suggest the development of rhabdomyolysis.⁸ Our patient who developed rhabdomyolysis also had a recent history of vigorous exercise, grade 4 CK, and AST elevations. Other patients with isolated grade 3 CK elevations were informed about possible clinical signs of rhabdomyolysis, and they were able to complete their courses without any incident. According to a study by Landau et al,⁹ isotretinoin-associated hyperCKemia has been reported as benign. Similarly, our study found that isolated CK elevation during isotretinoin treatment may be misleading as a sign of rhabdomyolysis. Instead, CK monitoring may be more appropriate and cost-effective in patients with suspected clinical signs of rhabdomyolysis or in those with major elevations in transaminases, especially AST.

Conclusion

According to our study, hyperlipidemia was the most common complication in acne patients using isotretinoin. It may be appropriate to monitor the TG level at 2-month intervals in patients with grade 1 or 2 TG elevation at baseline to detect the possible risk for developing grade 3 hyperlipidemia. Periodic monitoring of LDL-C and TG levels may be appropriate, especially in patients who require a high total cumulative dose of isotretinoin. Clinically important liver enzyme abnormalities were rare in our study. Our findings support the idea that routine monthly monitoring of normal laboratory parameters is unnecessary and wasteful. Additionally, periodic monitoring of abnormal laboratory parameters should be considered on an individual basis.

Isotretinoin is used in the treatment of nodulocystic and severe papulopustular acne. During the treatment period, laboratory monitoring is recommended to identify the risk for complications such as hepatotoxicity, teratogenicity, rhabdomyolysis, hyperlipidemia, and pancreatitis.¹ There is a lack of consensus of the frequency of follow-up of laboratory parameters during isotretinoin treatment. This study evaluated the changes in laboratory parameters used in daily practice for patients with acne who were treated with isotretinoin to determine the optimum test repetition frequency.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of data from patients who received oral isotretinoin therapy for acne between January 2021 and July 2022 via the electronic medical records at Konya Numune Hospital and Konya Private Medova Hospital (both in Konya, Turkey). Patients who received an oral isotretinoin total cumulative dose greater than 120 mg/kg were included in the study. Patient demographic data; cumulative isotretinoin doses; and alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), creatinine kinase (CK), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and triglyceride (TG) levels during treatment were recorded. Baseline laboratory levels of those parameters were compared with levels of the same parameters from the second and fourth months of treatment. Comparisons for all parameters were made between the second- and fourth-month levels. Reference ranges are shown in Table 1. Abnormalities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 grading system.² This study was approved by the Karatay University (Konya, Turkey) ethical committee.

Statistical Analysis—The descriptive statistics of the measurements were presented as means, standard deviations, or medians (first and third quartiles). With respect to the normal distribution, the consistency of the measurements was evaluated with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and small deviations from the normal distribution were observed. Changes in laboratory measurements were evaluated with simple repeated-measures analysis of variance, and changes that differed significantly were determined by a Holm-Sidak post hoc test. Relationships between total cumulative doses and laboratory measurements at second visits were evaluated by the Pearson correlation analysis. The statistical significance level was P<.05. SPSS Statistics 23 (IBM) was used in the calculations.

Results

Consecutive Data at Baseline and Follow-up—A total of 415 patients with a mean age (SD) of 21.49 (7.25) years (range, 12–53 years) were included in our study. The mean total cumulative dose (SD) of the patients was 7267.27 (1878.4) mg. The consecutive data of the means of the laboratory parameters are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. There was no significant change in the ALT levels between baseline and the fourth month as well as between the second- and fourth-month assessments (both P=.311). When comparing the differences among AST, GGT, and LDL-C measurements, the levels increased significantly between baseline and the second month and between baseline and the fourth month (all P<.001). There was no significant difference in CK levels at all assessments (all P=.304). When the differences between TG measurements were compared, the changes between baseline and the second month (P<.001), baseline and the fourth month (P<.001), and the second and fourth months (P=.013) were significant (Figure 1).

Abnormal Laboratory Measurements—The distribution of abnormal laboratory measurements during treatment is shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. Grade 3 or higher elevations of liver transaminases (ALT, AST) and GGT were observed in fewer than 2% of patients during treatment compared with baseline (grade 3 elevations of ALT and AST together in 2 patients; grade 4 AST elevation in 1 patient; grade 3 elevations of ALT, AST, and GGT combined in 1 patient; isolated grade 3 GGT elevation in 1 patient). All of the patients who developed grade 3 liver transaminases and isolated grade 3 GGT elevation had improved values when these were rechecked within 2 weeks.

In the patient who developed hepatotoxicity in the second month, the ALT level rose from a baseline of 19 U/L to 169 U/L, the AST level from a baseline of 19 U/L to 61 U/L, and the GGT level from a baseline of 24 U/L to 124 U/L. The patient was asymptomatic. Liver function test levels returned to reference range 4 weeks after discontinuation of therapy. Hepatotoxicity did not recur after treatment was re-administered.

The patient who developed grade 4 AST elevation (364 U/L) experienced fatigue and myalgia. He had done vigorous exercise up to 2 days before the test and also had a grade 4 CK elevation (12,310 U/L). He was thought to have isotretinoin-related rhabdomyolysis. His treatment was discontinued, and he was advised to hydrate and rest. Treatment was re-started after 2 weeks. With frequent laboratory monitoring and avoidance of vigorous physical activity, the patient completed the remaining course of isotretinoin without any laboratory abnormalities or symptoms.

Creatinine kinase abnormalities in the second and fourth months compared with baseline were not statistically significant. The patients with grade 3 or higher CK elevations, except for the case with rhabdomyolysis, had no clinical signs or other characteristic laboratory findings of rhabdomyolysis.

Hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL) occurred most frequently, with a maximum of 280 mg/dL in 1 patient (in the fourth month) and less than 250 mg/dL in all other patients. Hypercholesterolemia occurred in 183 (44.1%) patients in the second month and in 166 (40.0%) patients in the fourth month. However, baseline abnormalities also were frequent (86 [20.7%]), and hypercholesterolemia persisted in the second and fourth months in all of these patients.

It was observed that the patients with TG abnormalities increased continuously in the second (99 [23.9%]) and fourth (113 [27.2%]) months compared with baseline (49 [11.8%]). Grade 3 TG elevations were observed in 2.2% of patients (n=9; 5 patients in the second month, 4 patients in the fourth month) during treatment compared with baseline, and all patients had grade 1 or 2 hypertriglyceridemia at baseline. Of the patients with grade 3 TG elevation, 3 patients in the second month and 2 patients in the fourth month were obese at baseline. No grade 4 TG elevations were observed. Complications related to hyperlipidemia, such as pancreatitis, were observed in 1 patient. No patient terminated treatment because of lipid abnormalities. The treatment of our patients with major hypercholesterolemia and/or grade 3 hypertriglyceridemia was interrupted. The hyperlipidemia of these patients was controlled by a low-fat diet and a short-term dose reduction.

Relationship Between Total Cumulative Dose and Laboratory Parameters—The relationships between the total cumulative dose and changes up to the fourth month are presented in Table 3. As the total dose increased, the changes in TG and LDL-C levels significantly increased in the fourth month (both P=.001). However, the degree of these relationships was weak. No significant correlation was found between the periodic changes of other laboratory parameters and the total dose.

Comment

The parameters followed in our study show that TG levels tend to increase continuously from baseline during isotretinoin treatment, while ALT, AST, GGT, and LDL-C levels increase in the second month and decrease at 4 months. Although this same trend occurs with CK levels, the change was not statistically significant. The most common laboratory abnormality in our study was hyperlipidemia. Levels of LDL-C and TG were both found to be statistically elevated in the second and fourth months of treatment compared with baseline. Parthasarathy et al³ reported that obesity had an important role in the increase of lipid levels in patients using isotretinoin at baseline. In our study, 5 of 9 patients (55.6%) with grade 3 TG elevation were obese, which supports the theory that obesity plays an important role in the increase in lipid levels. Up-to-date laboratory follow-up of lipids suggests that there is no need to follow up serum lipids after the second month of treatment. Patients with risk factors for hyperlipidemia, such as abdominal obesity and familial hyperlipidemia, do not require further follow-up if there is no increase in serum lipids in the first month of treatment.¹ The presence of grade 1 or 2 hypertriglyceridemia at baseline in all our patients with grade 3 TG elevation may suggest that periodic laboratory follow-up during isotretinoin treatment is necessary to detect patients with grade 3 and higher TG levels.

The lack of knowledge of other risk factors (eg, familial hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance) for hyperlipidemia in all patients at baseline may be a limitation of our study. Although hypercholesterolemia persisted in the follow-up of our patients with initial LDL-C abnormalities, hypercholesterolemia over 250 mg/dL was very rare (1 patient). Possible complications associated with serum lipid abnormalities are pancreatitis and metabolic syndrome.⁴ In our study, none of the patients with lipid abnormalities had any relevant clinical sequelae. The dose-dependent elevation of the changes in LDL-C and TG (Table 3) may be important to predict the significant elevation of lipids and the associated complications in patients with a high total cumulative dose target that may require a long treatment duration. However, considering the short follow-up periods in our patients, the absence of clinical sequelae may be misleading. There are differences in recommendations between the US and European guidelines for isotretinoin dosage. Although the US guidelines recommend a total cumulative dose target, the European guidelines recommend low-dose isotretinoin daily for at least 6 months instead of a cumulative dose.^5,6 The relationship between change in lipids and total cumulative dose in our study may not be similar in patients treated with the dosing regimen recommended by the European guidelines, as our patients received a total cumulative dose instead of a daily low-dose isotretinoin regimen, unlike the European guidelines.⁵

Most liver transaminase abnormalities were detected in the second month. Abnormalities in GGT were seen in the second month and remained elevated at the next follow-up. However, clinically important grade 3 transaminase and GGT elevations were rare. It has been reported that GGT levels are more specific than transaminases in measuring hepatotoxicity.⁷ The fact that our patient with hepatotoxicity had a grade 3 GGT elevation in addition to grade 3 transaminase elevations supports that GGT elevation is more specific than transaminase levels in measuring hepatotoxicity. When these parameters were rechecked in our patients with grade 3 transaminase elevations, except in the case of hepatotoxicity, transaminase elevations did not recur, and GGT elevations did not accompany elevated transaminases, which suggested that transaminases may be elevated due to an extrahepatic origin (eg, hemolysis, exercise).

Rhabdomyolysis secondary to isotretinoin is rare in the literature of acne studies. In addition to clinical findings such as myalgia and fatigue, increased CK and abnormal liver enzymes, specifically AST, suggest the development of rhabdomyolysis.⁸ Our patient who developed rhabdomyolysis also had a recent history of vigorous exercise, grade 4 CK, and AST elevations. Other patients with isolated grade 3 CK elevations were informed about possible clinical signs of rhabdomyolysis, and they were able to complete their courses without any incident. According to a study by Landau et al,⁹ isotretinoin-associated hyperCKemia has been reported as benign. Similarly, our study found that isolated CK elevation during isotretinoin treatment may be misleading as a sign of rhabdomyolysis. Instead, CK monitoring may be more appropriate and cost-effective in patients with suspected clinical signs of rhabdomyolysis or in those with major elevations in transaminases, especially AST.

Conclusion

According to our study, hyperlipidemia was the most common complication in acne patients using isotretinoin. It may be appropriate to monitor the TG level at 2-month intervals in patients with grade 1 or 2 TG elevation at baseline to detect the possible risk for developing grade 3 hyperlipidemia. Periodic monitoring of LDL-C and TG levels may be appropriate, especially in patients who require a high total cumulative dose of isotretinoin. Clinically important liver enzyme abnormalities were rare in our study. Our findings support the idea that routine monthly monitoring of normal laboratory parameters is unnecessary and wasteful. Additionally, periodic monitoring of abnormal laboratory parameters should be considered on an individual basis.

Isotretinoin is used in the treatment of nodulocystic and severe papulopustular acne. During the treatment period, laboratory monitoring is recommended to identify the risk for complications such as hepatotoxicity, teratogenicity, rhabdomyolysis, hyperlipidemia, and pancreatitis.¹ There is a lack of consensus of the frequency of follow-up of laboratory parameters during isotretinoin treatment. This study evaluated the changes in laboratory parameters used in daily practice for patients with acne who were treated with isotretinoin to determine the optimum test repetition frequency.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of data from patients who received oral isotretinoin therapy for acne between January 2021 and July 2022 via the electronic medical records at Konya Numune Hospital and Konya Private Medova Hospital (both in Konya, Turkey). Patients who received an oral isotretinoin total cumulative dose greater than 120 mg/kg were included in the study. Patient demographic data; cumulative isotretinoin doses; and alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), creatinine kinase (CK), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and triglyceride (TG) levels during treatment were recorded. Baseline laboratory levels of those parameters were compared with levels of the same parameters from the second and fourth months of treatment. Comparisons for all parameters were made between the second- and fourth-month levels. Reference ranges are shown in Table 1. Abnormalities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 grading system.² This study was approved by the Karatay University (Konya, Turkey) ethical committee.

Statistical Analysis—The descriptive statistics of the measurements were presented as means, standard deviations, or medians (first and third quartiles). With respect to the normal distribution, the consistency of the measurements was evaluated with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and small deviations from the normal distribution were observed. Changes in laboratory measurements were evaluated with simple repeated-measures analysis of variance, and changes that differed significantly were determined by a Holm-Sidak post hoc test. Relationships between total cumulative doses and laboratory measurements at second visits were evaluated by the Pearson correlation analysis. The statistical significance level was P<.05. SPSS Statistics 23 (IBM) was used in the calculations.

Results

Consecutive Data at Baseline and Follow-up—A total of 415 patients with a mean age (SD) of 21.49 (7.25) years (range, 12–53 years) were included in our study. The mean total cumulative dose (SD) of the patients was 7267.27 (1878.4) mg. The consecutive data of the means of the laboratory parameters are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. There was no significant change in the ALT levels between baseline and the fourth month as well as between the second- and fourth-month assessments (both P=.311). When comparing the differences among AST, GGT, and LDL-C measurements, the levels increased significantly between baseline and the second month and between baseline and the fourth month (all P<.001). There was no significant difference in CK levels at all assessments (all P=.304). When the differences between TG measurements were compared, the changes between baseline and the second month (P<.001), baseline and the fourth month (P<.001), and the second and fourth months (P=.013) were significant (Figure 1).

Abnormal Laboratory Measurements—The distribution of abnormal laboratory measurements during treatment is shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. Grade 3 or higher elevations of liver transaminases (ALT, AST) and GGT were observed in fewer than 2% of patients during treatment compared with baseline (grade 3 elevations of ALT and AST together in 2 patients; grade 4 AST elevation in 1 patient; grade 3 elevations of ALT, AST, and GGT combined in 1 patient; isolated grade 3 GGT elevation in 1 patient). All of the patients who developed grade 3 liver transaminases and isolated grade 3 GGT elevation had improved values when these were rechecked within 2 weeks.

In the patient who developed hepatotoxicity in the second month, the ALT level rose from a baseline of 19 U/L to 169 U/L, the AST level from a baseline of 19 U/L to 61 U/L, and the GGT level from a baseline of 24 U/L to 124 U/L. The patient was asymptomatic. Liver function test levels returned to reference range 4 weeks after discontinuation of therapy. Hepatotoxicity did not recur after treatment was re-administered.

The patient who developed grade 4 AST elevation (364 U/L) experienced fatigue and myalgia. He had done vigorous exercise up to 2 days before the test and also had a grade 4 CK elevation (12,310 U/L). He was thought to have isotretinoin-related rhabdomyolysis. His treatment was discontinued, and he was advised to hydrate and rest. Treatment was re-started after 2 weeks. With frequent laboratory monitoring and avoidance of vigorous physical activity, the patient completed the remaining course of isotretinoin without any laboratory abnormalities or symptoms.

Creatinine kinase abnormalities in the second and fourth months compared with baseline were not statistically significant. The patients with grade 3 or higher CK elevations, except for the case with rhabdomyolysis, had no clinical signs or other characteristic laboratory findings of rhabdomyolysis.

Hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL) occurred most frequently, with a maximum of 280 mg/dL in 1 patient (in the fourth month) and less than 250 mg/dL in all other patients. Hypercholesterolemia occurred in 183 (44.1%) patients in the second month and in 166 (40.0%) patients in the fourth month. However, baseline abnormalities also were frequent (86 [20.7%]), and hypercholesterolemia persisted in the second and fourth months in all of these patients.

It was observed that the patients with TG abnormalities increased continuously in the second (99 [23.9%]) and fourth (113 [27.2%]) months compared with baseline (49 [11.8%]). Grade 3 TG elevations were observed in 2.2% of patients (n=9; 5 patients in the second month, 4 patients in the fourth month) during treatment compared with baseline, and all patients had grade 1 or 2 hypertriglyceridemia at baseline. Of the patients with grade 3 TG elevation, 3 patients in the second month and 2 patients in the fourth month were obese at baseline. No grade 4 TG elevations were observed. Complications related to hyperlipidemia, such as pancreatitis, were observed in 1 patient. No patient terminated treatment because of lipid abnormalities. The treatment of our patients with major hypercholesterolemia and/or grade 3 hypertriglyceridemia was interrupted. The hyperlipidemia of these patients was controlled by a low-fat diet and a short-term dose reduction.

Relationship Between Total Cumulative Dose and Laboratory Parameters—The relationships between the total cumulative dose and changes up to the fourth month are presented in Table 3. As the total dose increased, the changes in TG and LDL-C levels significantly increased in the fourth month (both P=.001). However, the degree of these relationships was weak. No significant correlation was found between the periodic changes of other laboratory parameters and the total dose.

Comment

The parameters followed in our study show that TG levels tend to increase continuously from baseline during isotretinoin treatment, while ALT, AST, GGT, and LDL-C levels increase in the second month and decrease at 4 months. Although this same trend occurs with CK levels, the change was not statistically significant. The most common laboratory abnormality in our study was hyperlipidemia. Levels of LDL-C and TG were both found to be statistically elevated in the second and fourth months of treatment compared with baseline. Parthasarathy et al³ reported that obesity had an important role in the increase of lipid levels in patients using isotretinoin at baseline. In our study, 5 of 9 patients (55.6%) with grade 3 TG elevation were obese, which supports the theory that obesity plays an important role in the increase in lipid levels. Up-to-date laboratory follow-up of lipids suggests that there is no need to follow up serum lipids after the second month of treatment. Patients with risk factors for hyperlipidemia, such as abdominal obesity and familial hyperlipidemia, do not require further follow-up if there is no increase in serum lipids in the first month of treatment.¹ The presence of grade 1 or 2 hypertriglyceridemia at baseline in all our patients with grade 3 TG elevation may suggest that periodic laboratory follow-up during isotretinoin treatment is necessary to detect patients with grade 3 and higher TG levels.

The lack of knowledge of other risk factors (eg, familial hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance) for hyperlipidemia in all patients at baseline may be a limitation of our study. Although hypercholesterolemia persisted in the follow-up of our patients with initial LDL-C abnormalities, hypercholesterolemia over 250 mg/dL was very rare (1 patient). Possible complications associated with serum lipid abnormalities are pancreatitis and metabolic syndrome.⁴ In our study, none of the patients with lipid abnormalities had any relevant clinical sequelae. The dose-dependent elevation of the changes in LDL-C and TG (Table 3) may be important to predict the significant elevation of lipids and the associated complications in patients with a high total cumulative dose target that may require a long treatment duration. However, considering the short follow-up periods in our patients, the absence of clinical sequelae may be misleading. There are differences in recommendations between the US and European guidelines for isotretinoin dosage. Although the US guidelines recommend a total cumulative dose target, the European guidelines recommend low-dose isotretinoin daily for at least 6 months instead of a cumulative dose.^5,6 The relationship between change in lipids and total cumulative dose in our study may not be similar in patients treated with the dosing regimen recommended by the European guidelines, as our patients received a total cumulative dose instead of a daily low-dose isotretinoin regimen, unlike the European guidelines.⁵

Most liver transaminase abnormalities were detected in the second month. Abnormalities in GGT were seen in the second month and remained elevated at the next follow-up. However, clinically important grade 3 transaminase and GGT elevations were rare. It has been reported that GGT levels are more specific than transaminases in measuring hepatotoxicity.⁷ The fact that our patient with hepatotoxicity had a grade 3 GGT elevation in addition to grade 3 transaminase elevations supports that GGT elevation is more specific than transaminase levels in measuring hepatotoxicity. When these parameters were rechecked in our patients with grade 3 transaminase elevations, except in the case of hepatotoxicity, transaminase elevations did not recur, and GGT elevations did not accompany elevated transaminases, which suggested that transaminases may be elevated due to an extrahepatic origin (eg, hemolysis, exercise).

Rhabdomyolysis secondary to isotretinoin is rare in the literature of acne studies. In addition to clinical findings such as myalgia and fatigue, increased CK and abnormal liver enzymes, specifically AST, suggest the development of rhabdomyolysis.⁸ Our patient who developed rhabdomyolysis also had a recent history of vigorous exercise, grade 4 CK, and AST elevations. Other patients with isolated grade 3 CK elevations were informed about possible clinical signs of rhabdomyolysis, and they were able to complete their courses without any incident. According to a study by Landau et al,⁹ isotretinoin-associated hyperCKemia has been reported as benign. Similarly, our study found that isolated CK elevation during isotretinoin treatment may be misleading as a sign of rhabdomyolysis. Instead, CK monitoring may be more appropriate and cost-effective in patients with suspected clinical signs of rhabdomyolysis or in those with major elevations in transaminases, especially AST.

Conclusion

According to our study, hyperlipidemia was the most common complication in acne patients using isotretinoin. It may be appropriate to monitor the TG level at 2-month intervals in patients with grade 1 or 2 TG elevation at baseline to detect the possible risk for developing grade 3 hyperlipidemia. Periodic monitoring of LDL-C and TG levels may be appropriate, especially in patients who require a high total cumulative dose of isotretinoin. Clinically important liver enzyme abnormalities were rare in our study. Our findings support the idea that routine monthly monitoring of normal laboratory parameters is unnecessary and wasteful. Additionally, periodic monitoring of abnormal laboratory parameters should be considered on an individual basis.

Days or weeks before a scheduled surgical or invasive procedure involving anesthesia, evaluations are conducted to assess a patient’s condition and risk, optimize their status, and prepare them for their procedure. A comprehensive pre-anesthesia evaluation visit includes a history of present illness, the evaluation of comorbidities and medication use, the assessment of health habits such as alcohol and tobacco use, functional capacity and nutritional assessments, and the identification of social support deficiencies that may influence recovery. It also includes a focused physical examination and laboratory and other ancillary testing as needed and may include optimization interventions such as anemia management or prehabilitation. Conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations before surgery has been shown to reduce delays and cancellations, unnecessary preprocedure testing, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.^1-4

The pre-anesthesia evaluation is usually conducted in person, although other modalities have been in use for several years and have accelerated since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, audio-only telephone visits are used in many settings to conduct abbreviated forms of a pre-anesthesia evaluation, typically for less-invasive procedures. When patients are evaluated over the telephone, the physical examination and testing are deferred until the day of the procedure. Another modality is the use of synchronous video telehealth. Emerging evidence for the use of video-based care in anesthesiology provides encouraging results. Several institutions have proven the technological feasibility of performing preoperative evaluations via video.^5,6 Compared with in-person evaluations, these visits seem to have similar surgery cancellation rates, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced wait times and costs.^7-9

As part of a quality improvement project, we studied the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An internal review found overall low utilization of these modalities before the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated toward telehealth during the pandemic: The largest uptake was with telephone visits. Given the increasing adoption of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations and the marked preference for telephone over video modalities among VA practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits within the VA.

Methods

Our objective was to assess health care practitioners’ (HCPs) preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities (in-person, telephone, or video), and the perceived advantages and barriers to adoption for each modality. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) statement.^10,11 The survey was deemed a quality improvement activity that was exempt from institutional review board oversight by the VA National Anesthesia Program Office and the VA Office of Connected Care.

A survey was distributed to all VA anesthesiology service chiefs via email between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022. Three emails were sent to each participant (initial invitation and 2 reminders). The respondents were asked to identify themselves by facility and role and to indicate whether their anesthesiology service performed any pre-anesthesia evaluations, including any telephone- or video-based evaluations; and whether their service has a dedicated pre-anesthesia evaluation clinic.

A second set of questions referred to the use of telephone- and video-based preprocedure evaluations. The questions were based on branch logic and depended on the respondent’s answers concerning their use of telephone- and video-based evaluations. Questions included statements about perceived barriers to the adoption of these pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, (completely disagree [1] to completely agree [5]). A third section measured acceptability and feasibility of video using the validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)questionnaires.¹² These instruments are 4-item measures of implementation outcomes that are often considered indicators of implementation success.¹³Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Feasibility is defined as the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting.¹³ The criterion for acceptability is personal, meaning that different HCPs may have differing needs, preferences, and expectations regarding the same intervention. The criterion for feasibility is practical. An intervention may be considered to be feasible if the required tasks can be performed easily or conveniently. Finally, 2 open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify the most important factor that allowed the implementation of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations in their service, and provide comments about the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations at the VA. All questions were developed by the authors except for the 2 implementation measure instruments.

The survey was administered using an electronic survey platform (Qualtrics, version April 2022) and sent by email alongside a brief introductory video. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as no personal information was collected. Responses were attributed to each facility, using the self-declared affiliation. When an affiliation was not provided, we deduced it using the latitude/longitude of the respondent, a feature included in the survey software. No incentives were provided. Data were stored and maintained in a secure VA server. All completed surveys were included. Some facilities had > 1 complete response, and all were included. Facilities that provided > 1 response and where responses were discordant, we clarified with the facility service chief. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis.

Statistics

For this analysis, the 2 positive sentiment responses (agree and completely agree) and the 2 negative sentiment responses (disagree and completely disagree) in the Likert scale were collapsed into single categories (good and poor, respectively). The neither agree nor disagree responses were coded as neutral. Our analysis began with a visual exploration of all variables to evaluate the frequency, percentage, and near-zero variance for categorical variables.¹⁴ Near-zero variance occurs when a categorical variable has a low frequency of unique values over the sample size (ie, the variable is almost constant), and we addressed it by combining different variable categorizations. We handled missing values through imputation algorithms followed by sensitivity analyses to verify whether our results were stable with and without imputation. We performed comparisons for the exploratory analysis using P values for one-way analysis of variance tests for numeric variables and χ²tests for categorical variables. We considered P values < .05 to be statistically significant. We also used correlation matrices and plots as exploratory analysis tools to better understand all items’ correlations. We used Pearson, polychoric, and polyserial correlation tests as appropriate for numeric, ordinal, and logical items.

Our modeling strategy involved a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian family, ie, multiple linear regression models, to assess the association between (1) facilities’ preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities; (2) advantages between modalities; and (3) barriers to the adoption of telehealth and the ability to perform different pre-anesthesia evaluation-related tasks. In addition, we used backward deletion to reach the most parsimonious model based on a series of likelihood-ratio tests comparing nested models. Results are reported as predicted means with 95% confidence intervals, with results being interpreted as significant when any 2 predicted means do not overlap between different estimates along with P for trends < .001. We performed all analyses using the R language.¹⁵

Results

Of 109 surveyed facilities, 50 (46%) responded to the survey. The final study sample included 67 responses, and 55 were included in the analysis. Twelve responses were excluded from the analysis as they were either incomplete or test responses. Three facilities had > 1 complete response (2 facilities had 2 responses and 1 facility had 4 responses), and these were all included in the analysis.

Thirty-six locations were complex inpatient facilities, and 32 (89%) had pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics (Table 1).

Discussion

We surveyed 109 anesthesiology services across the VA regarding barriers to implementing telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits. We found that 12 (23%) of the 50 anesthesiology services responding to this survey still conduct the totality of their pre-anesthesia evaluations in person. This represents an opportunity to further disseminate the appropriate use of telehealth and potentially reduce travel time, costs, and low-value testing, as it is well established that remote pre-anesthesia evaluations for low-risk procedures are safe and effective.⁶

We also found no difference between telephone and video regarding users’ perceived ability to perform any of the basic pre-anesthesia evaluation tasks except for assessing patients’ nutritional status, which was rated as easier using video than telephone. According to those not using telephone and/or video, the biggest barriers to implementation of telehealth visits were the inability to obtain vital signs and to perform a physical examination. This finding was unexpected, as facilities that conduct remote evaluations typically defer these tasks to the day of surgery, a practice that has been well established and shown to be safe and efficient. Respondents also identified patient-level factors (eg, patient preference, lack of telephone or computer) as significant barriers. Finally, feasibility ratings were higher than acceptability ratings with regards to the implementation of telehealth.

In 2004, the first use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations was reported by Wong and colleagues.¹⁶ Since then, several case series and a literature review have documented the efficacy, safety, and patient and HCP satisfaction with the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations. A study by Mullen-Fortino and colleagues showed reduced visit times when telehealth was used for pre-anesthesia evaluation.⁸ Another study at VA hospitals showed that 88% of veterans reported that telemedicine saved them time and money.¹⁷ A report of 35 patients in rural Australia reported 98% satisfaction with the video quality of the visit, 95% perceived efficacy, and 87% preference for telehealth compared with driving to be seen in person.¹⁸ These reports conflict with the perceptions of the respondents of our survey, who identified patient preference as an important barrier to adoption of telehealth. Given these findings, research is needed on veterans’ perceptions on the use of telehealth modalities for pre-anesthesia evaluations; if their perceptions are similarly favorable, it will be important to communicate this information to HCPs and leadership, which may help increase subsequent telehealth adoption.

Despite the reported safety, efficacy, and high satisfaction of video visits among anesthesiology teams conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations, its use remains low at VA. We have found that most facilities in the VA system chose telephone platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. One possibility is that the adoption of video modalities among pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics in the VA system is resource intensive or difficult from the HCP’s perspective. When combined with the lack of perceived advantages over telephone as we found in our survey, most practitioners resort to the technologically less demanding and more familiar telephone platform. The results from FIM and AIM support this. While both telephone and video have high feasibility scores, acceptability scores are lower for video, even among those currently using this technology. Our findings do not rule out the utility of video-based care in perioperative medicine. Rather than a yes/no proposition, future studies need to establish the precise indications for video for pre-anesthesia evaluations; that is, situations where video visits offer an advantage over telephone. For example, video could be used to deliver preoperative optimization therapies, such as supervised exercise or mental health interventions or to guide the achievement of certain milestones before surgery in patients with chronic conditions, such as target glucose values or the treatment of anemia. Future studies should explore the perceived benefits of video over telephone among centers offering these more advanced optimization interventions.

Limitations

We received responses from a subset of VA anesthesiology services; therefore, they may not be representative of the entire VA system. Facilities designated by the VA as inpatient complex were overrepresented (72% of our sample vs 50% of the total facilities nationally), and ambulatory centers (those designed by the VA as ambulatory procedural center with basic or advanced capabilities) were underrepresented (2% of our sample vs 22% nationally). Despite this, the response rate was high, and no geographic area appeared to be underrepresented. In addition, we surveyed pre-anesthesia evaluation facilities led by anesthesiologists, and the results may not be representative of the preferences of HCPs working in nonanesthesiology led pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics. Finally, just 11 facilities used both telephone and video; therefore, a true direct comparison between these 2 platforms was limited. The VA serves a unique patient population, and the findings may not be completely applicable to the non-VA population.

Conclusions

We found no significant perceived advantages of video over telephone in the ability to conduct routine pre-anesthesia evaluations among a sample of anesthesiology HCPs in the VA except for the perceived ability to assess nutritional status. HCPs with no telehealth experience cited the inability to perform a physical examination and obtain vital signs as the most significant barriers to implementation. Respondents not using telephone cited concerns about safety. Video visits in this clinical setting had additional perceived barriers to implementation, such as lack of information technology and staff support and patient-level barriers. Video had lower acceptability by HCPs. Given findings that pre-anesthesia evaluations can be conducted effectively via telehealth and have high levels of patient satisfaction, future work should focus on increasing uptake of these remote modalities. Additionally, research on the most appropriate uses of video visits within perioperative care is also needed.

Days or weeks before a scheduled surgical or invasive procedure involving anesthesia, evaluations are conducted to assess a patient’s condition and risk, optimize their status, and prepare them for their procedure. A comprehensive pre-anesthesia evaluation visit includes a history of present illness, the evaluation of comorbidities and medication use, the assessment of health habits such as alcohol and tobacco use, functional capacity and nutritional assessments, and the identification of social support deficiencies that may influence recovery. It also includes a focused physical examination and laboratory and other ancillary testing as needed and may include optimization interventions such as anemia management or prehabilitation. Conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations before surgery has been shown to reduce delays and cancellations, unnecessary preprocedure testing, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.^1-4

The pre-anesthesia evaluation is usually conducted in person, although other modalities have been in use for several years and have accelerated since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, audio-only telephone visits are used in many settings to conduct abbreviated forms of a pre-anesthesia evaluation, typically for less-invasive procedures. When patients are evaluated over the telephone, the physical examination and testing are deferred until the day of the procedure. Another modality is the use of synchronous video telehealth. Emerging evidence for the use of video-based care in anesthesiology provides encouraging results. Several institutions have proven the technological feasibility of performing preoperative evaluations via video.^5,6 Compared with in-person evaluations, these visits seem to have similar surgery cancellation rates, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced wait times and costs.^7-9

As part of a quality improvement project, we studied the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An internal review found overall low utilization of these modalities before the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated toward telehealth during the pandemic: The largest uptake was with telephone visits. Given the increasing adoption of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations and the marked preference for telephone over video modalities among VA practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits within the VA.

Methods

Our objective was to assess health care practitioners’ (HCPs) preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities (in-person, telephone, or video), and the perceived advantages and barriers to adoption for each modality. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) statement.^10,11 The survey was deemed a quality improvement activity that was exempt from institutional review board oversight by the VA National Anesthesia Program Office and the VA Office of Connected Care.

A survey was distributed to all VA anesthesiology service chiefs via email between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022. Three emails were sent to each participant (initial invitation and 2 reminders). The respondents were asked to identify themselves by facility and role and to indicate whether their anesthesiology service performed any pre-anesthesia evaluations, including any telephone- or video-based evaluations; and whether their service has a dedicated pre-anesthesia evaluation clinic.

A second set of questions referred to the use of telephone- and video-based preprocedure evaluations. The questions were based on branch logic and depended on the respondent’s answers concerning their use of telephone- and video-based evaluations. Questions included statements about perceived barriers to the adoption of these pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, (completely disagree [1] to completely agree [5]). A third section measured acceptability and feasibility of video using the validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)questionnaires.¹² These instruments are 4-item measures of implementation outcomes that are often considered indicators of implementation success.¹³Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Feasibility is defined as the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting.¹³ The criterion for acceptability is personal, meaning that different HCPs may have differing needs, preferences, and expectations regarding the same intervention. The criterion for feasibility is practical. An intervention may be considered to be feasible if the required tasks can be performed easily or conveniently. Finally, 2 open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify the most important factor that allowed the implementation of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations in their service, and provide comments about the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations at the VA. All questions were developed by the authors except for the 2 implementation measure instruments.

The survey was administered using an electronic survey platform (Qualtrics, version April 2022) and sent by email alongside a brief introductory video. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as no personal information was collected. Responses were attributed to each facility, using the self-declared affiliation. When an affiliation was not provided, we deduced it using the latitude/longitude of the respondent, a feature included in the survey software. No incentives were provided. Data were stored and maintained in a secure VA server. All completed surveys were included. Some facilities had > 1 complete response, and all were included. Facilities that provided > 1 response and where responses were discordant, we clarified with the facility service chief. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis.

Statistics

For this analysis, the 2 positive sentiment responses (agree and completely agree) and the 2 negative sentiment responses (disagree and completely disagree) in the Likert scale were collapsed into single categories (good and poor, respectively). The neither agree nor disagree responses were coded as neutral. Our analysis began with a visual exploration of all variables to evaluate the frequency, percentage, and near-zero variance for categorical variables.¹⁴ Near-zero variance occurs when a categorical variable has a low frequency of unique values over the sample size (ie, the variable is almost constant), and we addressed it by combining different variable categorizations. We handled missing values through imputation algorithms followed by sensitivity analyses to verify whether our results were stable with and without imputation. We performed comparisons for the exploratory analysis using P values for one-way analysis of variance tests for numeric variables and χ²tests for categorical variables. We considered P values < .05 to be statistically significant. We also used correlation matrices and plots as exploratory analysis tools to better understand all items’ correlations. We used Pearson, polychoric, and polyserial correlation tests as appropriate for numeric, ordinal, and logical items.

Our modeling strategy involved a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian family, ie, multiple linear regression models, to assess the association between (1) facilities’ preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities; (2) advantages between modalities; and (3) barriers to the adoption of telehealth and the ability to perform different pre-anesthesia evaluation-related tasks. In addition, we used backward deletion to reach the most parsimonious model based on a series of likelihood-ratio tests comparing nested models. Results are reported as predicted means with 95% confidence intervals, with results being interpreted as significant when any 2 predicted means do not overlap between different estimates along with P for trends < .001. We performed all analyses using the R language.¹⁵

Results

Of 109 surveyed facilities, 50 (46%) responded to the survey. The final study sample included 67 responses, and 55 were included in the analysis. Twelve responses were excluded from the analysis as they were either incomplete or test responses. Three facilities had > 1 complete response (2 facilities had 2 responses and 1 facility had 4 responses), and these were all included in the analysis.

Thirty-six locations were complex inpatient facilities, and 32 (89%) had pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics (Table 1).

Discussion

We surveyed 109 anesthesiology services across the VA regarding barriers to implementing telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits. We found that 12 (23%) of the 50 anesthesiology services responding to this survey still conduct the totality of their pre-anesthesia evaluations in person. This represents an opportunity to further disseminate the appropriate use of telehealth and potentially reduce travel time, costs, and low-value testing, as it is well established that remote pre-anesthesia evaluations for low-risk procedures are safe and effective.⁶

We also found no difference between telephone and video regarding users’ perceived ability to perform any of the basic pre-anesthesia evaluation tasks except for assessing patients’ nutritional status, which was rated as easier using video than telephone. According to those not using telephone and/or video, the biggest barriers to implementation of telehealth visits were the inability to obtain vital signs and to perform a physical examination. This finding was unexpected, as facilities that conduct remote evaluations typically defer these tasks to the day of surgery, a practice that has been well established and shown to be safe and efficient. Respondents also identified patient-level factors (eg, patient preference, lack of telephone or computer) as significant barriers. Finally, feasibility ratings were higher than acceptability ratings with regards to the implementation of telehealth.

In 2004, the first use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations was reported by Wong and colleagues.¹⁶ Since then, several case series and a literature review have documented the efficacy, safety, and patient and HCP satisfaction with the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations. A study by Mullen-Fortino and colleagues showed reduced visit times when telehealth was used for pre-anesthesia evaluation.⁸ Another study at VA hospitals showed that 88% of veterans reported that telemedicine saved them time and money.¹⁷ A report of 35 patients in rural Australia reported 98% satisfaction with the video quality of the visit, 95% perceived efficacy, and 87% preference for telehealth compared with driving to be seen in person.¹⁸ These reports conflict with the perceptions of the respondents of our survey, who identified patient preference as an important barrier to adoption of telehealth. Given these findings, research is needed on veterans’ perceptions on the use of telehealth modalities for pre-anesthesia evaluations; if their perceptions are similarly favorable, it will be important to communicate this information to HCPs and leadership, which may help increase subsequent telehealth adoption.

Despite the reported safety, efficacy, and high satisfaction of video visits among anesthesiology teams conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations, its use remains low at VA. We have found that most facilities in the VA system chose telephone platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. One possibility is that the adoption of video modalities among pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics in the VA system is resource intensive or difficult from the HCP’s perspective. When combined with the lack of perceived advantages over telephone as we found in our survey, most practitioners resort to the technologically less demanding and more familiar telephone platform. The results from FIM and AIM support this. While both telephone and video have high feasibility scores, acceptability scores are lower for video, even among those currently using this technology. Our findings do not rule out the utility of video-based care in perioperative medicine. Rather than a yes/no proposition, future studies need to establish the precise indications for video for pre-anesthesia evaluations; that is, situations where video visits offer an advantage over telephone. For example, video could be used to deliver preoperative optimization therapies, such as supervised exercise or mental health interventions or to guide the achievement of certain milestones before surgery in patients with chronic conditions, such as target glucose values or the treatment of anemia. Future studies should explore the perceived benefits of video over telephone among centers offering these more advanced optimization interventions.

Limitations

We received responses from a subset of VA anesthesiology services; therefore, they may not be representative of the entire VA system. Facilities designated by the VA as inpatient complex were overrepresented (72% of our sample vs 50% of the total facilities nationally), and ambulatory centers (those designed by the VA as ambulatory procedural center with basic or advanced capabilities) were underrepresented (2% of our sample vs 22% nationally). Despite this, the response rate was high, and no geographic area appeared to be underrepresented. In addition, we surveyed pre-anesthesia evaluation facilities led by anesthesiologists, and the results may not be representative of the preferences of HCPs working in nonanesthesiology led pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics. Finally, just 11 facilities used both telephone and video; therefore, a true direct comparison between these 2 platforms was limited. The VA serves a unique patient population, and the findings may not be completely applicable to the non-VA population.

Conclusions

We found no significant perceived advantages of video over telephone in the ability to conduct routine pre-anesthesia evaluations among a sample of anesthesiology HCPs in the VA except for the perceived ability to assess nutritional status. HCPs with no telehealth experience cited the inability to perform a physical examination and obtain vital signs as the most significant barriers to implementation. Respondents not using telephone cited concerns about safety. Video visits in this clinical setting had additional perceived barriers to implementation, such as lack of information technology and staff support and patient-level barriers. Video had lower acceptability by HCPs. Given findings that pre-anesthesia evaluations can be conducted effectively via telehealth and have high levels of patient satisfaction, future work should focus on increasing uptake of these remote modalities. Additionally, research on the most appropriate uses of video visits within perioperative care is also needed.

Days or weeks before a scheduled surgical or invasive procedure involving anesthesia, evaluations are conducted to assess a patient’s condition and risk, optimize their status, and prepare them for their procedure. A comprehensive pre-anesthesia evaluation visit includes a history of present illness, the evaluation of comorbidities and medication use, the assessment of health habits such as alcohol and tobacco use, functional capacity and nutritional assessments, and the identification of social support deficiencies that may influence recovery. It also includes a focused physical examination and laboratory and other ancillary testing as needed and may include optimization interventions such as anemia management or prehabilitation. Conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations before surgery has been shown to reduce delays and cancellations, unnecessary preprocedure testing, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.^1-4

The pre-anesthesia evaluation is usually conducted in person, although other modalities have been in use for several years and have accelerated since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, audio-only telephone visits are used in many settings to conduct abbreviated forms of a pre-anesthesia evaluation, typically for less-invasive procedures. When patients are evaluated over the telephone, the physical examination and testing are deferred until the day of the procedure. Another modality is the use of synchronous video telehealth. Emerging evidence for the use of video-based care in anesthesiology provides encouraging results. Several institutions have proven the technological feasibility of performing preoperative evaluations via video.^5,6 Compared with in-person evaluations, these visits seem to have similar surgery cancellation rates, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced wait times and costs.^7-9

As part of a quality improvement project, we studied the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An internal review found overall low utilization of these modalities before the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated toward telehealth during the pandemic: The largest uptake was with telephone visits. Given the increasing adoption of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations and the marked preference for telephone over video modalities among VA practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits within the VA.

Methods

Our objective was to assess health care practitioners’ (HCPs) preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities (in-person, telephone, or video), and the perceived advantages and barriers to adoption for each modality. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) statement.^10,11 The survey was deemed a quality improvement activity that was exempt from institutional review board oversight by the VA National Anesthesia Program Office and the VA Office of Connected Care.

A survey was distributed to all VA anesthesiology service chiefs via email between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022. Three emails were sent to each participant (initial invitation and 2 reminders). The respondents were asked to identify themselves by facility and role and to indicate whether their anesthesiology service performed any pre-anesthesia evaluations, including any telephone- or video-based evaluations; and whether their service has a dedicated pre-anesthesia evaluation clinic.

A second set of questions referred to the use of telephone- and video-based preprocedure evaluations. The questions were based on branch logic and depended on the respondent’s answers concerning their use of telephone- and video-based evaluations. Questions included statements about perceived barriers to the adoption of these pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, (completely disagree [1] to completely agree [5]). A third section measured acceptability and feasibility of video using the validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)questionnaires.¹² These instruments are 4-item measures of implementation outcomes that are often considered indicators of implementation success.¹³Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Feasibility is defined as the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting.¹³ The criterion for acceptability is personal, meaning that different HCPs may have differing needs, preferences, and expectations regarding the same intervention. The criterion for feasibility is practical. An intervention may be considered to be feasible if the required tasks can be performed easily or conveniently. Finally, 2 open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify the most important factor that allowed the implementation of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations in their service, and provide comments about the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations at the VA. All questions were developed by the authors except for the 2 implementation measure instruments.

The survey was administered using an electronic survey platform (Qualtrics, version April 2022) and sent by email alongside a brief introductory video. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as no personal information was collected. Responses were attributed to each facility, using the self-declared affiliation. When an affiliation was not provided, we deduced it using the latitude/longitude of the respondent, a feature included in the survey software. No incentives were provided. Data were stored and maintained in a secure VA server. All completed surveys were included. Some facilities had > 1 complete response, and all were included. Facilities that provided > 1 response and where responses were discordant, we clarified with the facility service chief. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis.

Statistics

For this analysis, the 2 positive sentiment responses (agree and completely agree) and the 2 negative sentiment responses (disagree and completely disagree) in the Likert scale were collapsed into single categories (good and poor, respectively). The neither agree nor disagree responses were coded as neutral. Our analysis began with a visual exploration of all variables to evaluate the frequency, percentage, and near-zero variance for categorical variables.¹⁴ Near-zero variance occurs when a categorical variable has a low frequency of unique values over the sample size (ie, the variable is almost constant), and we addressed it by combining different variable categorizations. We handled missing values through imputation algorithms followed by sensitivity analyses to verify whether our results were stable with and without imputation. We performed comparisons for the exploratory analysis using P values for one-way analysis of variance tests for numeric variables and χ²tests for categorical variables. We considered P values < .05 to be statistically significant. We also used correlation matrices and plots as exploratory analysis tools to better understand all items’ correlations. We used Pearson, polychoric, and polyserial correlation tests as appropriate for numeric, ordinal, and logical items.

Our modeling strategy involved a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian family, ie, multiple linear regression models, to assess the association between (1) facilities’ preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities; (2) advantages between modalities; and (3) barriers to the adoption of telehealth and the ability to perform different pre-anesthesia evaluation-related tasks. In addition, we used backward deletion to reach the most parsimonious model based on a series of likelihood-ratio tests comparing nested models. Results are reported as predicted means with 95% confidence intervals, with results being interpreted as significant when any 2 predicted means do not overlap between different estimates along with P for trends < .001. We performed all analyses using the R language.¹⁵

Results

Of 109 surveyed facilities, 50 (46%) responded to the survey. The final study sample included 67 responses, and 55 were included in the analysis. Twelve responses were excluded from the analysis as they were either incomplete or test responses. Three facilities had > 1 complete response (2 facilities had 2 responses and 1 facility had 4 responses), and these were all included in the analysis.

Thirty-six locations were complex inpatient facilities, and 32 (89%) had pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics (Table 1).

Discussion

We surveyed 109 anesthesiology services across the VA regarding barriers to implementing telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits. We found that 12 (23%) of the 50 anesthesiology services responding to this survey still conduct the totality of their pre-anesthesia evaluations in person. This represents an opportunity to further disseminate the appropriate use of telehealth and potentially reduce travel time, costs, and low-value testing, as it is well established that remote pre-anesthesia evaluations for low-risk procedures are safe and effective.⁶

We also found no difference between telephone and video regarding users’ perceived ability to perform any of the basic pre-anesthesia evaluation tasks except for assessing patients’ nutritional status, which was rated as easier using video than telephone. According to those not using telephone and/or video, the biggest barriers to implementation of telehealth visits were the inability to obtain vital signs and to perform a physical examination. This finding was unexpected, as facilities that conduct remote evaluations typically defer these tasks to the day of surgery, a practice that has been well established and shown to be safe and efficient. Respondents also identified patient-level factors (eg, patient preference, lack of telephone or computer) as significant barriers. Finally, feasibility ratings were higher than acceptability ratings with regards to the implementation of telehealth.

In 2004, the first use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations was reported by Wong and colleagues.¹⁶ Since then, several case series and a literature review have documented the efficacy, safety, and patient and HCP satisfaction with the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations. A study by Mullen-Fortino and colleagues showed reduced visit times when telehealth was used for pre-anesthesia evaluation.⁸ Another study at VA hospitals showed that 88% of veterans reported that telemedicine saved them time and money.¹⁷ A report of 35 patients in rural Australia reported 98% satisfaction with the video quality of the visit, 95% perceived efficacy, and 87% preference for telehealth compared with driving to be seen in person.¹⁸ These reports conflict with the perceptions of the respondents of our survey, who identified patient preference as an important barrier to adoption of telehealth. Given these findings, research is needed on veterans’ perceptions on the use of telehealth modalities for pre-anesthesia evaluations; if their perceptions are similarly favorable, it will be important to communicate this information to HCPs and leadership, which may help increase subsequent telehealth adoption.

Despite the reported safety, efficacy, and high satisfaction of video visits among anesthesiology teams conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations, its use remains low at VA. We have found that most facilities in the VA system chose telephone platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. One possibility is that the adoption of video modalities among pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics in the VA system is resource intensive or difficult from the HCP’s perspective. When combined with the lack of perceived advantages over telephone as we found in our survey, most practitioners resort to the technologically less demanding and more familiar telephone platform. The results from FIM and AIM support this. While both telephone and video have high feasibility scores, acceptability scores are lower for video, even among those currently using this technology. Our findings do not rule out the utility of video-based care in perioperative medicine. Rather than a yes/no proposition, future studies need to establish the precise indications for video for pre-anesthesia evaluations; that is, situations where video visits offer an advantage over telephone. For example, video could be used to deliver preoperative optimization therapies, such as supervised exercise or mental health interventions or to guide the achievement of certain milestones before surgery in patients with chronic conditions, such as target glucose values or the treatment of anemia. Future studies should explore the perceived benefits of video over telephone among centers offering these more advanced optimization interventions.

Limitations

We received responses from a subset of VA anesthesiology services; therefore, they may not be representative of the entire VA system. Facilities designated by the VA as inpatient complex were overrepresented (72% of our sample vs 50% of the total facilities nationally), and ambulatory centers (those designed by the VA as ambulatory procedural center with basic or advanced capabilities) were underrepresented (2% of our sample vs 22% nationally). Despite this, the response rate was high, and no geographic area appeared to be underrepresented. In addition, we surveyed pre-anesthesia evaluation facilities led by anesthesiologists, and the results may not be representative of the preferences of HCPs working in nonanesthesiology led pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics. Finally, just 11 facilities used both telephone and video; therefore, a true direct comparison between these 2 platforms was limited. The VA serves a unique patient population, and the findings may not be completely applicable to the non-VA population.

Conclusions

We found no significant perceived advantages of video over telephone in the ability to conduct routine pre-anesthesia evaluations among a sample of anesthesiology HCPs in the VA except for the perceived ability to assess nutritional status. HCPs with no telehealth experience cited the inability to perform a physical examination and obtain vital signs as the most significant barriers to implementation. Respondents not using telephone cited concerns about safety. Video visits in this clinical setting had additional perceived barriers to implementation, such as lack of information technology and staff support and patient-level barriers. Video had lower acceptability by HCPs. Given findings that pre-anesthesia evaluations can be conducted effectively via telehealth and have high levels of patient satisfaction, future work should focus on increasing uptake of these remote modalities. Additionally, research on the most appropriate uses of video visits within perioperative care is also needed.

To the Editor:

Peer-reviewed publications are important determinants for promotions, academic leadership, and grants in dermatology.¹ The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dermatology research productivity remains an area of investigation. We sought to determine authorship trends for males and females during the pandemic.

A cross-sectional retrospective study of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor and Google Scholar H5-index—was conducted to identify manuscripts with submission date specified prepandemic (May 1, 2019–October 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (May 1, 2020–October 31, 2020). Submission date, first/last author name, sex, and affiliated country were extracted. Single authors were designated as first authors. Gender API (https://gender-api.com/en/) classified gender. A χ² test (P<.05) compared differences in proportions of female first/last authors from 2019 to 2020.

Overall, 811 and 1061 articles submitted in 2019 and 2020, respectively, were included. There were 1517 articles submitted to clinical journals and 355 articles submitted to basic science journals (Table). For the 7 clinical journals included, there was a 7.7% decrease in the proportion of female last authors in 2020 vs 2019 (P=.002), with the largest decrease between August and September 2020. Although other comparisons did not yield statistically significant differences (P>.05 all)(Table), several trends were observed. For clinical journals, there was a 1.8% decrease in the proportion of female first authors. For the 4 basic science journals included, there was a 4.9% increase and a 0.3% decrease in percentages of female first and last authors, respectively, for 2020 vs 2019.

Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted female authors’ productivity in clinical dermatology publications. In a survey-based study for 2010 to 2011, female physician-researchers (n=437) spent 8.5 more hours per week on domestic activities and childcare and were more likely to take time off for childcare if their partner worked full time compared with males (n=612)(42.6% vs 12.4%, respectively).² Our observation that female last authors had a significant decrease in publications may suggest that this population had a disproportionate burden of domestic labor and childcare during the pandemic. It is possible that last authors, who generally are more senior researchers, may be more likely to have childcare, eldercare, and other types of domestic responsibilities. Similarly, in a study of surgery submissions (n=1068), there were 6%, 7%, and 4% decreases in percentages of female last, corresponding, and first authors, respectively, from 2019 to 2020.³Our study had limitations. Only 11 journals were analyzed because others did not have specified submission dates. Some journals only provided submission information for a subset of articles (eg, those published in the In Press section), which may have accounted for the large discrepancy in submission numbers for 2019 to 2020. Gender could not be determined for 1% of authors and was limited to female and male. Although our study submission time frame (May–October 2020) aimed at identifying research conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these studies may have been conducted months or years before the pandemic. Future studies should focus on longer and more comprehensive time frames. Finally, estimated dates of stay-at-home orders fail to consider differences within countries.

The proportion of female US-affiliated first and last authors publishing in dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% in 1976 and from 6% to 31% in 2006,⁴ which is encouraging. However, a gender gap persists, with one-third of National Institutes of Health grants in dermatology and one-fourth of research project grants in dermatology awarded to women.⁵ Consequences of the pandemic on academic productivity may include fewer women represented in higher academic ranks, lower compensation, and lower career satisfaction compared with men.¹ We urge academic institutions and funding agencies to recognize and take action to mitigate long-term sequelae. Extended grant end dates and submission periods, funding opportunities dedicated to women, and prioritization of female-authored submissions are some strategies that can safeguard equitable career progression in dermatology research.

To the Editor:

Peer-reviewed publications are important determinants for promotions, academic leadership, and grants in dermatology.¹ The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dermatology research productivity remains an area of investigation. We sought to determine authorship trends for males and females during the pandemic.

A cross-sectional retrospective study of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor and Google Scholar H5-index—was conducted to identify manuscripts with submission date specified prepandemic (May 1, 2019–October 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (May 1, 2020–October 31, 2020). Submission date, first/last author name, sex, and affiliated country were extracted. Single authors were designated as first authors. Gender API (https://gender-api.com/en/) classified gender. A χ² test (P<.05) compared differences in proportions of female first/last authors from 2019 to 2020.

Overall, 811 and 1061 articles submitted in 2019 and 2020, respectively, were included. There were 1517 articles submitted to clinical journals and 355 articles submitted to basic science journals (Table). For the 7 clinical journals included, there was a 7.7% decrease in the proportion of female last authors in 2020 vs 2019 (P=.002), with the largest decrease between August and September 2020. Although other comparisons did not yield statistically significant differences (P>.05 all)(Table), several trends were observed. For clinical journals, there was a 1.8% decrease in the proportion of female first authors. For the 4 basic science journals included, there was a 4.9% increase and a 0.3% decrease in percentages of female first and last authors, respectively, for 2020 vs 2019.

Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted female authors’ productivity in clinical dermatology publications. In a survey-based study for 2010 to 2011, female physician-researchers (n=437) spent 8.5 more hours per week on domestic activities and childcare and were more likely to take time off for childcare if their partner worked full time compared with males (n=612)(42.6% vs 12.4%, respectively).² Our observation that female last authors had a significant decrease in publications may suggest that this population had a disproportionate burden of domestic labor and childcare during the pandemic. It is possible that last authors, who generally are more senior researchers, may be more likely to have childcare, eldercare, and other types of domestic responsibilities. Similarly, in a study of surgery submissions (n=1068), there were 6%, 7%, and 4% decreases in percentages of female last, corresponding, and first authors, respectively, from 2019 to 2020.³Our study had limitations. Only 11 journals were analyzed because others did not have specified submission dates. Some journals only provided submission information for a subset of articles (eg, those published in the In Press section), which may have accounted for the large discrepancy in submission numbers for 2019 to 2020. Gender could not be determined for 1% of authors and was limited to female and male. Although our study submission time frame (May–October 2020) aimed at identifying research conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these studies may have been conducted months or years before the pandemic. Future studies should focus on longer and more comprehensive time frames. Finally, estimated dates of stay-at-home orders fail to consider differences within countries.

The proportion of female US-affiliated first and last authors publishing in dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% in 1976 and from 6% to 31% in 2006,⁴ which is encouraging. However, a gender gap persists, with one-third of National Institutes of Health grants in dermatology and one-fourth of research project grants in dermatology awarded to women.⁵ Consequences of the pandemic on academic productivity may include fewer women represented in higher academic ranks, lower compensation, and lower career satisfaction compared with men.¹ We urge academic institutions and funding agencies to recognize and take action to mitigate long-term sequelae. Extended grant end dates and submission periods, funding opportunities dedicated to women, and prioritization of female-authored submissions are some strategies that can safeguard equitable career progression in dermatology research.

To the Editor:

Peer-reviewed publications are important determinants for promotions, academic leadership, and grants in dermatology.¹ The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dermatology research productivity remains an area of investigation. We sought to determine authorship trends for males and females during the pandemic.

A cross-sectional retrospective study of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor and Google Scholar H5-index—was conducted to identify manuscripts with submission date specified prepandemic (May 1, 2019–October 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (May 1, 2020–October 31, 2020). Submission date, first/last author name, sex, and affiliated country were extracted. Single authors were designated as first authors. Gender API (https://gender-api.com/en/) classified gender. A χ² test (P<.05) compared differences in proportions of female first/last authors from 2019 to 2020.

Overall, 811 and 1061 articles submitted in 2019 and 2020, respectively, were included. There were 1517 articles submitted to clinical journals and 355 articles submitted to basic science journals (Table). For the 7 clinical journals included, there was a 7.7% decrease in the proportion of female last authors in 2020 vs 2019 (P=.002), with the largest decrease between August and September 2020. Although other comparisons did not yield statistically significant differences (P>.05 all)(Table), several trends were observed. For clinical journals, there was a 1.8% decrease in the proportion of female first authors. For the 4 basic science journals included, there was a 4.9% increase and a 0.3% decrease in percentages of female first and last authors, respectively, for 2020 vs 2019.

Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted female authors’ productivity in clinical dermatology publications. In a survey-based study for 2010 to 2011, female physician-researchers (n=437) spent 8.5 more hours per week on domestic activities and childcare and were more likely to take time off for childcare if their partner worked full time compared with males (n=612)(42.6% vs 12.4%, respectively).² Our observation that female last authors had a significant decrease in publications may suggest that this population had a disproportionate burden of domestic labor and childcare during the pandemic. It is possible that last authors, who generally are more senior researchers, may be more likely to have childcare, eldercare, and other types of domestic responsibilities. Similarly, in a study of surgery submissions (n=1068), there were 6%, 7%, and 4% decreases in percentages of female last, corresponding, and first authors, respectively, from 2019 to 2020.³Our study had limitations. Only 11 journals were analyzed because others did not have specified submission dates. Some journals only provided submission information for a subset of articles (eg, those published in the In Press section), which may have accounted for the large discrepancy in submission numbers for 2019 to 2020. Gender could not be determined for 1% of authors and was limited to female and male. Although our study submission time frame (May–October 2020) aimed at identifying research conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these studies may have been conducted months or years before the pandemic. Future studies should focus on longer and more comprehensive time frames. Finally, estimated dates of stay-at-home orders fail to consider differences within countries.

The proportion of female US-affiliated first and last authors publishing in dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% in 1976 and from 6% to 31% in 2006,⁴ which is encouraging. However, a gender gap persists, with one-third of National Institutes of Health grants in dermatology and one-fourth of research project grants in dermatology awarded to women.⁵ Consequences of the pandemic on academic productivity may include fewer women represented in higher academic ranks, lower compensation, and lower career satisfaction compared with men.¹ We urge academic institutions and funding agencies to recognize and take action to mitigate long-term sequelae. Extended grant end dates and submission periods, funding opportunities dedicated to women, and prioritization of female-authored submissions are some strategies that can safeguard equitable career progression in dermatology research.

Frailty is an age-associated, nonspecific vulnerability to adverse health outcomes. Frailty can also be described as a complex of symptoms characterized by impaired stress tolerance due to a decline in the functionality of different organs.¹ The prevalence of frailty varies widely depending on the method of measurement and the population studied.^2-4 It is a nonconstant factor that increases with age. A deficit accumulation frailty index (FI) is one method used to measure frailty.⁵ This approach sees frailty as a multidimensional risk state measured by quantity rather than the nature of health concerns. A deficit accumulation FI does not require physical testing but correlates well with other phenotypic FIs.⁶ It is, however, time consuming, as ≥ 30 deficits need to be measured to offer greater stability to the frailty estimate.

Health care is seeing increasing utilization of big data analytics to derive predictive models and help with resource allocation. There are currently 2 existing automated tools to predict health care utilization and mortality at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): the VA Frailty Index (VA-FI-10) and the Care Assessment Need (CAN). VA-FI-10 is an International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) update of the VA-FI that was created in March 2021. The VA-FI-10 is a claims-based frailty assessment tool using 31 health deficits. Calculating the VA-FI-10 requires defining an index date and lookback period (typically 3 years) relative to which it will be calculated.⁷

CAN is a set of risk-stratifying statistical models run on veterans receiving VA primary care services as part of a patient aligned care team (PACT) using electronic health record data.⁸ Each veteran is stratified based on the individual’s risks of hospitalization, death, and hospitalization or death. These 3 events are predicted for 90-day and 1-year time periods for a total of 6 distinct outcomes. CAN is currently on its third iteration (CAN 2.5) and scores range from 0 (low) to 99 (high). CAN scores are updated weekly. The 1-year hospitalization probabilities for all patients range from 0.8% to 93.1%. For patients with a CAN score of 50, the probability of being hospitalized within a year ranges from 4.5% to 5.2%, which increases to 32.2% to 36% for veterans with a CAN score of 95. The probability range widens significantly (32.2%-93.1%) for patients in the top 5 CAN scores (95-99).

CAN scores are a potential screening tool for frailty among older adults; they are generated automatically and provide acceptable diagnostic accuracy. Hence, the CAN score may be a useful tool for primary care practitioners for the detection of frailty in their patients. The CAN score has shown a moderate positive association with the FRAIL Scale.^9,10 The population-based studies that have used the FI approach (differing FIs, depending on the data available) give robust results: People accumulate an average of 0.03 deficits per year after the age of 70 years.¹¹ Interventions to delay or reverse frailty have not been clearly defined with heterogeneity in the definition of frailty and measurement of frailty outcomes.^12,13 The prevalence of frailty in the veteran population is substantially higher than the prevalence in community populations with a similar age distribution. There is also mounting evidence that veterans accumulate deficits more rapidly than their civilian counterparts.¹⁴

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 and had many impacts on global health that were most marked in the first year. These included reductions in hospital visits for non-COVID-19 health concerns, a reduction in completed screening tests, an initial reduction in other infectious diseases (attributable to quarantines), and an increase or worsening of mental health concerns.^15,16

We aimed to investigate whether frailty increased disproportionately in a subset of older veterans in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with the previous year using CAN scores. This single institution, longitudinal cohort study was determined to be exempt from institutional review board review but was approved by the Phoenix VA Health Care System (PVAHCS) Research and Development Committee.

Methods

The Office of Clinical Systems Development and Evaluation (CSDE–10E2A) produces a weekly CAN Score Report to help identify the highest-risk patients in a primary care panel or cohort. CAN scores range from 0 (lowest risk) to 99 (highest risk), indicating how likely a patient is to experience hospitalization or death compared with other VA patients. CAN scores are calculated with statistical prediction models that use data elements from the following Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) domains: demographics, health care utilization, laboratory tests, medical conditions, medications, and vital signs (eAppendix available online at 10.12788/fp.0385).

The CAN Score Report is generated weekly and stored on a CDW server. A patient will receive all 6 distinct CAN scores if they are: (1) assigned to a primary care PACT on the risk date; (2) a veteran; (3) not hospitalized in a VA facility on the risk date; and (4) alive as of the risk date. New to CAN 2.5 is that patients who meet criteria 1, 2, and 4 but are hospitalized in a VA facility on the risk date will receive CAN scores for the 1-year and 90-day mortality models.

Utilizing VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VA HSR RES 13-457, US Department of Veterans Affairs [2008]), we obtained 2 lists of veterans aged 70 to 75 years on February 8, 2019, with a calculated CAN score of ≥ 75 for 1-year mortality and 1-year hospitalization on that date. A veteran with a CAN score of ≥ 75 is likely to be prefrail or frail.^9,10 Veterans who did not have a corresponding calculated CAN score on February 7, 2020, and February 12, 2021, were excluded. COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency in the United States on January 31, 2020, and the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020.¹⁷ We picked February 7, 2020, within this time frame and without any other special significance. We picked additional CAN score calculation dates approximately 1 year prior and 1 year after this date. Veterans had to be alive on February 12, 2021, (the last date of the CAN score) to be included in the cohorts.

Statistical Analyses

The difference in CAN score from one year to the next was calculated for each patient. The difference between 2019 and 2020 was compared with the difference between 2020 to 2021 using a paired t test. Yearly CAN score values were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance. The number of patients that showed an increase in CAN score (ie, increased risk of either mortality or hospitalization within the year) or a decrease (lower risk) was compared using the χ² test. IBM SPSS v26 and GraphPad Prism v18 were used for statistical analysis. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

There were 3538 veterans at PVAHCS who met the inclusion criteria and had a 1-year mortality CAN score ≥ 75 on February 8, 2019.

In the hospitalization group, there were 6046 veterans in the analysis; 57 veterans missing a 1-year hospitalization CAN score that were excluded. The mean age was 71.7 (1.3) years and included 5874 male (97.2%) and 172 female (2.8%) veterans. There was a decline in mean 1-year hospitalization CAN scores in our subset of frail older veterans by 2.8 (95% CI, -3.1 to -2.6) in the year preceding the COVID-19 pandemic. This mean decline slowed significantly to 1.5 (95% CI, -1.8 to -1.2; P < .0001) after the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean CAN scores for 1-year hospitalization were 84.6 (95% CI, 84.4 to 84.8), 81.8 (95% CI, 81.5 to 82.1), and 80.2 (95% CI, 79.9 to 80.6) for 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively.

We also calculated the number of veterans with increasing, stable, and decreasing CAN scores across each of our defined periods in both the 1-year mortality and hospitalization groups.

Discussion

We studied frailty trends in an older veteran subpopulation enrolled at the PVAHCS 1 year prior and into the COVID-19 pandemic using CAN scores. Frailty is a dynamic state. Previous frailty assessments aimed to identify patients at the highest risk of death. With the advent of advanced therapeutics for several diseases, the number of medical conditions that are now managed as chronic illnesses continues to grow. There is a role for repeated measures of frailty to try to identify frailty trends.¹⁹ These trends may assist us in resource allocation, identifying interventions that work and those that do not.

Some studies have shown an overall declining lethality of frailty. This may reflect improvements in the care and management of chronic conditions, screening tests, and increased awareness of healthy lifestyles.²⁰ Another study of frailty trajectories in a veteran population in the 5 years preceding death showed multiple trajectories (stable, gradually increasing, rapidly increasing, and recovering).¹⁹

The PACT is a primary care model implemented at VA medical centers in April 2010. It is a patient-centered medical home model (PCMH) with several components. The VA treats a population of socioeconomically vulnerable patients with complex chronic illness management needs. Some of the components of a PACT model relevant to our study include facilitated self-management support for veterans in between practitioner visits via care partners, peer-to-peer and transitional care programs, physical activity and diet programs, primary care mental health, integration between primary and specialty care, and telehealth.²¹ A previous study has shown that VA primary care clinics with the most PCMH components in place had greater improvements in several chronic disease quality measures than in clinics with a lower number of PCMH components.²²

Limitations

Our study is limited by our older veteran population demographics. We chose only a subset of older veterans at a single VA center for this study and cannot extrapolate the results to all older frail veterans or community dwelling older adults. Robust individuals may also transition to prefrailty and frailty over longer periods; our study monitored frailty trends over 2 years.

CAN scores are not quality measures to improve upon. Allocation and utilization of additional resources may clinically benefit a patient but increase their CAN scores. Although our results are statistically significant, we are unable to make any conclusions about clinical significance.

Conclusions

Our study results indicate frailty as determined by 1-year mortality CAN scores significantly increased in a subset of older veterans during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with the previous year. Whether this change in frailty is temporary or long lasting remains to be seen. Automated CAN scores can be effectively utilized to monitor frailty trends in certain veteran populations over longer periods.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Frailty is an age-associated, nonspecific vulnerability to adverse health outcomes. Frailty can also be described as a complex of symptoms characterized by impaired stress tolerance due to a decline in the functionality of different organs.¹ The prevalence of frailty varies widely depending on the method of measurement and the population studied.^2-4 It is a nonconstant factor that increases with age. A deficit accumulation frailty index (FI) is one method used to measure frailty.⁵ This approach sees frailty as a multidimensional risk state measured by quantity rather than the nature of health concerns. A deficit accumulation FI does not require physical testing but correlates well with other phenotypic FIs.⁶ It is, however, time consuming, as ≥ 30 deficits need to be measured to offer greater stability to the frailty estimate.

Health care is seeing increasing utilization of big data analytics to derive predictive models and help with resource allocation. There are currently 2 existing automated tools to predict health care utilization and mortality at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): the VA Frailty Index (VA-FI-10) and the Care Assessment Need (CAN). VA-FI-10 is an International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) update of the VA-FI that was created in March 2021. The VA-FI-10 is a claims-based frailty assessment tool using 31 health deficits. Calculating the VA-FI-10 requires defining an index date and lookback period (typically 3 years) relative to which it will be calculated.⁷

CAN is a set of risk-stratifying statistical models run on veterans receiving VA primary care services as part of a patient aligned care team (PACT) using electronic health record data.⁸ Each veteran is stratified based on the individual’s risks of hospitalization, death, and hospitalization or death. These 3 events are predicted for 90-day and 1-year time periods for a total of 6 distinct outcomes. CAN is currently on its third iteration (CAN 2.5) and scores range from 0 (low) to 99 (high). CAN scores are updated weekly. The 1-year hospitalization probabilities for all patients range from 0.8% to 93.1%. For patients with a CAN score of 50, the probability of being hospitalized within a year ranges from 4.5% to 5.2%, which increases to 32.2% to 36% for veterans with a CAN score of 95. The probability range widens significantly (32.2%-93.1%) for patients in the top 5 CAN scores (95-99).

CAN scores are a potential screening tool for frailty among older adults; they are generated automatically and provide acceptable diagnostic accuracy. Hence, the CAN score may be a useful tool for primary care practitioners for the detection of frailty in their patients. The CAN score has shown a moderate positive association with the FRAIL Scale.^9,10 The population-based studies that have used the FI approach (differing FIs, depending on the data available) give robust results: People accumulate an average of 0.03 deficits per year after the age of 70 years.¹¹ Interventions to delay or reverse frailty have not been clearly defined with heterogeneity in the definition of frailty and measurement of frailty outcomes.^12,13 The prevalence of frailty in the veteran population is substantially higher than the prevalence in community populations with a similar age distribution. There is also mounting evidence that veterans accumulate deficits more rapidly than their civilian counterparts.¹⁴

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 and had many impacts on global health that were most marked in the first year. These included reductions in hospital visits for non-COVID-19 health concerns, a reduction in completed screening tests, an initial reduction in other infectious diseases (attributable to quarantines), and an increase or worsening of mental health concerns.^15,16

We aimed to investigate whether frailty increased disproportionately in a subset of older veterans in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with the previous year using CAN scores. This single institution, longitudinal cohort study was determined to be exempt from institutional review board review but was approved by the Phoenix VA Health Care System (PVAHCS) Research and Development Committee.

Methods

The Office of Clinical Systems Development and Evaluation (CSDE–10E2A) produces a weekly CAN Score Report to help identify the highest-risk patients in a primary care panel or cohort. CAN scores range from 0 (lowest risk) to 99 (highest risk), indicating how likely a patient is to experience hospitalization or death compared with other VA patients. CAN scores are calculated with statistical prediction models that use data elements from the following Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) domains: demographics, health care utilization, laboratory tests, medical conditions, medications, and vital signs (eAppendix available online at 10.12788/fp.0385).

The CAN Score Report is generated weekly and stored on a CDW server. A patient will receive all 6 distinct CAN scores if they are: (1) assigned to a primary care PACT on the risk date; (2) a veteran; (3) not hospitalized in a VA facility on the risk date; and (4) alive as of the risk date. New to CAN 2.5 is that patients who meet criteria 1, 2, and 4 but are hospitalized in a VA facility on the risk date will receive CAN scores for the 1-year and 90-day mortality models.

Utilizing VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VA HSR RES 13-457, US Department of Veterans Affairs [2008]), we obtained 2 lists of veterans aged 70 to 75 years on February 8, 2019, with a calculated CAN score of ≥ 75 for 1-year mortality and 1-year hospitalization on that date. A veteran with a CAN score of ≥ 75 is likely to be prefrail or frail.^9,10 Veterans who did not have a corresponding calculated CAN score on February 7, 2020, and February 12, 2021, were excluded. COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency in the United States on January 31, 2020, and the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020.¹⁷ We picked February 7, 2020, within this time frame and without any other special significance. We picked additional CAN score calculation dates approximately 1 year prior and 1 year after this date. Veterans had to be alive on February 12, 2021, (the last date of the CAN score) to be included in the cohorts.

Statistical Analyses

The difference in CAN score from one year to the next was calculated for each patient. The difference between 2019 and 2020 was compared with the difference between 2020 to 2021 using a paired t test. Yearly CAN score values were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance. The number of patients that showed an increase in CAN score (ie, increased risk of either mortality or hospitalization within the year) or a decrease (lower risk) was compared using the χ² test. IBM SPSS v26 and GraphPad Prism v18 were used for statistical analysis. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

There were 3538 veterans at PVAHCS who met the inclusion criteria and had a 1-year mortality CAN score ≥ 75 on February 8, 2019.

In the hospitalization group, there were 6046 veterans in the analysis; 57 veterans missing a 1-year hospitalization CAN score that were excluded. The mean age was 71.7 (1.3) years and included 5874 male (97.2%) and 172 female (2.8%) veterans. There was a decline in mean 1-year hospitalization CAN scores in our subset of frail older veterans by 2.8 (95% CI, -3.1 to -2.6) in the year preceding the COVID-19 pandemic. This mean decline slowed significantly to 1.5 (95% CI, -1.8 to -1.2; P < .0001) after the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean CAN scores for 1-year hospitalization were 84.6 (95% CI, 84.4 to 84.8), 81.8 (95% CI, 81.5 to 82.1), and 80.2 (95% CI, 79.9 to 80.6) for 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively.

We also calculated the number of veterans with increasing, stable, and decreasing CAN scores across each of our defined periods in both the 1-year mortality and hospitalization groups.

Discussion

We studied frailty trends in an older veteran subpopulation enrolled at the PVAHCS 1 year prior and into the COVID-19 pandemic using CAN scores. Frailty is a dynamic state. Previous frailty assessments aimed to identify patients at the highest risk of death. With the advent of advanced therapeutics for several diseases, the number of medical conditions that are now managed as chronic illnesses continues to grow. There is a role for repeated measures of frailty to try to identify frailty trends.¹⁹ These trends may assist us in resource allocation, identifying interventions that work and those that do not.

Some studies have shown an overall declining lethality of frailty. This may reflect improvements in the care and management of chronic conditions, screening tests, and increased awareness of healthy lifestyles.²⁰ Another study of frailty trajectories in a veteran population in the 5 years preceding death showed multiple trajectories (stable, gradually increasing, rapidly increasing, and recovering).¹⁹

The PACT is a primary care model implemented at VA medical centers in April 2010. It is a patient-centered medical home model (PCMH) with several components. The VA treats a population of socioeconomically vulnerable patients with complex chronic illness management needs. Some of the components of a PACT model relevant to our study include facilitated self-management support for veterans in between practitioner visits via care partners, peer-to-peer and transitional care programs, physical activity and diet programs, primary care mental health, integration between primary and specialty care, and telehealth.²¹ A previous study has shown that VA primary care clinics with the most PCMH components in place had greater improvements in several chronic disease quality measures than in clinics with a lower number of PCMH components.²²

Limitations

Our study is limited by our older veteran population demographics. We chose only a subset of older veterans at a single VA center for this study and cannot extrapolate the results to all older frail veterans or community dwelling older adults. Robust individuals may also transition to prefrailty and frailty over longer periods; our study monitored frailty trends over 2 years.

CAN scores are not quality measures to improve upon. Allocation and utilization of additional resources may clinically benefit a patient but increase their CAN scores. Although our results are statistically significant, we are unable to make any conclusions about clinical significance.

Conclusions

Our study results indicate frailty as determined by 1-year mortality CAN scores significantly increased in a subset of older veterans during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with the previous year. Whether this change in frailty is temporary or long lasting remains to be seen. Automated CAN scores can be effectively utilized to monitor frailty trends in certain veteran populations over longer periods.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Frailty is an age-associated, nonspecific vulnerability to adverse health outcomes. Frailty can also be described as a complex of symptoms characterized by impaired stress tolerance due to a decline in the functionality of different organs.¹ The prevalence of frailty varies widely depending on the method of measurement and the population studied.^2-4 It is a nonconstant factor that increases with age. A deficit accumulation frailty index (FI) is one method used to measure frailty.⁵ This approach sees frailty as a multidimensional risk state measured by quantity rather than the nature of health concerns. A deficit accumulation FI does not require physical testing but correlates well with other phenotypic FIs.⁶ It is, however, time consuming, as ≥ 30 deficits need to be measured to offer greater stability to the frailty estimate.

Health care is seeing increasing utilization of big data analytics to derive predictive models and help with resource allocation. There are currently 2 existing automated tools to predict health care utilization and mortality at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): the VA Frailty Index (VA-FI-10) and the Care Assessment Need (CAN). VA-FI-10 is an International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) update of the VA-FI that was created in March 2021. The VA-FI-10 is a claims-based frailty assessment tool using 31 health deficits. Calculating the VA-FI-10 requires defining an index date and lookback period (typically 3 years) relative to which it will be calculated.⁷

CAN is a set of risk-stratifying statistical models run on veterans receiving VA primary care services as part of a patient aligned care team (PACT) using electronic health record data.⁸ Each veteran is stratified based on the individual’s risks of hospitalization, death, and hospitalization or death. These 3 events are predicted for 90-day and 1-year time periods for a total of 6 distinct outcomes. CAN is currently on its third iteration (CAN 2.5) and scores range from 0 (low) to 99 (high). CAN scores are updated weekly. The 1-year hospitalization probabilities for all patients range from 0.8% to 93.1%. For patients with a CAN score of 50, the probability of being hospitalized within a year ranges from 4.5% to 5.2%, which increases to 32.2% to 36% for veterans with a CAN score of 95. The probability range widens significantly (32.2%-93.1%) for patients in the top 5 CAN scores (95-99).

CAN scores are a potential screening tool for frailty among older adults; they are generated automatically and provide acceptable diagnostic accuracy. Hence, the CAN score may be a useful tool for primary care practitioners for the detection of frailty in their patients. The CAN score has shown a moderate positive association with the FRAIL Scale.^9,10 The population-based studies that have used the FI approach (differing FIs, depending on the data available) give robust results: People accumulate an average of 0.03 deficits per year after the age of 70 years.¹¹ Interventions to delay or reverse frailty have not been clearly defined with heterogeneity in the definition of frailty and measurement of frailty outcomes.^12,13 The prevalence of frailty in the veteran population is substantially higher than the prevalence in community populations with a similar age distribution. There is also mounting evidence that veterans accumulate deficits more rapidly than their civilian counterparts.¹⁴

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 and had many impacts on global health that were most marked in the first year. These included reductions in hospital visits for non-COVID-19 health concerns, a reduction in completed screening tests, an initial reduction in other infectious diseases (attributable to quarantines), and an increase or worsening of mental health concerns.^15,16

We aimed to investigate whether frailty increased disproportionately in a subset of older veterans in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with the previous year using CAN scores. This single institution, longitudinal cohort study was determined to be exempt from institutional review board review but was approved by the Phoenix VA Health Care System (PVAHCS) Research and Development Committee.

Methods

The Office of Clinical Systems Development and Evaluation (CSDE–10E2A) produces a weekly CAN Score Report to help identify the highest-risk patients in a primary care panel or cohort. CAN scores range from 0 (lowest risk) to 99 (highest risk), indicating how likely a patient is to experience hospitalization or death compared with other VA patients. CAN scores are calculated with statistical prediction models that use data elements from the following Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) domains: demographics, health care utilization, laboratory tests, medical conditions, medications, and vital signs (eAppendix available online at 10.12788/fp.0385).

The CAN Score Report is generated weekly and stored on a CDW server. A patient will receive all 6 distinct CAN scores if they are: (1) assigned to a primary care PACT on the risk date; (2) a veteran; (3) not hospitalized in a VA facility on the risk date; and (4) alive as of the risk date. New to CAN 2.5 is that patients who meet criteria 1, 2, and 4 but are hospitalized in a VA facility on the risk date will receive CAN scores for the 1-year and 90-day mortality models.

Utilizing VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VA HSR RES 13-457, US Department of Veterans Affairs [2008]), we obtained 2 lists of veterans aged 70 to 75 years on February 8, 2019, with a calculated CAN score of ≥ 75 for 1-year mortality and 1-year hospitalization on that date. A veteran with a CAN score of ≥ 75 is likely to be prefrail or frail.^9,10 Veterans who did not have a corresponding calculated CAN score on February 7, 2020, and February 12, 2021, were excluded. COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency in the United States on January 31, 2020, and the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020.¹⁷ We picked February 7, 2020, within this time frame and without any other special significance. We picked additional CAN score calculation dates approximately 1 year prior and 1 year after this date. Veterans had to be alive on February 12, 2021, (the last date of the CAN score) to be included in the cohorts.

Statistical Analyses

The difference in CAN score from one year to the next was calculated for each patient. The difference between 2019 and 2020 was compared with the difference between 2020 to 2021 using a paired t test. Yearly CAN score values were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance. The number of patients that showed an increase in CAN score (ie, increased risk of either mortality or hospitalization within the year) or a decrease (lower risk) was compared using the χ² test. IBM SPSS v26 and GraphPad Prism v18 were used for statistical analysis. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

There were 3538 veterans at PVAHCS who met the inclusion criteria and had a 1-year mortality CAN score ≥ 75 on February 8, 2019.

In the hospitalization group, there were 6046 veterans in the analysis; 57 veterans missing a 1-year hospitalization CAN score that were excluded. The mean age was 71.7 (1.3) years and included 5874 male (97.2%) and 172 female (2.8%) veterans. There was a decline in mean 1-year hospitalization CAN scores in our subset of frail older veterans by 2.8 (95% CI, -3.1 to -2.6) in the year preceding the COVID-19 pandemic. This mean decline slowed significantly to 1.5 (95% CI, -1.8 to -1.2; P < .0001) after the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean CAN scores for 1-year hospitalization were 84.6 (95% CI, 84.4 to 84.8), 81.8 (95% CI, 81.5 to 82.1), and 80.2 (95% CI, 79.9 to 80.6) for 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively.

We also calculated the number of veterans with increasing, stable, and decreasing CAN scores across each of our defined periods in both the 1-year mortality and hospitalization groups.

Discussion

We studied frailty trends in an older veteran subpopulation enrolled at the PVAHCS 1 year prior and into the COVID-19 pandemic using CAN scores. Frailty is a dynamic state. Previous frailty assessments aimed to identify patients at the highest risk of death. With the advent of advanced therapeutics for several diseases, the number of medical conditions that are now managed as chronic illnesses continues to grow. There is a role for repeated measures of frailty to try to identify frailty trends.¹⁹ These trends may assist us in resource allocation, identifying interventions that work and those that do not.

Some studies have shown an overall declining lethality of frailty. This may reflect improvements in the care and management of chronic conditions, screening tests, and increased awareness of healthy lifestyles.²⁰ Another study of frailty trajectories in a veteran population in the 5 years preceding death showed multiple trajectories (stable, gradually increasing, rapidly increasing, and recovering).¹⁹

The PACT is a primary care model implemented at VA medical centers in April 2010. It is a patient-centered medical home model (PCMH) with several components. The VA treats a population of socioeconomically vulnerable patients with complex chronic illness management needs. Some of the components of a PACT model relevant to our study include facilitated self-management support for veterans in between practitioner visits via care partners, peer-to-peer and transitional care programs, physical activity and diet programs, primary care mental health, integration between primary and specialty care, and telehealth.²¹ A previous study has shown that VA primary care clinics with the most PCMH components in place had greater improvements in several chronic disease quality measures than in clinics with a lower number of PCMH components.²²

Limitations

Our study is limited by our older veteran population demographics. We chose only a subset of older veterans at a single VA center for this study and cannot extrapolate the results to all older frail veterans or community dwelling older adults. Robust individuals may also transition to prefrailty and frailty over longer periods; our study monitored frailty trends over 2 years.

CAN scores are not quality measures to improve upon. Allocation and utilization of additional resources may clinically benefit a patient but increase their CAN scores. Although our results are statistically significant, we are unable to make any conclusions about clinical significance.

Conclusions

Our study results indicate frailty as determined by 1-year mortality CAN scores significantly increased in a subset of older veterans during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with the previous year. Whether this change in frailty is temporary or long lasting remains to be seen. Automated CAN scores can be effectively utilized to monitor frailty trends in certain veteran populations over longer periods.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) operates within the US Department of Homeland Security during times of peace and represents a force of > 55,000 active-duty service members (ADSMs), civilians, and reservists. ADSMs account for about 40,000 USCG personnel. The missions of the USCG include activities such as maritime law enforcement (drug interdiction), search and rescue, and defense readiness.¹ Akin to other US Department of Defense (DoD) services, USCG ADSMs are required to maintain medical readiness to maximize operational success.

Whereas the DoD centralizes its health care services at military treatment facilities, USCG health care tends to be dispersed to smaller clinics and sickbays across large geographic areas. The USCG operates 42 clinics of varying sizes and medical capabilities, providing outpatient, dentistry, pharmacy, laboratory, radiology, physical therapy, optometry, and other health care services. Many ADSMs are evaluated by a USCG medical officer in these outpatient clinics, and ADSMs may choose to fill prescriptions at the in-house pharmacy if present at that clinic.

The USCG has 14 field pharmacists. In addition to the standard dispensing role at their respective clinics, USCG pharmacists provide regional oversight of pharmaceutical services for USCG units within their area of responsibility (AOR). Therefore, USCG pharmacists clinically, operationally, and logistically support these regional assets within their AOR while serving the traditional pharmacist role. USCG pharmacists have access to ADSM electronic health records (EHRs) when evaluating prescription orders, similar to other ambulatory care settings.

New recruits and accessions into the USCG are first screened for disqualifying health conditions, and ADSMs are required to maintain medical readiness throughout their careers.² Therefore, this population tends to be younger and overall healthier compared with the general population. Equally important, medication errors or inappropriate prescribing in the ADSM group could negatively affect their duty status and mission readiness of the USCG in addition to exposing the ADSM to medication-related harms.

Duty status is an important and unique consideration in this population. ADSMs are expected to be deployable worldwide and physically and mentally capable of executing all duties associated with their position. Duty status implications and the perceived ability to stand watch are tied to an ADMS’s specialty, training, and unit role. Duty status is based on various frameworks like the USCG Medical Manual, Aeromedical Policy Letters, and other governing documents.³ Duty status determinations are initiated by privileged USCG medical practitioners and may be executed in consultation with relevant commands and other subject matter experts. An inappropriately dosed antibiotic prescription, for example, can extend the duration that an ADSM would be considered unfit for full duty due to prolonged illness. Accordingly, being on a limited duty status may negatively affect USCG total mission readiness as a whole. USCG pharmacists play a vital role in optimizing ADSMs’ medication therapies to ensure safety and efficacy.

Currently no published literature explores the number of medication interventions or the impact of those interventions made by USCG pharmacists. This study aimed to quantify the number, duty status impact, and replicability of medication interventions made by one pharmacist at the USCG Base Alameda clinic over 6 months.

Methods

As part of a USCG quality improvement study, a pharmacist tracked all medication interventions on a spreadsheet at USCG Base Alameda clinic from July 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. The study defined a medication intervention as a communication with the prescriber with the intention to change the medication, strength, dose, dosage form, quantity, or instructions. Each intervention was subcategorized as either a drug therapy problem (DTP) or a non-DTP intervention. Interventions were divided into 7 categories.

Each DTP intervention was evaluated in a retrospective chart review by a panel of USCG pharmacists to assess for duty status severity and replicability. For duty status severity, the panel reviewed the intervention after considering patient-specific factors and determined whether the original prescribing (had there not been an intervention) could have reasonably resulted in a change of duty status for the ADSM from a fit for full duty (FFFD) status to a different duty status (eg, fit for limited duty [FFLD]). This duty status review factored in potential impacts across multiple positions and billets, including aviators (pilots) and divers. In addition, the panel, whose members all have prior community pharmacy experience, assessed replicability by determining whether the same intervention could have reasonably been made in the absence of access to the patient EHR, as would be common in a community pharmacy setting.

Interventions without an identified DTP were considered non-DTP interventions. These interventions involved recommendations for a more cost-effective medication or a similar in stock therapeutic option to minimize delay of patient care. The spreadsheet also included the date, medication name, medication class, specific intervention made, outcome, and other descriptive comments.

Results

During the 6-month period, 1751 prescriptions were dispensed at USCG Base Alameda pharmacy with 116 interventions (7%).

Among the DTP interventions, 26 (41%) dealt with an inappropriate dose, 13 (20%) were for medication omission, 7 (11%) for inappropriate dosage form, and 6 (9%) for excess medication (Table 2).

Discussion

This study is novel in examining the impact of a pharmacist’s medication interventions in a USCG ambulatory care practice setting. A PubMed literature search of the phrases “Coast Guard AND pharmacy” or “Coast Guard AND pharmacy AND intervention” yielded no results specific to pharmacy interventions in a USCG setting. However, the 2021 implementation of the enterprise-wide MHS GENESIS EHR may support additional tracking and analysis tools in the future.

Pharmacist interventions have been studied in diverse patient populations and practice settings, and most conclude that pharmacists make meaningful interventions at their respective organizations.^4-7 Many of these studies were conducted at open-door health care systems, whereas USCG clinics serve ADSMs nearly exclusively. The ADSM population tends to be younger and healthier due to age requirements and medical accession and retention standards.

It is important to recognize the value of a USCG pharmacist in identifying and rectifying potential medication errors, particularly those that may affect the ability to stand duty for ADSMs. An example intervention includes changing the daily starting dose of citalopram from the ordered 30 mg to the intended 10 mg. Inappropriately prescribed medication regimens may increase the incidence of adverse effects or prolong duration to therapeutic efficacy, which impairs the ability to stand duty. There were 3 circumstances where the prescriber had ordered the medication for an incorrect ADSM that were rectified by the pharmacist. If left unchanged, these errors could negatively affect the ADSM’s overall health, well-being, and duty status.

The acceptance rate for interventions in this study was 96%. The literature suggests a highly variable acceptance rate of pharmacist interventions when examined across various practice settings, health systems, and geographic locations.^8-10 This study’s comparatively high rate could be due to the pharmacist-prescriber relationships at USCG clinics. By virtue of colocatation and teamwork initiatives, the pharmacist has the opportunity to develop positive rapport with physicians, physician assistants, and other clinic staff.

Having access to EHRs allowed the pharmacist to make 18 of the DTP interventions. Chart access is not unique to the USCG and is common in other ambulatory care settings. Those 18 interventions, such as reconciling a prescription ordered as fluticasone/salmeterol but recorded in the EHR as “will prescribe montelukast,” were deemed possible because of EHR access. Such interventions could potentially be lost if ADSMs solely received their pharmaceutical care elsewhere.

USCG uses independent duty health services technicians (IDHSs) who practice in settings where a medical officer is not present, such as at smaller sickbays or aboard Coast Guard cutters. In this study, an IDHS had mistakenly created a medication order for the medical officer to sign for bupropion SR, when the ADSM had been taking and was intended to continue taking bupropion XL. This order was signed off by the medical officer, but this oversight was identified and corrected by the pharmacist before dispensing. This indicates that there is a vital educational role that the USCG pharmacist fulfills when working with health care team members within the AOR.

Equally important to consider are the non-DTP interventions. In a military setting, minimizations of delay in care are a high priority. There were 34 instances where the pharmacist made an intervention to recommend a similar therapeutic medication that was in stock to ensure that the ADSM had timely access to the medication without the need for prior authorization. In the context of short-notice, mission-critical deployments that may last for multiple months, recognizing medication shortages or other inventory constraints and recommending therapeutic alternatives ensures that the USCG can maintain a ready posture for missions in addition to providing timely and quality patient care.

Saving about $1700 over 6 months is also important. While this was not explicitly evaluated in the study, prescribers may not be acutely aware of medication pricing. There are often significant price differences between different formulations of the same medication (eg, naproxen delayed-release vs tablets). Because USCG pharmacists are responsible for ordering medications and managing their regional budget within the AOR, they are best poised to make cost-savings recommendations. These interventions suggest that USCG pharmacists must continue to remain actively involved in the patient care team alongside physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and corpsmen. Throughout this setting and in so many others, patients’ health outcomes improve when pharmacists are more engaged in the pharmacotherapy care plan.

Limitations

Currently, the USCG does not publish ADSM demographic or health-related data, making it difficult to evaluate these interventions in the context of age, gender, or type of disease. Accordingly, potential directions for future research include how USCG pharmacists’ interventions are stratified by duty station and initial diagnosis. Such studies may support future models where USCG pharmacists are providing targeted education to prescribers based on disease or medication classes.

This analysis may have limited applicability to other practice settings even within USCG. Most USCG clinics have a limited number of medical officers; indeed, many have only one, and clinics with pharmacies typically have 1 to 5 medical officers aboard. USCG medical officers have a multitude of other duties, which may impact prescribing patterns and pharmacist interventions. Statistical analyses were limited by the dearth of baseline data or comparative literature. Finally, the assessment of DTP interventions’ impact did not use an official measurement tool like the US Department of Veterans Affairs’ Safety Assessment Code matrix.¹¹ Instead, the study used the internal USCG pharmacist panel for the fitness for duty consideration as the main stratification of the DTP interventions’ duty status severity, because maintaining medical readiness is the top priority for a USCG clinic.

Conclusions

The multifaceted role of pharmacists in USCG clinics includes collaborating with the patient care team to make pharmacy interventions that have significant impacts on ADSMs’ wellness and the USCG mission. The ADSMs of this nation deserve quality medical care that translates into mission readiness, and the USCG pharmacy force stands ready to support that goal.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of CDR Christopher Janik, US Coast Guard Headquarters, and LCDR Darin Schneider, US Coast Guard D11 Regional Practice Manager, in the drafting of the manuscript.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) operates within the US Department of Homeland Security during times of peace and represents a force of > 55,000 active-duty service members (ADSMs), civilians, and reservists. ADSMs account for about 40,000 USCG personnel. The missions of the USCG include activities such as maritime law enforcement (drug interdiction), search and rescue, and defense readiness.¹ Akin to other US Department of Defense (DoD) services, USCG ADSMs are required to maintain medical readiness to maximize operational success.

Whereas the DoD centralizes its health care services at military treatment facilities, USCG health care tends to be dispersed to smaller clinics and sickbays across large geographic areas. The USCG operates 42 clinics of varying sizes and medical capabilities, providing outpatient, dentistry, pharmacy, laboratory, radiology, physical therapy, optometry, and other health care services. Many ADSMs are evaluated by a USCG medical officer in these outpatient clinics, and ADSMs may choose to fill prescriptions at the in-house pharmacy if present at that clinic.

The USCG has 14 field pharmacists. In addition to the standard dispensing role at their respective clinics, USCG pharmacists provide regional oversight of pharmaceutical services for USCG units within their area of responsibility (AOR). Therefore, USCG pharmacists clinically, operationally, and logistically support these regional assets within their AOR while serving the traditional pharmacist role. USCG pharmacists have access to ADSM electronic health records (EHRs) when evaluating prescription orders, similar to other ambulatory care settings.

New recruits and accessions into the USCG are first screened for disqualifying health conditions, and ADSMs are required to maintain medical readiness throughout their careers.² Therefore, this population tends to be younger and overall healthier compared with the general population. Equally important, medication errors or inappropriate prescribing in the ADSM group could negatively affect their duty status and mission readiness of the USCG in addition to exposing the ADSM to medication-related harms.

Duty status is an important and unique consideration in this population. ADSMs are expected to be deployable worldwide and physically and mentally capable of executing all duties associated with their position. Duty status implications and the perceived ability to stand watch are tied to an ADMS’s specialty, training, and unit role. Duty status is based on various frameworks like the USCG Medical Manual, Aeromedical Policy Letters, and other governing documents.³ Duty status determinations are initiated by privileged USCG medical practitioners and may be executed in consultation with relevant commands and other subject matter experts. An inappropriately dosed antibiotic prescription, for example, can extend the duration that an ADSM would be considered unfit for full duty due to prolonged illness. Accordingly, being on a limited duty status may negatively affect USCG total mission readiness as a whole. USCG pharmacists play a vital role in optimizing ADSMs’ medication therapies to ensure safety and efficacy.

Currently no published literature explores the number of medication interventions or the impact of those interventions made by USCG pharmacists. This study aimed to quantify the number, duty status impact, and replicability of medication interventions made by one pharmacist at the USCG Base Alameda clinic over 6 months.

Methods

As part of a USCG quality improvement study, a pharmacist tracked all medication interventions on a spreadsheet at USCG Base Alameda clinic from July 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. The study defined a medication intervention as a communication with the prescriber with the intention to change the medication, strength, dose, dosage form, quantity, or instructions. Each intervention was subcategorized as either a drug therapy problem (DTP) or a non-DTP intervention. Interventions were divided into 7 categories.

Each DTP intervention was evaluated in a retrospective chart review by a panel of USCG pharmacists to assess for duty status severity and replicability. For duty status severity, the panel reviewed the intervention after considering patient-specific factors and determined whether the original prescribing (had there not been an intervention) could have reasonably resulted in a change of duty status for the ADSM from a fit for full duty (FFFD) status to a different duty status (eg, fit for limited duty [FFLD]). This duty status review factored in potential impacts across multiple positions and billets, including aviators (pilots) and divers. In addition, the panel, whose members all have prior community pharmacy experience, assessed replicability by determining whether the same intervention could have reasonably been made in the absence of access to the patient EHR, as would be common in a community pharmacy setting.

Interventions without an identified DTP were considered non-DTP interventions. These interventions involved recommendations for a more cost-effective medication or a similar in stock therapeutic option to minimize delay of patient care. The spreadsheet also included the date, medication name, medication class, specific intervention made, outcome, and other descriptive comments.

Results

During the 6-month period, 1751 prescriptions were dispensed at USCG Base Alameda pharmacy with 116 interventions (7%).

Among the DTP interventions, 26 (41%) dealt with an inappropriate dose, 13 (20%) were for medication omission, 7 (11%) for inappropriate dosage form, and 6 (9%) for excess medication (Table 2).

Discussion

This study is novel in examining the impact of a pharmacist’s medication interventions in a USCG ambulatory care practice setting. A PubMed literature search of the phrases “Coast Guard AND pharmacy” or “Coast Guard AND pharmacy AND intervention” yielded no results specific to pharmacy interventions in a USCG setting. However, the 2021 implementation of the enterprise-wide MHS GENESIS EHR may support additional tracking and analysis tools in the future.

Pharmacist interventions have been studied in diverse patient populations and practice settings, and most conclude that pharmacists make meaningful interventions at their respective organizations.^4-7 Many of these studies were conducted at open-door health care systems, whereas USCG clinics serve ADSMs nearly exclusively. The ADSM population tends to be younger and healthier due to age requirements and medical accession and retention standards.

It is important to recognize the value of a USCG pharmacist in identifying and rectifying potential medication errors, particularly those that may affect the ability to stand duty for ADSMs. An example intervention includes changing the daily starting dose of citalopram from the ordered 30 mg to the intended 10 mg. Inappropriately prescribed medication regimens may increase the incidence of adverse effects or prolong duration to therapeutic efficacy, which impairs the ability to stand duty. There were 3 circumstances where the prescriber had ordered the medication for an incorrect ADSM that were rectified by the pharmacist. If left unchanged, these errors could negatively affect the ADSM’s overall health, well-being, and duty status.

The acceptance rate for interventions in this study was 96%. The literature suggests a highly variable acceptance rate of pharmacist interventions when examined across various practice settings, health systems, and geographic locations.^8-10 This study’s comparatively high rate could be due to the pharmacist-prescriber relationships at USCG clinics. By virtue of colocatation and teamwork initiatives, the pharmacist has the opportunity to develop positive rapport with physicians, physician assistants, and other clinic staff.

Having access to EHRs allowed the pharmacist to make 18 of the DTP interventions. Chart access is not unique to the USCG and is common in other ambulatory care settings. Those 18 interventions, such as reconciling a prescription ordered as fluticasone/salmeterol but recorded in the EHR as “will prescribe montelukast,” were deemed possible because of EHR access. Such interventions could potentially be lost if ADSMs solely received their pharmaceutical care elsewhere.

USCG uses independent duty health services technicians (IDHSs) who practice in settings where a medical officer is not present, such as at smaller sickbays or aboard Coast Guard cutters. In this study, an IDHS had mistakenly created a medication order for the medical officer to sign for bupropion SR, when the ADSM had been taking and was intended to continue taking bupropion XL. This order was signed off by the medical officer, but this oversight was identified and corrected by the pharmacist before dispensing. This indicates that there is a vital educational role that the USCG pharmacist fulfills when working with health care team members within the AOR.

Equally important to consider are the non-DTP interventions. In a military setting, minimizations of delay in care are a high priority. There were 34 instances where the pharmacist made an intervention to recommend a similar therapeutic medication that was in stock to ensure that the ADSM had timely access to the medication without the need for prior authorization. In the context of short-notice, mission-critical deployments that may last for multiple months, recognizing medication shortages or other inventory constraints and recommending therapeutic alternatives ensures that the USCG can maintain a ready posture for missions in addition to providing timely and quality patient care.

Saving about $1700 over 6 months is also important. While this was not explicitly evaluated in the study, prescribers may not be acutely aware of medication pricing. There are often significant price differences between different formulations of the same medication (eg, naproxen delayed-release vs tablets). Because USCG pharmacists are responsible for ordering medications and managing their regional budget within the AOR, they are best poised to make cost-savings recommendations. These interventions suggest that USCG pharmacists must continue to remain actively involved in the patient care team alongside physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and corpsmen. Throughout this setting and in so many others, patients’ health outcomes improve when pharmacists are more engaged in the pharmacotherapy care plan.

Limitations

Currently, the USCG does not publish ADSM demographic or health-related data, making it difficult to evaluate these interventions in the context of age, gender, or type of disease. Accordingly, potential directions for future research include how USCG pharmacists’ interventions are stratified by duty station and initial diagnosis. Such studies may support future models where USCG pharmacists are providing targeted education to prescribers based on disease or medication classes.

This analysis may have limited applicability to other practice settings even within USCG. Most USCG clinics have a limited number of medical officers; indeed, many have only one, and clinics with pharmacies typically have 1 to 5 medical officers aboard. USCG medical officers have a multitude of other duties, which may impact prescribing patterns and pharmacist interventions. Statistical analyses were limited by the dearth of baseline data or comparative literature. Finally, the assessment of DTP interventions’ impact did not use an official measurement tool like the US Department of Veterans Affairs’ Safety Assessment Code matrix.¹¹ Instead, the study used the internal USCG pharmacist panel for the fitness for duty consideration as the main stratification of the DTP interventions’ duty status severity, because maintaining medical readiness is the top priority for a USCG clinic.

Conclusions

The multifaceted role of pharmacists in USCG clinics includes collaborating with the patient care team to make pharmacy interventions that have significant impacts on ADSMs’ wellness and the USCG mission. The ADSMs of this nation deserve quality medical care that translates into mission readiness, and the USCG pharmacy force stands ready to support that goal.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of CDR Christopher Janik, US Coast Guard Headquarters, and LCDR Darin Schneider, US Coast Guard D11 Regional Practice Manager, in the drafting of the manuscript.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) operates within the US Department of Homeland Security during times of peace and represents a force of > 55,000 active-duty service members (ADSMs), civilians, and reservists. ADSMs account for about 40,000 USCG personnel. The missions of the USCG include activities such as maritime law enforcement (drug interdiction), search and rescue, and defense readiness.¹ Akin to other US Department of Defense (DoD) services, USCG ADSMs are required to maintain medical readiness to maximize operational success.

Whereas the DoD centralizes its health care services at military treatment facilities, USCG health care tends to be dispersed to smaller clinics and sickbays across large geographic areas. The USCG operates 42 clinics of varying sizes and medical capabilities, providing outpatient, dentistry, pharmacy, laboratory, radiology, physical therapy, optometry, and other health care services. Many ADSMs are evaluated by a USCG medical officer in these outpatient clinics, and ADSMs may choose to fill prescriptions at the in-house pharmacy if present at that clinic.

The USCG has 14 field pharmacists. In addition to the standard dispensing role at their respective clinics, USCG pharmacists provide regional oversight of pharmaceutical services for USCG units within their area of responsibility (AOR). Therefore, USCG pharmacists clinically, operationally, and logistically support these regional assets within their AOR while serving the traditional pharmacist role. USCG pharmacists have access to ADSM electronic health records (EHRs) when evaluating prescription orders, similar to other ambulatory care settings.

New recruits and accessions into the USCG are first screened for disqualifying health conditions, and ADSMs are required to maintain medical readiness throughout their careers.² Therefore, this population tends to be younger and overall healthier compared with the general population. Equally important, medication errors or inappropriate prescribing in the ADSM group could negatively affect their duty status and mission readiness of the USCG in addition to exposing the ADSM to medication-related harms.

Duty status is an important and unique consideration in this population. ADSMs are expected to be deployable worldwide and physically and mentally capable of executing all duties associated with their position. Duty status implications and the perceived ability to stand watch are tied to an ADMS’s specialty, training, and unit role. Duty status is based on various frameworks like the USCG Medical Manual, Aeromedical Policy Letters, and other governing documents.³ Duty status determinations are initiated by privileged USCG medical practitioners and may be executed in consultation with relevant commands and other subject matter experts. An inappropriately dosed antibiotic prescription, for example, can extend the duration that an ADSM would be considered unfit for full duty due to prolonged illness. Accordingly, being on a limited duty status may negatively affect USCG total mission readiness as a whole. USCG pharmacists play a vital role in optimizing ADSMs’ medication therapies to ensure safety and efficacy.

Currently no published literature explores the number of medication interventions or the impact of those interventions made by USCG pharmacists. This study aimed to quantify the number, duty status impact, and replicability of medication interventions made by one pharmacist at the USCG Base Alameda clinic over 6 months.

Methods

As part of a USCG quality improvement study, a pharmacist tracked all medication interventions on a spreadsheet at USCG Base Alameda clinic from July 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. The study defined a medication intervention as a communication with the prescriber with the intention to change the medication, strength, dose, dosage form, quantity, or instructions. Each intervention was subcategorized as either a drug therapy problem (DTP) or a non-DTP intervention. Interventions were divided into 7 categories.

Each DTP intervention was evaluated in a retrospective chart review by a panel of USCG pharmacists to assess for duty status severity and replicability. For duty status severity, the panel reviewed the intervention after considering patient-specific factors and determined whether the original prescribing (had there not been an intervention) could have reasonably resulted in a change of duty status for the ADSM from a fit for full duty (FFFD) status to a different duty status (eg, fit for limited duty [FFLD]). This duty status review factored in potential impacts across multiple positions and billets, including aviators (pilots) and divers. In addition, the panel, whose members all have prior community pharmacy experience, assessed replicability by determining whether the same intervention could have reasonably been made in the absence of access to the patient EHR, as would be common in a community pharmacy setting.

Interventions without an identified DTP were considered non-DTP interventions. These interventions involved recommendations for a more cost-effective medication or a similar in stock therapeutic option to minimize delay of patient care. The spreadsheet also included the date, medication name, medication class, specific intervention made, outcome, and other descriptive comments.

Results

During the 6-month period, 1751 prescriptions were dispensed at USCG Base Alameda pharmacy with 116 interventions (7%).

Among the DTP interventions, 26 (41%) dealt with an inappropriate dose, 13 (20%) were for medication omission, 7 (11%) for inappropriate dosage form, and 6 (9%) for excess medication (Table 2).

Discussion

This study is novel in examining the impact of a pharmacist’s medication interventions in a USCG ambulatory care practice setting. A PubMed literature search of the phrases “Coast Guard AND pharmacy” or “Coast Guard AND pharmacy AND intervention” yielded no results specific to pharmacy interventions in a USCG setting. However, the 2021 implementation of the enterprise-wide MHS GENESIS EHR may support additional tracking and analysis tools in the future.

Pharmacist interventions have been studied in diverse patient populations and practice settings, and most conclude that pharmacists make meaningful interventions at their respective organizations.^4-7 Many of these studies were conducted at open-door health care systems, whereas USCG clinics serve ADSMs nearly exclusively. The ADSM population tends to be younger and healthier due to age requirements and medical accession and retention standards.

It is important to recognize the value of a USCG pharmacist in identifying and rectifying potential medication errors, particularly those that may affect the ability to stand duty for ADSMs. An example intervention includes changing the daily starting dose of citalopram from the ordered 30 mg to the intended 10 mg. Inappropriately prescribed medication regimens may increase the incidence of adverse effects or prolong duration to therapeutic efficacy, which impairs the ability to stand duty. There were 3 circumstances where the prescriber had ordered the medication for an incorrect ADSM that were rectified by the pharmacist. If left unchanged, these errors could negatively affect the ADSM’s overall health, well-being, and duty status.

The acceptance rate for interventions in this study was 96%. The literature suggests a highly variable acceptance rate of pharmacist interventions when examined across various practice settings, health systems, and geographic locations.^8-10 This study’s comparatively high rate could be due to the pharmacist-prescriber relationships at USCG clinics. By virtue of colocatation and teamwork initiatives, the pharmacist has the opportunity to develop positive rapport with physicians, physician assistants, and other clinic staff.

Having access to EHRs allowed the pharmacist to make 18 of the DTP interventions. Chart access is not unique to the USCG and is common in other ambulatory care settings. Those 18 interventions, such as reconciling a prescription ordered as fluticasone/salmeterol but recorded in the EHR as “will prescribe montelukast,” were deemed possible because of EHR access. Such interventions could potentially be lost if ADSMs solely received their pharmaceutical care elsewhere.

USCG uses independent duty health services technicians (IDHSs) who practice in settings where a medical officer is not present, such as at smaller sickbays or aboard Coast Guard cutters. In this study, an IDHS had mistakenly created a medication order for the medical officer to sign for bupropion SR, when the ADSM had been taking and was intended to continue taking bupropion XL. This order was signed off by the medical officer, but this oversight was identified and corrected by the pharmacist before dispensing. This indicates that there is a vital educational role that the USCG pharmacist fulfills when working with health care team members within the AOR.

Equally important to consider are the non-DTP interventions. In a military setting, minimizations of delay in care are a high priority. There were 34 instances where the pharmacist made an intervention to recommend a similar therapeutic medication that was in stock to ensure that the ADSM had timely access to the medication without the need for prior authorization. In the context of short-notice, mission-critical deployments that may last for multiple months, recognizing medication shortages or other inventory constraints and recommending therapeutic alternatives ensures that the USCG can maintain a ready posture for missions in addition to providing timely and quality patient care.

Saving about $1700 over 6 months is also important. While this was not explicitly evaluated in the study, prescribers may not be acutely aware of medication pricing. There are often significant price differences between different formulations of the same medication (eg, naproxen delayed-release vs tablets). Because USCG pharmacists are responsible for ordering medications and managing their regional budget within the AOR, they are best poised to make cost-savings recommendations. These interventions suggest that USCG pharmacists must continue to remain actively involved in the patient care team alongside physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and corpsmen. Throughout this setting and in so many others, patients’ health outcomes improve when pharmacists are more engaged in the pharmacotherapy care plan.

Limitations

Currently, the USCG does not publish ADSM demographic or health-related data, making it difficult to evaluate these interventions in the context of age, gender, or type of disease. Accordingly, potential directions for future research include how USCG pharmacists’ interventions are stratified by duty station and initial diagnosis. Such studies may support future models where USCG pharmacists are providing targeted education to prescribers based on disease or medication classes.

This analysis may have limited applicability to other practice settings even within USCG. Most USCG clinics have a limited number of medical officers; indeed, many have only one, and clinics with pharmacies typically have 1 to 5 medical officers aboard. USCG medical officers have a multitude of other duties, which may impact prescribing patterns and pharmacist interventions. Statistical analyses were limited by the dearth of baseline data or comparative literature. Finally, the assessment of DTP interventions’ impact did not use an official measurement tool like the US Department of Veterans Affairs’ Safety Assessment Code matrix.¹¹ Instead, the study used the internal USCG pharmacist panel for the fitness for duty consideration as the main stratification of the DTP interventions’ duty status severity, because maintaining medical readiness is the top priority for a USCG clinic.

Conclusions

The multifaceted role of pharmacists in USCG clinics includes collaborating with the patient care team to make pharmacy interventions that have significant impacts on ADSMs’ wellness and the USCG mission. The ADSMs of this nation deserve quality medical care that translates into mission readiness, and the USCG pharmacy force stands ready to support that goal.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of CDR Christopher Janik, US Coast Guard Headquarters, and LCDR Darin Schneider, US Coast Guard D11 Regional Practice Manager, in the drafting of the manuscript.

To the Editor:

Dermatology is one of the most competitive residencies for matching, with a 57.5% match rate in 2022.¹ Our prior study of research-mentor relationships among matched dermatology applicants corroborated the importance of home programs (HPs) and program connections.² Therefore, our current objective was to compare profiles of matched dermatology applicants without HPs vs those with HPs.

We searched websites of 139 dermatology programs nationwide and found 1736 matched applicants from 2016 to 2020; of them, 323 did not have HPs. We determined program rank by research output using Doximity Residency Navigator (https://www.doximity.com/residency/). Advanced degrees (ADs) of applicants were identified using program websites and LinkedIn. A PubMed search was conducted for number of articles published by each applicant before September 15 of their match year. For applicants without HPs, we identified the senior author on each publication. The senior author publishing with an applicant most often was considered the research mentor. Two-tailed independent t tests and χ² tests were used to determine statistical significance (P<.05).

On average, matched applicants without HPs matched in lower-ranked (74.4) and smaller (12.4) programs compared with matched applicants with HPs (45.3 [P<.0001] and 15.1 [P<.0001], respectively)(eTable). The mean number of publications was similar between matched applicants with HPs and without HPs (5.64 and 4.80, respectively; P=.0525) as well as the percentage with ADs (14.7% and 11.5%, respectively; P=.0953). Overall, 14.8% of matched applicants without HPs matched at their mentors’ institutions.

Data were obtained for matched international applicants as a subset of non-HP applicants. Despite attending medical schools without associated HPs in the United States, international applicants matched at similarly ranked (44.3) and sized (15.0) programs, on average, compared with HP applicants. The mean number of publications was higher for international applicants (11.4) vs domestic applicants (5.33). International applicants more often had ADs (23.8%) and 60.1% of them held doctor of philosophy degrees. Overall, 40.5% of international applicants matched at their mentors’ institutions.

Our study suggests that matched dermatology applicants with and without HPs had similar achievements, on average, for the number of publications and percentage with ADs. However, non-HP applicants matched at lower-ranked programs than HP applicants. Therefore, applicants without HPs should strongly consider cultivating program connections, especially if they desire to match at higher-ranked dermatology programs. To illustrate, the rate of matching at research mentors’ institutions was approximately 3-times higher for international applicants than non-HP applicants overall. Despite the disadvantages of applying as international applicants, they were able to match at substantially higher-ranked dermatology programs than non-HP applicants. International applicants may have a longer time investment—the number of years from obtaining their medical degree or US medical license to matching—giving them time to produce quality research and develop meaningful relationships at an institution. Additionally, our prior study of the top 25 dermatology residencies showed that 26.2% of successful applicants matched at their research mentors’ institutions, with almost half of this subset matching at their HPs, where their mentors also practiced.² Because of the potential benefits of having program connections, applicants without HPs should seek dermatology research mentors, especially via highly beneficial in-person networking opportunities (eg, away rotations, conferences) that had previously been limited during the COVID-19 pandemic.³ Formal mentorship programs giving priority to students without HPs recently have been developed, which only begins to address the inequities in the dermatology residency application process.⁴

Study limitations include lack of resident information on 15 program websites, missed publications due to applicant name changes, not accounting for abstracts and posters, and inability to collect data on unmatched applicants.

We hope that our study alleviates some concerns that applicants without HPs may have regarding applying for dermatology residency and encourages those with a genuine interest in dermatology to pursue the specialty, provided they find a strong research mentor. Residency programs should be cognizant of the unique challenges that non-HP applicants face for matching.

To the Editor:

Dermatology is one of the most competitive residencies for matching, with a 57.5% match rate in 2022.¹ Our prior study of research-mentor relationships among matched dermatology applicants corroborated the importance of home programs (HPs) and program connections.² Therefore, our current objective was to compare profiles of matched dermatology applicants without HPs vs those with HPs.

We searched websites of 139 dermatology programs nationwide and found 1736 matched applicants from 2016 to 2020; of them, 323 did not have HPs. We determined program rank by research output using Doximity Residency Navigator (https://www.doximity.com/residency/). Advanced degrees (ADs) of applicants were identified using program websites and LinkedIn. A PubMed search was conducted for number of articles published by each applicant before September 15 of their match year. For applicants without HPs, we identified the senior author on each publication. The senior author publishing with an applicant most often was considered the research mentor. Two-tailed independent t tests and χ² tests were used to determine statistical significance (P<.05).

On average, matched applicants without HPs matched in lower-ranked (74.4) and smaller (12.4) programs compared with matched applicants with HPs (45.3 [P<.0001] and 15.1 [P<.0001], respectively)(eTable). The mean number of publications was similar between matched applicants with HPs and without HPs (5.64 and 4.80, respectively; P=.0525) as well as the percentage with ADs (14.7% and 11.5%, respectively; P=.0953). Overall, 14.8% of matched applicants without HPs matched at their mentors’ institutions.

Data were obtained for matched international applicants as a subset of non-HP applicants. Despite attending medical schools without associated HPs in the United States, international applicants matched at similarly ranked (44.3) and sized (15.0) programs, on average, compared with HP applicants. The mean number of publications was higher for international applicants (11.4) vs domestic applicants (5.33). International applicants more often had ADs (23.8%) and 60.1% of them held doctor of philosophy degrees. Overall, 40.5% of international applicants matched at their mentors’ institutions.

Our study suggests that matched dermatology applicants with and without HPs had similar achievements, on average, for the number of publications and percentage with ADs. However, non-HP applicants matched at lower-ranked programs than HP applicants. Therefore, applicants without HPs should strongly consider cultivating program connections, especially if they desire to match at higher-ranked dermatology programs. To illustrate, the rate of matching at research mentors’ institutions was approximately 3-times higher for international applicants than non-HP applicants overall. Despite the disadvantages of applying as international applicants, they were able to match at substantially higher-ranked dermatology programs than non-HP applicants. International applicants may have a longer time investment—the number of years from obtaining their medical degree or US medical license to matching—giving them time to produce quality research and develop meaningful relationships at an institution. Additionally, our prior study of the top 25 dermatology residencies showed that 26.2% of successful applicants matched at their research mentors’ institutions, with almost half of this subset matching at their HPs, where their mentors also practiced.² Because of the potential benefits of having program connections, applicants without HPs should seek dermatology research mentors, especially via highly beneficial in-person networking opportunities (eg, away rotations, conferences) that had previously been limited during the COVID-19 pandemic.³ Formal mentorship programs giving priority to students without HPs recently have been developed, which only begins to address the inequities in the dermatology residency application process.⁴

Study limitations include lack of resident information on 15 program websites, missed publications due to applicant name changes, not accounting for abstracts and posters, and inability to collect data on unmatched applicants.

We hope that our study alleviates some concerns that applicants without HPs may have regarding applying for dermatology residency and encourages those with a genuine interest in dermatology to pursue the specialty, provided they find a strong research mentor. Residency programs should be cognizant of the unique challenges that non-HP applicants face for matching.

To the Editor:

Dermatology is one of the most competitive residencies for matching, with a 57.5% match rate in 2022.¹ Our prior study of research-mentor relationships among matched dermatology applicants corroborated the importance of home programs (HPs) and program connections.² Therefore, our current objective was to compare profiles of matched dermatology applicants without HPs vs those with HPs.

We searched websites of 139 dermatology programs nationwide and found 1736 matched applicants from 2016 to 2020; of them, 323 did not have HPs. We determined program rank by research output using Doximity Residency Navigator (https://www.doximity.com/residency/). Advanced degrees (ADs) of applicants were identified using program websites and LinkedIn. A PubMed search was conducted for number of articles published by each applicant before September 15 of their match year. For applicants without HPs, we identified the senior author on each publication. The senior author publishing with an applicant most often was considered the research mentor. Two-tailed independent t tests and χ² tests were used to determine statistical significance (P<.05).

On average, matched applicants without HPs matched in lower-ranked (74.4) and smaller (12.4) programs compared with matched applicants with HPs (45.3 [P<.0001] and 15.1 [P<.0001], respectively)(eTable). The mean number of publications was similar between matched applicants with HPs and without HPs (5.64 and 4.80, respectively; P=.0525) as well as the percentage with ADs (14.7% and 11.5%, respectively; P=.0953). Overall, 14.8% of matched applicants without HPs matched at their mentors’ institutions.

Data were obtained for matched international applicants as a subset of non-HP applicants. Despite attending medical schools without associated HPs in the United States, international applicants matched at similarly ranked (44.3) and sized (15.0) programs, on average, compared with HP applicants. The mean number of publications was higher for international applicants (11.4) vs domestic applicants (5.33). International applicants more often had ADs (23.8%) and 60.1% of them held doctor of philosophy degrees. Overall, 40.5% of international applicants matched at their mentors’ institutions.

Our study suggests that matched dermatology applicants with and without HPs had similar achievements, on average, for the number of publications and percentage with ADs. However, non-HP applicants matched at lower-ranked programs than HP applicants. Therefore, applicants without HPs should strongly consider cultivating program connections, especially if they desire to match at higher-ranked dermatology programs. To illustrate, the rate of matching at research mentors’ institutions was approximately 3-times higher for international applicants than non-HP applicants overall. Despite the disadvantages of applying as international applicants, they were able to match at substantially higher-ranked dermatology programs than non-HP applicants. International applicants may have a longer time investment—the number of years from obtaining their medical degree or US medical license to matching—giving them time to produce quality research and develop meaningful relationships at an institution. Additionally, our prior study of the top 25 dermatology residencies showed that 26.2% of successful applicants matched at their research mentors’ institutions, with almost half of this subset matching at their HPs, where their mentors also practiced.² Because of the potential benefits of having program connections, applicants without HPs should seek dermatology research mentors, especially via highly beneficial in-person networking opportunities (eg, away rotations, conferences) that had previously been limited during the COVID-19 pandemic.³ Formal mentorship programs giving priority to students without HPs recently have been developed, which only begins to address the inequities in the dermatology residency application process.⁴

Study limitations include lack of resident information on 15 program websites, missed publications due to applicant name changes, not accounting for abstracts and posters, and inability to collect data on unmatched applicants.

We hope that our study alleviates some concerns that applicants without HPs may have regarding applying for dermatology residency and encourages those with a genuine interest in dermatology to pursue the specialty, provided they find a strong research mentor. Residency programs should be cognizant of the unique challenges that non-HP applicants face for matching.